Texas Abortion Law Gets Supreme Court Date

On today’s episode, David and Sarah celebrate the Supreme Court finally bending to their will ...

By and
36

On today’s episode, David and Sarah celebrate the Supreme Court finally bending to their will and then preview the upcoming oral arguments regarding SB 8, the Texas abortion law. They then move on to a discussion of a wild case involving videotaping police, highlight Liberty University’s problems with sexual assault, and then wonder whether an important free speech case is dead or just “mostly dead.”

Show Notes:

–United States v. Texas

–SCOTUSblog on oral arguments in the Texas abortion law case

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
By and
Comments (36)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Onefear

    Re: David's Amateur Unified Theory of American History

    Thanks for the observation at 45:20 and following about the way the Constitution's plain language "put[s] us in tension with the prevalent spirit of human civilization." This also encapsulates the theme and effect of Paul's letter to Philemon and is almost always a dynamic to be pursued.

    Collapse
  2. N Heg

    Loved the discussion on which historical figures we should remember. Justice Harlan's complicated legacy is worth recognizing and admiring. While I don't agree much with the historian Woody Holton's interpretation of the founding, I do think the has an interesting point when he says that "we shouldn't celebrate heroes but instead heroism." Holton and Gordon Wood held a debate over the meaning of the founding over the weekend, and while I have not seen a link to the video I certainly hope to! Having a conversation on who/what we should memorialize is certainly a worthwhile conversation!

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Will Roberts

    I appreciated Sarah's article and The Dispatch staff in general. The mention of Justice Thurgood Marshall reminded me of the 2017 film Marshall about the case that made Thurgood Marshall famous. But having watched the film in the light of the Me Too movement I was deeply ambivalent about how the defense questioned the white woman's account of being raped and kidnapped to suggest the encounter was consensual sex that they both lied about because of the racist culture at the time. The film presents a retelling from both sides and from an objective perspective I am not sure which is more credible. Talking about complicated people perhaps it would be a good idea to review this film on Advisory Opinions and the facts of the case. I knew little about the case prior to watching the film and it just left me with so many mixed emotions and unanswered questions.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Fluffdaddy

    Podcast recommendation: hear Nancy French (and a bit of David) talk about their courtship & early marriage on https://thisislovepodcast.com/episode-39-can-i-speak-to-david/. It's well worth your 30 minutes.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Dave T

    I so much appreciate the emphasis on a nuanced and humble view of historical figures (and, for that matter, other people in general). It took me a long time to discover that truth.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Also it sounds like Sarah is getting the David French treatment: being very unfairly attacked by people online because she’s the one saying something.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      It was Aaron Rupar who basically set the outrage mob on her, but thankfully I haven't seen it happen as often these days, as the significance of her past Trump Administration connection starts to diminish. Not just for Sarah either; the Bulwark has published pieces from Elliot Abrams, and AFAIK they didn't make him issue a public condemnation of Trump first.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ben Connelly

        I was wondering. But I guessed that that was it: she worked in the “Trump justice department.” Well okay. She was one of the people with integrity in the Justice Department (and it turns out, there were a number of people of integrity there, as seen the refusal to go along with the Eastman 1/6 stuff). I honestly think that’s a pretty silly reason for people to go after Sarah, but I’m not surprised.

        I worked for the government (as an engineer) while Trump was in charge. My mom works in the judiciary and worked under Trump and was appointed by Obama. Neither of us are in any way influenced or tarnished by those associations.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    David saying, “I know someone Sarah doesn’t know,” immediately reminded me of this great scene from an underrated great movie:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAfAwxvIvoI

    When David first mentioned Liberty University, I was thinking of commenting, “I grew up about an hour from Liberty and I’m not surprised,” but then I thought that would be mean. Then Sarah said it far more directly than I was thinking!

    Collapse
  8. Acre00

    The Dispatch's coverage of Loundon county is really bringing to the fore my distaste for David's inconsistency and hypocrisy.

    To provide a little background before I make my case, David French is the reason I subscribed to The Dispatch. I loved his pieces is National Review and wanted more. I liked Jonah, of course, but I had only discovered him shortly before he left(I think I subscribed to the G-File 1 month before he left, lol). I still greatly respect him and his pov on legal issues. Please don't take this as me hating on him as a person.

    With that out of the way, I do think that David isn't examining his own priors the the same fire he's holding his opponents to. In this episode, for instance, he cites the Liberty piece favorably without any corroboration while sitting on the Lounoun case. Why? Well, as Sarah says here, no one is surprised. It confirms his priors. In the same way, the Loundoun county case being wrong would also confirm his priors. Then he wonders - just idly, mind you - whether the report will be as reported on by the right wing media. Leaving aside the passive aggressive nature of the remark and the blatant what-aboutism, he's comparing apples and oranges. The reason Loundoun county is a major story is because (1) the press was already there, (2) it bears on the precise issue that is already in the news, (3) it happened at the epicenter of that issue.

    It seems that his disgust for "his side" makes him immediately assume the worst of them while making him give the benefit of the doubt to the "other side". The DOJ letter is a good example. Had Barr issued that letter under Trump, he'd be singing a whole different tune. I understand the idea of policing your own side is important, he barely acknowledges the misbehavior on the left.

    For anyone looking for a counterpoint to David on this, I recommend the latest Editor's podcast from National Review

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      I agree that David does at times jump to conclusions based on his priors and who he sees as "the good guys", but I could say the same of Sarah's defense of how the DoJ dealt with the Mueller report.

