Showing a Little Ankle

David and Sarah discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana that held that ...

Apr 20, 2020

David and Sarah discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana that held that the Constitution requires unanimous jury verdicts for convictions in criminal cases, a federal court’s decision that upheld Michigan’s independent redistricting commissions, and David responds to comments on his Sunday newsletter.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Keep reading with a free account

Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN

Conversations (36)

Comments (36)

Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.

Sort by:

Ed B 3 years ago

Umm.. surprised you had a discussion about Starr decisis and abortion rights and didn’t mention O’Connor’s opinion in Casey, or the fact that Roberts signed onto Kagan’s stare decisis rationale in Kisor.

Collapse

Ed B 3 years ago

*stare*

Collapse

Jeff Walden 3 years ago

Aaaughghghgh, Sarah, you're making me tear my hair out. :-)

It's the Privileges *or* Immunities Clause, not the Privileges *and* Immunities Clause. (Fellow commenters, note: regrettably, the former and the latter *separately* exist, under those subtly different names.) (And David didn't get this wrong -- "let's talk a little about Privileges or Immunities showing a little ankle", a direct quote from him, gets it right.)

The over-the-top Kagan dissent case was *Knick* v. Township of Scott, not *Knicks*. And other than being *about* a debatable regulatory taking, the case didn't *concern* regulatory takings at all. The question was whether to reconsider "requiring property owners to exhaust state court remedies to ripen federal takings claims" -- takings generally under the Fifth Amendment, no narrowing to regulatory takings.

I will freely concede to making mountains out of molehills here, but as a non-lawyer judicial-engagement groupie -- albeit because I think judges should DO THEIR JOBS and not because it will definitely lead to good outcomes in cases I care about -- and as someone who (despite being a non-lawyer) has gone sufficiently far off the deep end (*particularly* as non-lawyer) to have attended both the argument *and* the reargument in Knick in person, you have managed to push all my buttons here. :-)

Collapse

JohnF 3 years ago

Just finished listening to the podcast. I know that Sarah was just playing Devil's Advocate in the last segment, but I think that the conversation got yanked off course a bit as a result. There is one key aspect of this discussion that I don't believe has been covered carefully: The reason that hypocrisy is such a bad thing in a religious leader (or at least, should be considered a bad thing) is that every religious leader depends on their personal moral authority to tell other people how to live their lives. The Televangelist who preaches fire and brimstone sermons threatening his congregation with eternal damnation if they should commit adultery, but who then is caught naked in a hotel room with two 18-year-olds, should no longer be entitled to preach against sin. The same can be said for religious leaders who preach against greed and envy, but then accept cash from poor people so they can buy corporate jets.
Religion relies on the faith and conviction of the following. That faith rests on the words of the great books of each particular religion, but it also rests on our faith in our religious leaders and our belief that they are consistent, truthful, and living the values that they promote. It should not be acceptable for a leader to say to the faithful that they must live a certain way, but then give a complete pass (along with their unconditional support) to someone who personally breaks every principle that the religious leader claims to live by.
One last point. The term "Religious Liberty" was used frequently in the conversation. To my mind, "Religious Liberty" means that you have the right to live as you choose (providing that it's legal) and to practice your own religion. It does not mean that you should have the right to force that religion or your beliefs on me. Yet, every time I hear an evangelical leader say that they will support Trump because of his Judicial picks, what I take away from that is not that they have all become staunch originalists, but that their real goal is to put judges in place who will make judgements that enforce the lifestyle they endorse on the rest of the population.

Collapse

John D. Wright 3 years ago

I couldn't disagree with Sarah more on the character issue. When did non-religious people not care about character? When did religious belief alone lead one to think character affected your judgment of other people?

Examples.
Joe spent years in jail for shoplifting. You hiring him to work in your retail store? If you do and thievery suddenly jumps are you at least looking into it? Is that because Joe's character is perhaps leading him to do wrong?

