Podcast: The 3WHH on Bad Lawyers and Worse Decisions

Listeners want to know from John: did Justice Clarence Thomas let us down with his ruling in this week’s 7 – 2 decision upholding the unique independent funding structure of Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), which she designed intentionally to avoid congressional control as much as possible? John says no, and makes a persuasive three-part case for why Thomas’s opinion is thoroughgoing originalism, and good history to boot. If we want to get rid of Warren’s regulatory handiwork (AND WE DO!), it will need to be done directly by Congress, rather than indirectly by the courts.

This week also marked the 70th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which we have deplored before on account of the poor reasoning for the halfway right result, but a our Article of the Week from our friend Shep Melnick of Boston College draws our attention to some ongoing ambiguities of Brown that still afflict our civil rights law today. You’d think after 70 years we might have figured it out, but no—and worse, the ambiguity is likely on purpose, because it suits the shifting strategy and tactics of the identitarian left.

Other topics covered briefly this week include the collapsing case against Trump in Manhattan, Trump’s VP sweepstakes (you can scratch Kristi Noem from the list), the latest Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition and King Charles’s ghastly portrait (hard to say which is worse here), Harrison Butker’s cultural butt kick, and, finally, how to devise some tests to judge whether higher education is truly reversing its multi-decade slide into pernicious leftism.

As usual, listen here, at Ricochet, or wherever your source your favorite podcasts.

I’m heading overseas shortly for three weeks for multiple academic conferences in several different locations, so both regular posts and podcasts may appear on an irregular schedule.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.

Responses