I always love when these 3 get together. Not only is it informative, its very entertaining. Feels kind of like sitting around a fire talking with friends.
Mr. Robinson, I am so glad for the service you perform at The Hoover Institute, you are a very good interviewer. May you have many more wonderful years ahead of you.
Self centered? Rather than look out for the “living/breathing/forever changing liberals” under the Obama Adm.she suffered through so many illnesses and could have enjoyed life & time with her family. Then she wanted to control the timing of the pick for her replacement No way. The Constitution rules
Thank you Peter Robinson, and your guests, for the most informative and inspiring insight into American legal process I have experienced. I was hitherto, a long time admirer of Justice Antonin Scalia, a man, (I believed) to be imbued with enormous moral and patriotic priinciple. Tonight I have added Professor John Yoo and Professor Richard Epstein to that previously, sparse list.
@Donald Wilkerson ... Perhaps you misunderstood my specific reference to Justice Anton Scalia (I quote) "I was hitherto, a long time admirer of Justice Antonin Scalia, a man, (I believed) to be imbued with enormous moral and patriotic priinciple." While, I said: "Thank you Peter Robinson, and your guests, for the most informative and inspiring insight into American legal process I have experienced." That being my one and only 'insight' into the legal professionalism of Profs Yoo and Epstein; ergo I can make no comment on either apart from pleasure at such straigtforward exposition on 'legal ''Process'. I shall make a point of listening to both at a further time. PS. As mother of 5 adult children and proud grandmother of 9 grandchildren, I am not, nor have ever been, an abortion advocate. Au cotraire., '
If you liked that as much as I did, I recommend the panel discussion of Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty, with Caldwell, Epstein, and Soros. A short introduction to Soros' egomania and Epstein's brilliance.
A fascinating discussion, just brilliant. One the best I have ever come across. Thank you to superb participants and Hoover. I learnt much about the Supreme Court and especially Roe v Wade that I didn't know All these difficult and complicated decisions were discussed really well. Thank you.
Diane Feinstein has lived on Taxpayers dollars, her husband received government contracts. No doubt her position was considered too. She, Pelosi, Schumer etc..., should do the right thing and get off of Taxpayers dollars.
She is like Feinstein: she will never retire. She thinks she is there by divine right, and the reference to define right has nothing to do with the God of the Bible.
Instead, it will be a former Biden staff member. That should be about as fair as the Wallace/Trump debate where Biden served as moderator. Can one really blame Trump for interrupting when Wallace was trying to pull a “Candy Crawly on the president at every opportunity!?
Yes! I suppose you're contrasting the responses between Yoo & Epstein -- whose very NAME (or rather, my immediate default identification of the name with the OTHER "Epstein") was the very attraction that drew me here. The Epstein here DID kill himself, as far as his argument went, IMHO. He obviously was a very committed RBG admirer if not WORSHIPER. He even seems to have been TOO intimate with the Ginsburg family; and THAT, to me, vitiates his arguments. But I must admit, being Pro-life predisposes me to oppose ANY person, place, or thing which supports Roe/Doe & all other Culture of Death emanations. Constitutionally, the Preamble necessitates for the ABSOLUTE defense & ULTIMATE promotion of Life, "... to ourselves and our Posterity."
How refreshing it is to listen to a discussion where the participants are tolerant of the comments made by the individual members without overpowering and interfering with the comments of the others, and keeping the discussion civil and pleasurable to listening to opposing views.
It's not "intimidation" it's a "credible threat".... 🤔 Why are the democrats always getting their way through temper tantrums (to put it very mildly)! To the adults in the room, it's getting tiring.
I thought Feinstein's comment was accusatory, too. One could be unable to fairly look at the constitution as an atheist as well. Does the person have a good track record of fairness, impartiality, a desire to protect and uphold the constitution, and have good character? That's the right question to ask.
I agree that hearing have become inquisitions. Especially in the hands of such a person as Joe Biden. Recently I watched a hearing in which he question a witness, Tom Sowell. The disparity in intellect sown there between him and Sowell is wide. Biden would not make a good JP.
So disappointing that Epstein got to go on so long at lehgth and how Yoo was totally out of the conversation. If you admire Epstein so much, go out to lunch. Bring 2 men, let 2 men speak equally.. Facilitate a conversation.
