The Cheese Stands Alone

David and Sarah discuss another big day at the Supreme Court, from the court’s decision ...

By

David and Sarah discuss another big day at the Supreme Court, from the court’s decision to strike down a Louisiana abortion law to its ruling on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Show Notes:

–Our conversation with Louisiana’s solicitor general

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (117)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    VladimusPrime

    I am sorry to hear that in the list of Will Feral movies Elf did not make anyone's mount Rushmore. How can that be? Does it not count as a Will Feral movie for some reason? Because of all his movies that is the one with most heart. An instant Christmas Classic that I would rank up there in the top ten Christmas movies of all time.

    Collapse
  2. Brad N

    Where's the Tuesday podcast? I've been waiting all day to hear Sarah react to Espinoza.

    Collapse
    1. ROBERT

      She got it- so I've been looking for the second episode all day. Perhaps we'll have to wait until Thursday to hear her reactions. Was this the one time that she did not predicte its release?

      Collapse
  3. Michael

    To add to David’s psychoanalyzing of Justice Roberts, I have an additional theory. Democrats are talking about/threatening to expand the Supreme Court. With a very good possibility of Democrats gaining control of all three branches next year, perhaps he’s trying not to add fuel to the fire for this idea? I’m guessing he’d prefer not to have more justices, chosen by Democrats, added to the court? So he is especially trying to maintain the legal status quo right now? Just a thought!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tracie

      Roberts' rulings make sense as an effort to maintain the legitimacy of the court by, amongst other things, keeping hands off of legislation that has been institutionally enforced and socially normalized.

      He does not strike me as a purist or an ideologue, though I didn't have a strong sense that he had any particular philosophy before I started listening to this pod.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    James

    Talladega Nights doesn't even get a mention??! I am thoroughly disappointed.

    Collapse
    1. Michael

      Huh? I thought that was David’s Lincoln?

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Rev Snow

    There's a need for something like stare decisis in our system. You want a measure of predictability and equal judgments over time. But it is not tenable to hold that stare decisis compels Justice Roberts to keep casting Justice Kennedy's vote after Kennedy retired. Roberts has his own vote, and he needs to find the courage to cast it according to his own assessments.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Adicesa14

    Listening to your explanations regarding the outcomes of SC cases is not only informative, it is soothing. I realize my discomfort with these decisions is ‘issue’ based, rather than ‘technical.’ It could be no other way; I am not a lawyer. However, your discussions provide some personal understanding, minimizing my consternation.

    How would one respond to a simple, and possibly misleading question (poll) regarding abortion? Very carefully, or not at all. That the closer a woman gets to term, decreases abortion favorability makes perfect sense to me. Yet, allowing one limitation begs for others. ‘On demand’ would constitute a place to start, in my opinion. Realizing I am not expert in medicine, ethics, or theology, and do not posses a woman’s body, I think these questions are better decided by a legislative body, but not a court.

    My discomfort with abortion is mostly due to its legal origin, and the result of that origin. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I can read. The Constitution, via the “Bill of Rights,” defines specific rights. None of them concern, or even mention (no emanations of penumbras!) abortion, but provide mechanism for States, or ‘the people’ (Congress?) to define additional rights. Obviously, it is my opinion that abortion should be addressed by Government other than the Courts, but this is not my principle complaint. Our Government, since “Roe” has increasingly become dysfunctional. Each Presidential election, and Supreme Court nomination (and recently, lower court nominations) relitigate abortion. Abortion has poisoned our politics. All other considerations aside, ‘Roe’ should be overturned, and the issue should be returned to the States and/or Federal legislations, even though they do not want it!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tracie

      If you don't have a woman's body it's much easier to be philosophical. However legally flawed Roe may be, the "right to privacy" that it describes makes sense to me as a woman. The Constitution didn't mention pregnancy because it didn't mention women at all, who were largely considered the business of parents, husband's, and family life.

      Whatever their legal pretenses, I have little doubt that people who spend their energies trying to dismantle Roe don't believe women have any right to privacy regarding their medical decisions. If Roe has poisoned our politics, take your complaints to people who obsess over inserting law between a woman and her doctor vs spending their energies supporting children born into disadvantaged circumstances. One has to choose where to spend time and energy in life.

      Regarding late term abortions, it would be pretty hard to find a random sample of women seeking abortions who wanted to talk to surveyors. However, ask yourself: what woman would *prefer* a later term abortion to an early one?

      Collapse
      1. Luke Thompson

        "If you don't have a woman's body it's much easier to be philosophical."

        So we shouldn't allow women to have a voice on this issue? The philosophy is a question of what's actually right and wrong. Bringing in personal motivations makes your position suspect, not stronger.

        Besides, the most strongly pro-life person I know is my mother. It's about the only political position I've ever heard her talk about. It's definitely the only one that she posts about publicly.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Tracie

          What I'm saying is that if you have no personal fear of pregnancy, it's easier to see the issue abstractly, and not consider circumstances.

          I've known plenty of women who were "pro-life." The ones I've known tend to not understand the privacy argument at all, and tend to think other womens' business as their business. Can't speak for your mother. What she's chosen to do with her body is her business, not mine.

          Collapse
          1. Luke Thompson

            "What I'm saying is that if you have no personal fear of pregnancy, it's easier to see the issue abstractly, and not consider circumstances."

            So you're saying that women shouldn't have a voice in this issue. Kind of an odd line to stake out.

            And pro-life people generally understand the privacy argument, we just don't think it has any merit whatsoever. The "other womens' business" argument is likewise disingenuous. The question is whether abortion ends a human life. If it does, then there's no privacy interest and it's not just someone else's business, anymore than you'd say it was "other womens' business" if you found out your neighbor was abusing her daughter.

            And every law that applies to women regulates what they do with their bodies. Laws against arson say they can't use their hands (or any other body part) to light other people's property on fire. Laws against kidnapping say they can't use their bodies to restrain and transport someone against their will. Laws against abortion say they can't pay a doctor to kill someone. The notion that it's about what someone has chosen to do with their body is entirely rhetorical base stealing and intentionally deceptive.

            Collapse
  7. SPliskin

    Probably not the best place to ask this. If there a better one let me know.

    When I listen to these podcasts (Remnant, Ruminant, Advisory Opinions, etc) they will frequently stop broadcasting. This happens on my phone (Android version 9) or my laptop (Windows 10 and Microsoft Edge). Sometimes it starts back up after a time. Sometime if I hit stop/start on the podcast if fires back up. This one died at 29.31 in and has not started back up in 15 minutes and appears to not be revivable unless I completely close the window and reopen the podcast.

    Ideas. Suggestions?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ethan Cordray

      Are you streaming them instead of downloading them? Do you notice that problem with podcasts from other sites, or just from The Dispatch? If it's others as well, it's probably an issue on your end. If it's just Dispatch podcasts, it could be a server-side issue.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Tiffany W

    Straight up terrible movie = Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Dguaspari

    A question about stare decisis: The following argument (not due to me) makes sense to me. Stare decisis has the least force when it comes to rulings on constitutional questions. A legislature can correct a mistaken interpretation of a statute simply by passing a more explicit version. As a practical matter, a bum constitutional ruling can be corrected only by judges overturning it. Please discuss.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Pastorfbt

    I tried to follow, I really did - and as a former attorney I still speak the language - but I'm thoroughly confused about the status of abortion "rights" jurisprudence.

    Collapse
Load More