It is ridiculous, completely NUTS, as David says to think that character does not matter in a leader. Every respected leader in all of history is respected because his or her character led to actions that benefited humanity. Character drives action.

We might debate which character traits affect a leader the most. Here are a few that I believe matter...
1. Truthfulness. Trump gets an F. You will not find in all of the history of America a politician that has lied more.
2. Trustworthiness. Besides lying, Trump has abandoned people and defrauded people in his long history. He has violated his oath as a husband inumerable times. An untrustworthy person is dangerous.
3. Lack of respect for knowledge. Trump claims to know everything and believes his gut impulses more than he does experts. He trades in rumors. These qualities have hurt the nation. He thought the virus was no big deal. Did he have any evidence?
4. Selfishness. Trump serves his own interests and has put those interests above the nations. Ukraine. The Mueller report. Trump is a bad actor because he is selfish.
5. Loyalty. Do I even have to say anything. Trump has abandoned staunch allies and left them hanging. He abandoned our allies on the battlefield. He doesn't care about relationships. He cares only about serving himself.

Character matters whether you are Christian or Athiest. I'm Christian but I know athiests that would be stunned that you believe character is not something they even think about.

Collapse

Kevin Durant? 3 years ago

Hillary would have been worse for the country and the people who live in the country

It’s fine if you don’t think that. If you like her policies then great

But if you believe she would ha e been worse for the country and refuse to vote for Trump because of his myriad moral failings then you are sacrificing real life negative consequences for 330 million people in order to maintain your own sense of piety which is super-immoral

Collapse

John D. Wright 3 years ago

I would add that there are two issues here. One is silent lever pulling in a voting booth and another is campaigning with and defending. My greatest ire is for evangelicals who stood on stage hand and hand with Donald Trump. That is indefensible and a very grievous sin. We can agree to disagree on the vote. That is a narrower debate. I stand by my own view but I won't claim an evangelical that did that but still condemned Trump's bad actions is a bad actor and harming the faith.

Collapse

John D. Wright 3 years ago

I think the ultimate long term effect of voting for lesser evils is bad. So I don't do it. If a candidate is really evil I won't vote for them. At that point, policy for me has to take a back seat.

Collapse

Octávio Lima 3 years ago

I have refrained from commenting on Mr. French's article but he does have a serious point. Defending President Trump as these religious leaders have done is indeed failing the Gospel. There are many passages that tell us that we should choose moral leaders. Even the Founders said explicitly the Constitution was only suitable for a moral people. All of that demands there is a moral structure supporting those decisions, the decisions of the moral leader, and the decisions of the moral people. In Christianity, the moral foundations are well explicit in scripture and also in theological interpretation. Neither scripture nor the theological interpretation can be subject to the whims of the moment. They cannot be subject to the party structures of a nation, and they cannot be subject to any individual in government. What is demanded of Christians is that they actually reflect that moral foundation in their daily acts, which includes our voting patterns. That can lead us to choose President Trump over Mrs. Clinton. That could also lead us to choose President Trump over Mr. Biden. But that cannot lead us to justify voting for President Trump in the absolute or justify defending his actions and behaviors. When Mr. French says explicitly that in January Evangelicals when faced with the choice between VP Pence and President Trump, they chose President Trump. That is not the binary choice they claim. It is an affirmative choice and affirmative support. The second point is that by supporting someone who they morally oppose, they fail to understand that President Trump's immorality is an enormous red flag on future behaviors. Because he has a very different moral compass than the Evangelicals, one has to have in the back of their minds that whatever he does that is aligned with them, it is not out of conviction, but rather political expediency. That should be frightening.