With all due respect. When a lawyer is saying ”I'm concern about, I... I....” The argument between right and wrong dissipates and is replaced by emotions and not reason.
A most excellent interview of Brilliant "Legal Eagle" minded Friends John Woo & Richard Epstein, by an equally friendly interviewer-Friend that is Mr. Peter Robinson. Excellent Inspiring, Entertaining, yet still Legally Informative. Many thanks indeed, wonderful !!!
Uncommon Knowledge is a blessing. This show makes otherwise esoteric knowledge accessible for lay people like me, and goes a long way to informing the populous. The tone is just fantastic too
Agree with Michael Snyder 2 comments below this, "What a great discussion, this is the best show on the web." Best show? Certainly one of my my favorites. The beauty of this particular episode is the jovial comradery between the guests and Peter, fun for the guys and all of us as well to be treated to humor with brilliance, repartee. Subject matter was fascinating and I went back here and there to make sure I understood what was being said, sometimes not quite successfully. I came away with a much greater understanding of the complexity of interpreting the Law and our beloved Constitution and, the men and women who do it and do it well, or perhaps give it their best with integrity and humility. Seeing these two great scholars in disagreement helps highlight the difficulties in proper interpretation and differing ways to view a problem and the interpretation itself. I also now understand the overreach of Roe and believe getting it off the docket and back to the states might be the good solution: Though honestly, being a believer that the fetus is a viable human at conception, I can imagine the social discord moving down to the state level were that to happen, so, is there a good solution socially with our Agnostic friends who see it as a group of cells early on? Don't think so and I'm talking pure social disagreement here, not moral stand. For those of us who have a firm moral stand, I believe making the case logically through scientific fact that the fetus is an individual and in need of protection. This fact alone would be the unstoppable end of Roe over time, if people would realize there is a little person in the womb, especially the women who carry that life, as their say has strong emotional power in this matter. I'm basically thinking through what Richard said as there is a viable human at conception and if that point is made, no further argument is necessary - great statement there. I have been thinking about but now have the full realization of the amount of reading and study Peter must do, and, his own great ability to grasp all these subjects and ask the pertinent questions that give us all a fuller knowledge of what is being said by the experts. Quite remarkable, Thanks Peter for all your work. PS the kids pictures are terrific. Have three artists in my immediate family with with ability and I enjoy good art very much. Those of your kids (I assume) are very well done.
In times of political unrest and conflict is precisely when the party of constitutional originalist ideology SHOULD nominate a candidate that will NOT legislate from the bench. It is during trying times that we MUST stand up for the Constitution AS WRITTEN.
This woman has excelled in her career and if the senate rules against her they are racist, discriminate against religion and against woman and become a disgrace. This woman obviously can stand outside her feeling and beliefs. I have been in a place where I put a person I did not like in an elevated position of responsibility because she was qualified.
Can someone please explain to me how if the 2nd. Amendment is in the constitution, I cannot have a weapon crossing state lines? So if the states amend those rights locally, does that not apply to abortions?
RBG should have retired 10 years ago. We should amend the Constitution and limit the time of SERVICE on the Supreme Court to 10 years or 20 years, what ever the American people prefer.
And the Electoral College? Republican forms of government for the states? How'bout we go straight to a Social Media Democracy? Vote on EVERYTHING, ALL THE TIME.
I would say age 75. The Catholic Church has a good rule of requiring bishops to submit their their resignation to the pope. We all begin to fail mentally with age.
Finistein wasn't just discremantory she was literally saying its ok that activist unlawful "culture rulings" is only ok if they do it or it furthers there agends.
Federalist 45 seems to indicate that the Founders left decisions concerning healthcare matters, of which I would include abortion, to the States to each decide for themselves. Yes, I would include the ACA to be a State Rights issue and matter to decide for themselves as well, and SCOTUS exceeded its Constitutional authority in both cases. Perhaps Roberts could and should be impeached for his vote on the ACA, alone.
Of course, my formal education ended when I graduated from high school, so lack the indoctrination one receives attending any University. AND, Civics was a required course when I attended Jr and Sr High School.
