Time’s Up. Let’s Do This…

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru. Secretary ...

By

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru. Secretary Betsy DeVos releases new regulations to overhaul Title IX. New details in the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery. The Justice Department drops its criminal case against Michael Flynn. David and Sarah have thoughts.


Show Notes:

–Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru oral argument

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (35)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Pudge

    Or maybe they would

    Collapse
  2. Pudge

    But I guess lawyers wouldn’t like that.

    Collapse
  3. Pudge

    Reminds me of a P. J. O’Rourke article where he read a a code of conduct in a stIdentify handbook. His version was “ Behave yourselves or we’ll call the police or your mother.”

    Collapse
  4. DieHardTrojan

    I generally find that I agree with a lot of Sara's takes. However I had a rather visceral reaction to her analysis of the Title IX overhaul. So I decided to get cognitive distance and wait. Then re-listened to the podcast. I have to substantially disagree on two points. 1) Telling war stories to buttress your opinion is weak tea. I can spot you two points and keep on going. I too have war stories, unfortunately they involve male victims to the Title IX warriors at my own Alma Mater. 2) You don't fix a problem with a "High Ceiling". That is just Wrong. You fix the original problem. The Criminal System was failing to protect women. Fix that problem. Don't transfer the problem to unelected and unaccountable Title IX bureaucrats. Low or High ceilings will not control their normal instincts to advancing a cause at the price of someone's civil liberties. Reminder, the reason many Colleges and Universities failed to protect women had as much to do with their inclination to not work with local law authorities. They don't want Cops on Campus. Unless of course they want to infringe on someone's civil rights. I think David has a few war stories on this point. Peace.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    John D. Wright

    Sarah is right! I hate to say it as I almost always agree with you David. I believe a state could convict a President but they could not carry out the punishment until he was no longer president. If nothing else, the president could order the U.S. army to break him out. They would be oath bound to do that. Now having said that practically we would hope once convicted the congress would quickly impeach. I believed that before Trump but now I am not so sure.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    WilliamJ

    At The Remnant I wrote that just because you guys got some pretty cool intro music, Jonah tried too hard with his - it's awful.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ethan Cordray

    On the Guadalupe case: one thing that I feel like has gotten lost in the weeds of the ministerial exception question is: why should the ministerial exception enable discrimination on factors that don't have anything to do with doctrine or lived behavior? The two cases are age discrimination and disability discrimination. Unless the religious organizations can demonstrate that their doctrines somehow preclude people from performing ministry due to being too old or being disabled, shouldn't this still be unlawful discrimination even if we stipulate that the employees were ministers? I suppose due to the nature of how discrimination law is written it might have to be considered an all-or-nothing matter, but if so, I think the statutes ought to be rewritten. The ministerial exception shouldn't empower my church to fire a pastor when he gets MS just to keep their health insurance premiums from going up.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Lawrence Jones

    An informed discussion of complex matters. Smart people of good will agreeing and disagreeing respectfully- willing to find consensus. A pleasure. Thank you Sarah and David.

    Collapse
  9. GusABQ

    What a fabulous discussion on the DeVos rules. It showed so vividly the difficulties on both sides of the issue that I hadn't considered. Thank you so much for this.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    BrandonAlleman

    I thought the other development on the Arbery case was the president's comments on it. He appropriately said it disturbed him but he seemed to leave a sliver of doubt about a missing part of the tape or something out of the frame for a moment. I could only assume this is an allusion to some right wing conspiracy brewing or a muddying argument that the president is planting the seeds for.

    Collapse
Load More