Collapse

Kevin Durant? 3 years ago

Not complex. The President’s personal behavior matters. People have beclowned themselves excusing Trump’s behavior. Bad. Trump’s is bad. That DOES matter. The President’s policy matters more. Waaaaaaaay more

David says people exaggerate Trump’s pro-liberty accomplishments and he is wrong, but he makes the argument in a way where he sounds right

He compares Trump to Bush where Trump sounds less heroic on the religious liberty front, which is fine

Trump was running against Hillary

Two SCOTUS picks. What Trump has done **when compared with** what Hillary would have done is the greatest win for religious liberty (and a host of other issues) in the history of the country

If you are concerned about Stormy Daniels, which doesn’t affect you, I understand. It’s super-gross. If you are more concerned about Stormy Daniels than the things that actually affect millions of people, then you are doing decision-making poorly

Nobody wants an incompetent President all things being equal. But if it’s an incompetent person vs. someone who wants to shrewdly and efficiently destroy the country......I don’t understand why we are talking about this

(yes I do, it’s because people are emotional, and this is why Apple spends so much money on packaging)

Collapse

Dusty 3 years ago

I think we're rowing the same boat. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but that seems pretty stupid and idealistic to me now and I'll probably vote for him in '20.

In 2016 I bought the argument that it's not a binary choice. Afterwards I realized that it most definitely is. It was either going to be Trump or Clinton, and no quiet feeling if moral superiority that I may have had by not voting for either of them was going to change it.

So I can either vote for the immoral old man or the party that celebrates the killing of 900,000 unborn babies a year. I'll take the former.

I thought Sarah was getting after this in an ok manner before she retreated and basically asked for forgiveness for representing the views of what is apparently the majority of readers.

Collapse

Angie 3 years ago

The whole party may support choice, not all of them support killing babies..moderates, if you talk to enough of them, are actually pro life...like I am...I am also pro choice, ..b.ecause I don't think I am the moral authority for other people, for something that is legal especially...that is God's job, he knows what is in people's hearts..I would never get an abortion or suggest someone do so...but, it is not my choice to make..I see it as personal liberty, which always confuses me with conservatives...it is a big deal to them until someone's liberty disagrees with what they want...is it an overwhelming theory for all or not?

Aside from all that the abortion rate is nowhere near that anymore...it has gone down substantially, partly due to sex ed and access to birth control ( which some conservatives are also against) ...that seems to me to be the reasonable way to fight abortions...give them information and better choices...

Plus, men are always left out of this, most of the women who I know got abortions were pressured to by the fathers...and some of them were conservatives...and wealthy people will still get them, you won't stop them this way...you will just make it more dangerous and

The latest year they had stats for:

The abortion rate in 2017 was 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44, down 8% from 14.6 per 1,000 in 2014.1 This is the lowest rate ever observed in the United States; in 1973, the year abortion became legal, the rate was 16.3.2

It has been dropping ever since

The link:

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states#

You might also be surprised at this stat:

White patients accounted for 39% of abortion procedures in 2014, black patients for 28%, Hispanic patients for 25%, and patients of other races and ethnicities for 9%.5
Seventeen percent of abortion patients in 2014 identified themselves as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant and 24% as Catholic, while 38% reported no religious affiliation and the remaining 8% reported some other affiliation.5

Collapse

John D. Wright 3 years ago

Hillary was the worst candidate in history. Trump can't win an election against even a dead guy but he can beat her. She was a corrupt lying criminal. You act as though Trump pulled off something. Do you realize he won because a large swath of the democrat party just stayed home?? Look at the numbers. He ONLY won because he had Hillary as an opponent. This upside down idea that Trump is some great campaigner who could only slay the Hillary dragon because of his great political skills is farcical.

Collapse

Kevin Durant? 3 years ago

Where is the part where I said Trump pulled something off or that he won because he’s good?

I don’t think that so if I said it then it was poor phrasing

Was this a reply to something else?

Collapse

Ann G 3 years ago

You are saying that any Republican would have made the same SCOTUS picks but that Trump was the only Republican that could have won in 2016. But you don't know how those SCOTUS picks will decide in the future, and again you assume that if a Republican isn't president the country will go to ruin, which you have no evidence for either. What we do have evidence of are Trump's failings. To say that Republicans must be in control no matter what the cost is unreasonable, and it's an emotional response, not a well thought out one.