As recently as the 1930’s, the idea of a federal police power was suspect. We forget that the United State sis in fact a union of several republics, each of whose form of government the general government is sworn to republic.
I agree wholeheartedly that the supreme Court must intervene and protect this election. We cannot change rules to suit one party over another. What's wrong with what we've been doing? In person and absentee is plenty. If you need more than that should you be voting? Vote in person if possible it just makes all this nonsense disappear.
Libertarian here and I've always really, really despised John Yoo for his famous and cartoonishly evil arguments in favor of federal officials torturing enemy combatants in a time of war. However, I'm starting to warm up to him the more I hear him argue. I'd one day love to hear him completely denounce his previous views on torture since it's very hard to give someone the benefit of the doubt about human rights as long as you hold that torture is moral and legal. I always feel like Epstein is taking me to school however. He's amazing. And Peter Robinson is always great. Such an insightful interviewer who stays in the background but seems to be every bit the intellectual equal of those he's interviewing despite his modesty. So thankful to Stanford/Hoover institute for their work here
This episode was the absolute best review of Constitutional and secular law ever. Both well defined proponents of seemingly opposite views most clearly shows to the World just why the United States of America is, indeed, the “......Best Hope” of all humanity. I’ll not ever put “Last” before “best”...... especially after bringing back former President Reagan’s story, retold by Education Czar Bill Bennet, of the “illegal” immigrant’s greeting..... “hey, freedom man,” which says it all. My Lord, we are beyond Blessed to live in this wonderful country. Dave in Phoenix Arizona USA
What a wonderful, lively, good-natured discussion among friends with differing views. I thought that was illegal in today's USA. Perhaps come November 4th...
As a right leaning independent. I am appalled that any Judge let alone a supreme court justice. Would vote based on Feelings and Political Agenda. That is Abuse. Their job is to interpret both the Spirited intention of the Law, and The law as written. Ruling based on Precedent itself is problematic. As Rulings can be wrong. Why echo a wrong precedent.
I LOVED hearing what Epstein had to say about Feinstein's inquisition with Amy Barrett! I completely agree that it was quite improper, since the question has already been asked and answered, and the confrontation was done in a manner that was rather cold and demeaning. I did not agree with what he said about some other issues, but I enjoyed listening in on this whole dialogue. As always, John Yoo is top notch. Would have liked to hear more from him.
22:00 *Catholic* *Church* is not against death sentence (for murder) as it is specifically stated in the bible that this form of punishment is necessary. Exodus 21:14-17 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 24:17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 24:17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.
A bit harsh if you ask me “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death” The Old Testament “God” is something else that is pretending to be God. An evil, cruel entity if there ever was one and certainly no God. With an objective reading of the five books you can hardly come up with a different assessment, but with some impressive mental gymnastics, you can justify anything.
The Roman Catholic Church takes the position that, in light of the dignity of human life granted by God, Christians are called to protect and support all life and therefore the death penalty should never be imposed if there is any alternative. They view the death penalty as valid *only* when the State has no other way to practically protect the community from the threat to life a criminal poses. In the modern era, society always has other options as we have prisons. As Pope John Paul II said: "The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty...." It is fair to disagree on any number of grounds, including religious ones, but that is currently the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. In that Church, the opinions of individual members are not "co-equal" with the Pope's on doctrinal matters.
Thank you again, Hoover Institution. Dear Peter, John and Richard: since there's already the GoodFellows (John Cochrane, Niall Ferguson, and H.R. McMaster), how about you guys call yourselves The Three Amigos? PS: on the subject of Republicans nominating apparently "conservative" justices who turned out not to be so "conservative"- unless I missed it- Why did you not mention Henry Blackmun? Nommed by Nixon, yet wrote the majority opinion on Roe v. Wade? I'm a Libertarian/Objectivist... torn between Rothbard and Rand...
That was such a joy to listen to, socially as I totally agree with what they say. Except on the use of the words “dogma” Euclid’s parallel postulate is a dogma, and Kant treated it so. That does not mean that a different dogma can be proposed. and serve as the foundation of a different geometry. Feinstein has a double prejudice. She is a total positivist in her understanding of law, and sociological in her thinking about religion. Finally, given Barret faith, unconstitutional in forgetting the origin of the words religious test.