      Although she got flak at the time from many Nevertrumpers who accused her excusing Trump's misdeeds, that's not what I sensed was going on. But I did get the feeling her take that Trump was "exonerated" reflected her loyalty to people in the DOJ who she personally worked with, and obviously sees as "good guys" who were doing the best they could, just like her. That's an obvious bias, and that's why she discloses her prior employment on AO when discussing DOJ matters. But bias isn't the same as deliberate bad faith.

      David also recently mentioned, in his recent the "Republicans pounce" framing the media used to describe the reaction to McAuliffe's statement about parents not having a say in public schools. So he's not always punching right, either.

      Collapse
      1. Acre00

        You are correct, and I agree that no one is free from this sin. Everyone has unexamined priors and experiences that affect their judgement. I also want to make clear that I don't think David is operating in bad faith; that's why I put the introductory paragraph.

        The reason I decided to make the OP was that the hypocrisy was both incredibly blatant and highly repetitious. He has mentioned in many podcasts and articles that one ought to be wary of stories that confirm one's priors, including the last podcast on this topic. He has also talked on many occasions about how one of the largest problems with today's politics is that we immediately ascribe bad faith to our opponents.

        On the other hand, Sarah's lapse(which I don't recall specifically, but I'll assume your framing is correct) was a momentary one and not mired in the same hypocrisy. If it had only been Loundoun county that David was displaying these qualities then I wouldn't have posted as I did. I don't like calling out people like this, especially those that I like and respect. Its why I never posted anything before now. Unfortunately, this same strain goes through pretty much all of his work on these kinds of subjects, and I felt in this case something needed to be said.

        He does occasionally punch left, but individual counter examples don't disprove my thesis

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Aylene Wright

          I certainly get the impression that David estimates the threat of RW illiberalism to be about 100 times that of LW illiberalism, and that this affects his initial takes on certain news items.

          Collapse
  9. Stef

    Re: How We Talk About Our History/David’s Amateur Unified Vision of America History

    Tracking the general views of history that David/Sarah discussed at the end of this podcast, it seems like we have three temperamental camps right now in America when it comes to politics.

    1. The MAGA Right – how dare you assert that American heroes/American history/American institutions have/had flaws?

    2. The Cancel Culture Left – Justice Harlan/(fill in the blank American historical figure) had flaws, therefore we can learn nothing from him/her. Down with their statute, spit their name from your mouth, etc

    3. The Growth Mindset for America – Yes, America and American heroes had flaws, but we can learn from their positive qualities, particularly their capacity to improve themselves over time—just as with Justice Harlan—while simultaneously appreciating that they were not perfect (sometimes even terribly so), especially by contemporary standards.

    These general dispositional camps seem more and more salient everywhere to me these days. David seemed to be discussing something similar to them in this French Press ( https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/evangelical-elites-fighting-each ) when he mentions the illiberal right (MAGA), the illiberal left (cancel culture left), and the liberal left / right (American Growth Mindset). These camps also seem to track the trends identified by Jonathan Rauch in his book "The Constitution of Knowledge" (discussed on AO here: https://advisoryopinions.thedispatch.com/p/fact-fiction-and-the-fight )

    I recently rewatched Barack Obama’s 2004 DNC speech that spring-boarded his political trajectory towards the white house. It made me think that not only the MAGA Right but also the Cancel Culture Left would absolutely despise this speech if he gave it right now. It’s a strange world we’re living in.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      I agree. I really appreciated Sarah’s case, not because I particularly think the SC building should be named (although Harlan is a great choice), but because she makes a good case for having flawed heroes and for learning from and appreciating both their virtues and flaws. And their humanity. And having humility and realizing that we have logs in our own eyes that we need to take out first before we tear down someone else.

      I recently had a debate with some family about this. My father asked who our heroes were and my sister made the cancel culture argument against the concept of heroes entirely. I gave what I believed to be an impassioned defense of the concept of heroism and admiration for greatness in line with what Sarah and David said today. I think a society that would rather tear people down then build people up is fundamentally wrong. And I believe the MAGA whitewashing of history or mindless celebration of caricatures that never actually existed is little better.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      There's also a subset of the MAGA Right that will briefly concede that many historical heroes fall short of contemporary moral / ethical standards, but will immediately handwave the concession away with "but how dare you judge historical figures by Woke standards, instead by the standards that applied to their era". To me that's moral relativism.

      But I also don't think that honoring historical figures for what they got right, is necessarily the same thing as saying "we think this person was a saint whose every example should be followed". That's actually not even how Catholics treat actual saints. For example, they honor St. Peter as the first Pope but also acknowledge his many lapses.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ben Connelly

        Exactly. If we want to learn anything, we need to admire the virtues of our heroes AND acknowledge and learn from their mistakes.

        Collapse
  10. Acre00

    On Sarah's piece, I have to disagree. I don't think the building needs to be named at all, and I don't think naming it will serve to solver or even ease the issues the court is currently facing. Indeed, I think out of all the buildings in Washington, that's the one that should remain nameless, indicating it's position as the weakest branch, and serving as a reminder that it isn't about the people in the robes but about justice itself. This is, of course, an impossible standard, but I do think it's one worth striving for.

    That having been said, if we take as given that we should name the building after someone, I think Harlan is a good candidate for all the reasons Sarah puts forth. I also think he faces stiff competition from other great justices in history such as John Marshal

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      What if we name it John Thurgood Marshal Harlan?

      Collapse
Load More