Collapse

Kevin Durant? 3 years ago

Hi Stephanie!! 😃😃

I wanted Ted Cruz and in the end I did not vote for Trump 2016 because I thought he would be similar to Hillary which in hindsight was probably pretty dumb. But he’s a huge liar so can’t blame myself for doubting him too much

I definitely am not saying “at any cost” because in my view there is no net ‘cost’ to Trump, it is benefit. It is a NET benefit. Now if Trump wasn’t a horrible person the benefit would be marginally higher because of ‘norms’ and ‘the dialogue’ etc, but the underlying policy is the benefit and that is what matters because it affects people’s lives

Obviously I’d prefer a larger net benefit from a decent person AND good policy but I don’t pick the nominee. The Republican Party chose you push a series of candidates who do not conduct trade in a way that is designed to advantage American citizens and who do not handle immigration in a way that is designed to advantage American citizens

I am voting for Trump this time because Democrats have moved $100 trillion to the left in 36 months but if you could guarantee me both houses I might stay home because that would take a lot of the policy risk off the table. Lots of lawless DACA phone and a pen stuff Biden might do so I’d probably still vote Trump

Collapse

John A Johnson 3 years ago

I would put "like" except that I cannot see voting for him in '20.

Collapse

Kevin Durant? 3 years ago

Haha fair enough. That’s either a bit of a gamble, which is fine, or you aren’t conservative, which is also fine

Democrats have a pipeline of legislation. They will immediately go nuclear 51-49 on everything. It’s not like they have to keep passing it over and over. They only have to pass it once and it’s eternal. If you think Republicans will hold one of the houses then it’s just a gamble and you’re giving up one of the ways to block them because he’s objectionable. Okay I guess. Biden will do a bunch of executive nonsense but most of that isn’t permanent

The legislation is permanent. SCOTUS precedent is basically permanent too. Roll the dice I guess

Collapse

Nathan 3 years ago

Thank you David French for your consistency and clarity on the question of morality in leadership and Trump. I entirely agree with you on the facts of Trump's fitness and the importance of morality. I think your message needs to be heard, and I'm glad you're still proclaiming it.

That being said, I recall that the apostle Paul appealed to Caesar, a ruler that was certainly rotten to the core. I don't think there's hypocrisy in saying "morality matters and immoral leaders are worse than moral leaders" and also saying "I have a small bit of influence in this election, and I'm going to try to move toward the best of whatever and however many options I have".

I see Al Mohler being very consistent on those points, and it's how I operate at well. It is true that a lot of evangelicals got out over their skis with their rhetoric in the Clinton years. It is also true that the Jerry Falwell Jr's of the world seem to have abandoned all formerly held principles in the quest for power. I don't think that means the Christian Trump voter is necessarily being unfaithful.

Collapse

Dina 3 years ago

I’m not a Christian, but as a practicing adherent of a different religion, I too value character tremendously; if I had my druthers I’d put in office a candidate with sterling character every time. Nevertheless, in my view, if a leader does his job well I am not interested in his personal life, which is no one’s business but his own. Rudy Giuliani has lost it, but back when he was mayor, he did a spectacular job governing New York, though his behavior in his private life stank. (It should also be noted that other giants like Thomas Jefferson also sinned greatly.) That said, if character flaws affect the ability to govern, that’s a a problem. That is, of course, the case with Donald Trump. Furthermore, criminals have no business governing this country. Violent sexual assault is a crime, and both Clinton and Trump are almost certainly guilty of it.

All politicians lie, but Trump’s lying is in a different category. He lies way more than any other president in my lifetime; he contradicts himself frequently; he tells lies to no purpose (like the inaugural crowds); he lies so much that you can’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth.

On the competence issue, how did we get a president whose policies are incoherent (see, for example, his “guidance” on social distancing and lockdown) and who is shockingly ignorant, having never even read the Constitution? Whose Twitter feed reads like a collection of schoolyard taunts? Whose greatest concern is his ratings and whether people say nice things about him, while tens of thousands of his people are dying?