RBG also made very political statements reference Candidate Trump and President Trump. She bowed she would outlast him. So what I am hearing is that her fans are really blowing her actions as Justice out of proportion. Thanks for the reasonable honest panel and discussion on her.
Owing to the horrid Yoo and his neocon ilk, the lasting history of the US' role in the War on Terror will read, "They destroyed countless antiquities of ancient Mesopotamia, and they tortured."
asking the question are we well into a period where democrats, republicans, conservative, liberal have reduced meaning? would this help explain the angst?
Sorry for my stupidity but I almost had a heart attack thinking that this episode was about Epstein.. you know.. the guy... Anyway, I love your channel. It is very instructive contrary to mainstream media where topics are very trivial. God bless you.
LOL I, too, found myself here, for pretty much the same reason -- checking to see what POSSIBLE connection THAT could be. You could say --- I came for the circus, stayed for the bread.
I always love when these 3 get together. Not only is it informative, its very entertaining. Feels kind of like sitting around a fire talking with friends.
The Three Amigos
Agree completely. Hopefully you're aware of their regular monthly podcast.
Yes, but they are smarter than me and my friends. Lol
What a great discussion, this is the best show on the web.
Completely agree!! I love listening to these brilliant minds share their knowledge.
Your absolutely correct!!!!
Mr. Robinson, I am so glad for the service you perform at The Hoover Institute, you are a very good interviewer. May you have many more wonderful years ahead of you.
Intellectual caviar served with good humor. Bravo! Ears and tail to all!
Can Peter Robinson please host the presidential debates?
That would be epic! And let Dave Rubin host the second VP debate.
@@hoser20000
I......A..GA...REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE....WITH THAT
Ruth Ginsburg should of retired during Obama's administration if who named the next Justice, after her, was so important.
I agree 💯. Maybe the Godless believe they live forever?
True. The abortion issue is there to distract us from how corporate interests are aligned with all justices.
Self centered? Rather than look out for the “living/breathing/forever changing liberals” under the Obama Adm.she suffered through so many illnesses and could have enjoyed life & time with her family. Then she wanted to control the timing of the pick for her replacement
No way. The Constitution rules
Thank you Peter Robinson, and your guests, for the most informative and inspiring insight into American legal process I have experienced. I was hitherto, a long time admirer of Justice Antonin Scalia, a man, (I believed) to be imbued with enormous moral and patriotic priinciple. Tonight I have added Professor John Yoo and Professor Richard Epstein to that previously, sparse list.
Yes indeed! Peter Robinson is a MENSCH.
@Donald Wilkerson ... Perhaps you misunderstood my specific reference to Justice Anton Scalia (I quote) "I was hitherto, a long time admirer of Justice Antonin Scalia, a man, (I believed) to be imbued with enormous moral and patriotic priinciple."
While, I said: "Thank you Peter Robinson, and your guests, for the most informative and inspiring insight into American legal process I have experienced."
That being my one and only 'insight' into the legal professionalism of Profs Yoo and Epstein; ergo I can make no comment on either apart from pleasure at such straigtforward exposition on 'legal ''Process'. I shall make a point of listening to both at a further time.
PS. As mother of 5 adult children and proud grandmother of 9 grandchildren, I am not, nor have ever been, an abortion advocate. Au cotraire., '
If you liked that as much as I did, I recommend the panel discussion of Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty, with Caldwell, Epstein, and Soros. A short introduction to Soros' egomania and Epstein's brilliance.
Give in to threats of court packing, death to filibuster, violence in the streets? What a lame argument to not perform Constitutional duty.
I understand Professor Epstein's viewpoint, but we can't give into intimidation. Look what "they" did to Justice Kavanaugh.
A fascinating discussion, just brilliant. One the best I have ever come across. Thank you to superb participants and Hoover. I learnt much about the Supreme Court and especially Roe v Wade that I didn't know All these difficult and complicated decisions were discussed really well. Thank you.
Feinstein should be ashamed she needs to retire
She has service to first perform in the U.S. Senate for the PRC.
Diane Feinstein has lived on Taxpayers dollars, her husband received government contracts. No doubt her position was considered too.
She, Pelosi, Schumer etc..., should do the right thing and get off of Taxpayers dollars.
She is like Feinstein: she will never retire. She thinks she is there by divine right, and the reference to define right has nothing to do with the God of the Bible.
The dogface lies deeply within Feinstein. These people have never read the Constitution.
kc Cox she needs to answer to our country about her association with the
I nominate Peter Robinson for the next Presidential Debate moderator. Nice job!!!
🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌 Wouldn't that be GREAT?
Instead, it will be a former Biden staff member. That should be about as fair as the Wallace/Trump debate where Biden served as moderator. Can one really blame Trump for interrupting when Wallace was trying to pull a “Candy Crawly on the president at every opportunity!?
I love it when John and RIchard take scholarly jabs at each other
Great conversation but could we hear more from John next time please?
Professor Yoo is funny “No” instead of 3000 words😃, it is obviously we need to fill the seat for the Americans.
Yes!
I suppose you're contrasting the responses between Yoo & Epstein -- whose very NAME (or rather, my immediate default identification of the name with the OTHER "Epstein") was the very attraction that drew me here.
The Epstein here DID kill himself, as far as his argument went, IMHO. He obviously was a very committed RBG admirer if not WORSHIPER. He even seems to have been TOO intimate with the Ginsburg family; and THAT, to me, vitiates his arguments.
But I must admit, being Pro-life predisposes me to oppose ANY person, place, or thing which supports Roe/Doe & all other Culture of Death emanations. Constitutionally, the Preamble necessitates for the ABSOLUTE defense & ULTIMATE promotion of Life, "... to ourselves and our Posterity."
A good moderator ,2 well versed guests and an interesting topic all 3 are intrigued about. A good time i would call that.
You folks need to do more of these.
It's pure gold! Thank you
How refreshing it is to listen to a discussion where the participants are tolerant of the comments made by the individual members without overpowering and interfering with the comments of the others, and keeping the discussion civil and pleasurable to listening to opposing views.
I now, want to know more about Roman Riparian Law.
Beati sunt qui ambulant in Lege Domini
Love your interviews Peter! Keep up the great work!
It's not "intimidation" it's a "credible threat".... 🤔 Why are the democrats always getting their way through temper tantrums (to put it very mildly)! To the adults in the room, it's getting tiring.
More from Yoo next time. OK?
I thought Feinstein's comment was accusatory, too. One could be unable to fairly look at the constitution as an atheist as well. Does the person have a good track record of fairness, impartiality, a desire to protect and uphold the constitution, and have good character? That's the right question to ask.
Her comment was uncalled for.
I agree that hearing have become inquisitions. Especially in the hands of such a person as Joe Biden. Recently I watched a hearing in which he question a witness, Tom Sowell. The disparity in intellect sown there between him and Sowell is wide. Biden would not make a good JP.
You make an absolutely valid point.
So disappointing that Epstein got to go on so long at lehgth and how Yoo was totally out of the conversation. If you admire Epstein so much, go out to lunch. Bring 2 men, let 2 men speak equally.. Facilitate a conversation.
With all due respect. When a lawyer is saying ”I'm concern about, I... I....” The argument between right and wrong dissipates and is replaced by emotions and not reason.
So nice to hear smart kind people with humor speaking
This is the way to have a debate.
A most excellent interview of Brilliant "Legal Eagle" minded Friends John Woo & Richard Epstein, by an equally friendly interviewer-Friend that is Mr. Peter Robinson.
Excellent Inspiring, Entertaining, yet still Legally Informative.
Many thanks indeed, wonderful !!!
I just can't say how much I enjoyed listening to these men. Thank you Hoover institute.
Love and enjoyed the interview very much; thank you gentlemen!
Mr. Robinson, I can't thank both you and your guests enough for this great interview, how refreshing this was!!!
It's always a pleasure to listen to Epstein and Yoo...always enlightening and fun.
Very nice conversation, with some nice analysis. I liked it!!!!
Knowledge and wisdom are powerful tools for a civil society.
-- even NECESSARY "tools"!
The genuine camaraderie amongst these three men is a joy to behold. 🤗
Thanks for good show.
Dear God this was glorious. I started with intention of only sampling but could not stop. Would that more discussion was like this.