Collapse

Simon Michau 3 years ago

Re the Sunday Newsletter, the point of the article was lost in the knee-jerk reactions of some readers, who felt they/Trump were personally attacked.
But it is saddening to see our religious leaders abandon theological arguments and Christian principles for purely pragmatic, teleological ones. As David points out, the fallacy lies in suddenly claiming that Trump is the only option (and the only candidate who "gets results") when it comes to important cultural issues such as abortion or religious freedom. The problem with the mindset that politics is war is that you soon find yourself defending positions that would have been truly abhorent to you had the "other side" held them.
And I get the point that we don't elect "pastors in chief" but regardless of faith or belief in God, all conservatives extoll and demand from fellow citizens virtues and a heightened sense of duty. Surely the people we elect should be held to at least a similar, if not frankly higher, standard.

Collapse

JohnF 3 years ago

Your last paragraph is critical, particularly: "Surely the people we elect should be held to at least a similar, if not frankly higher, standard."
Evangelical support is critical for Trump. Without it, he has absolutely no chance of winning reelection. That gives them a certain amount of influence over him that they are choosing not to exercise. Their support should be conditional on more than just his lip service to their cause in the culture wars: "If you want our support, then you have to start living our values" is not an unreasonable thing for someone to say.

Collapse

Rev Snow 3 years ago

This is an excellent point, but when a very large number of readers all miss "the point of the article" in the same way, the burden of that failure has to fall on the writer and publisher. If many readers report they feel attacked by a piece, it should prompt at least some reflection on what writing content might have (mis-)led them to that reaction.

Collapse

Simon Michau 3 years ago

I understand, although I think that David's piece is quite restrained in its tone and doesn't aim to be a personal critique of people who voted for Trump, as much as a lament of his own church leadership's failure to be consistent in its theology.
I can see how people feel stung by what they perceive as implicit accusations of racism against Trump or "white evangelicals" but the argument made isn't that black evangelicals are necessarily better Christians, just that at least some sincere and devout Christians feel like they can really support Democrats - and feel justifiably worried at some of Trump's inflamatory rhetoric.
I must confess I'm always a bit stunned by the level of sophistication needed to argue that Trump's "very fine people on both sides" comments in the wake of a far-right rally is anything but pandering to the darker fringes of the GOP electorate. Not that there aren't fine people who are in favour of preserving the statues of Confederate generals for historical and cultural reasons. But the double-standard is obvious here: had radical lefitsts been marching down streets to antisemitic chants and then purposefully rammed down and killed a counter-protester, which Republican would then have gone on to praise the theoretically more innocent and reasonable subsets of that group? Would the general response not have been (justifiably so) to immediately condemn the group as a whole for their vile language and deadly actions?

Collapse

Rev Snow 3 years ago

I don't see how anyone can read the piece and not come away with the strong message that some Christians are upholding proper Christian standards and others are not. The harsh phrase "better Christians" isn't used, but there's no other inference to draw.

Just to be clear, don't count me among those trying to find merit in President Trump's Charlottesville remarks. That's not my point. French's thesis is supposed to be a fresh one focused on competence -- that President Trump's incompetence should repel Christian supporters even after they've compromised on their moral standards. That thesis is best supported with examples of incompetence. The Charlottesville remarks are at best an uneasy fit due to the "what he says" vs "what he does" distinction. They're also old. Timely examples are better. Trump steps on rakes several times a week. Reaching back to the Charlottesville remarks as the primary support indicates another motivation at work.

Collapse

ROBERT 3 years ago

I was highly interested in hearing the last section on the comments from the Sunday piece. I thought David defended his article well. However, just like I was disappointed in Jonah's focus on some of his negative commenters, I was here disappointed in the role play - Sarah taking the position of the articles critics. It appears to be a theme for writers who respond to their commenters. The negative comments get all the attention. I've seen it here and I've seen it elsewhere. The positive and supportive responses never get a mention.
Perhaps this approach is better for ratings. Perhaps I just need to get over it. But I still don't understand it.

Collapse

1 2 Next »