No reason why she can’t be great Supreme Court Judge. 👌🙏🌹😘🇺🇸❤️👍🙏
Thank you very much for this program. I'm learning so much lately about the US supreme court and the judicial philosophy of the justices.
Damn, I kept trying to wipe that spot above Epstein's head. LOL 🤣😂😂
What a thoroughly enjoyable show! And instructive .
Uncommon Knowledge is a blessing. This show makes otherwise esoteric knowledge accessible for lay people like me, and goes a long way to informing the populous. The tone is just fantastic too
I have never met one person who after death can make a request or want. Ms Ginsberg would never approve of such nonsense.
Agree with Michael Snyder 2 comments below this, "What a great discussion, this is the best show on the web." Best show? Certainly one of my my favorites. The beauty of this particular episode is the jovial comradery between the guests and Peter, fun for the guys and all of us as well to be treated to humor with brilliance, repartee.
Subject matter was fascinating and I went back here and there to make sure I understood what was being said, sometimes not quite successfully.
I came away with a much greater understanding of the complexity of interpreting the Law and our beloved Constitution and, the men and women who do it and do it well, or perhaps give it their best with integrity and humility. Seeing these two great scholars in disagreement helps highlight the difficulties in proper interpretation and differing ways to view a problem and the interpretation itself.
I also now understand the overreach of Roe and believe getting it off the docket and back to the states might be the good solution: Though honestly, being a believer that the fetus is a viable human at conception, I can imagine the social discord moving down to the state level were that to happen, so, is there a good solution socially with our Agnostic friends who see it as a group of cells early on? Don't think so and I'm talking pure social disagreement here, not moral stand. For those of us who have a firm moral stand, I believe making the case logically through scientific fact that the fetus is an individual and in need of protection. This fact alone would be the unstoppable end of Roe over time, if people would realize there is a little person in the womb, especially the women who carry that life, as their say has strong emotional power in this matter.
I'm basically thinking through what Richard said as there is a viable human at conception and if that point is made, no further argument is necessary - great statement there.
I have been thinking about but now have the full realization of the amount of reading and study Peter must do, and, his own great ability to grasp all these subjects and ask the pertinent questions that give us all a fuller knowledge of what is being said by the experts. Quite remarkable, Thanks Peter for all your work.
PS the kids pictures are terrific. Have three artists in my immediate family with with ability and I enjoy good art very much. Those of your kids (I assume) are very well done.
The discussion was very interesting and educational
In times of political unrest and conflict is precisely when the party of constitutional originalist ideology SHOULD nominate a candidate that will NOT legislate from the bench. It is during trying times that we MUST stand up for the Constitution AS WRITTEN.
Sen. Feinstein did not ask a question.
This woman has excelled in her career and if the senate rules against her they are racist, discriminate against religion and against woman and become a disgrace. This woman obviously can stand outside her feeling and beliefs. I have been in a place where I put a person I did not like in an elevated position of responsibility because she was qualified.
No means no, Richard.
I wish you had these two on more often
Great discussion, enjoyed it
Can someone please explain to me how if the 2nd. Amendment is in the constitution, I cannot have a weapon crossing state lines? So if the states amend those rights locally, does that not apply to abortions?
I think fighting to save a life is worth every effort we have and should do. Abortion as birth control is disgusting
It is up to states not federal govt to make laws for states.
Thank you Hoover Institution, for an exhilarating discussion as well as an introduction to Roman Riparian Law!!!
RBG should have retired 10 years ago. We should amend the Constitution and limit the time of SERVICE on the Supreme Court to 10 years or 20 years, what ever the American people prefer.
We don't change the Constitution based on a whim regarding a single case.
And the Electoral College?
Republican forms of government for the states?
How'bout we go straight to a Social Media Democracy? Vote on EVERYTHING, ALL THE TIME.
I would say age 75. The Catholic Church has a good rule of requiring bishops to submit their their resignation to the pope. We all begin to fail mentally with age.
Great show. Loved it TY
Poor John... one word vs Richard's 3,000 words! :D
LOL! Yes, Richard is quite verbose!
We, the people, know how a judge will rule once we see who appointed them. That’s what our court is now.
“Ideology” would be a better word to use versus “dogma”.
Barret’s “dogma” has much deeper foundation in Anglo-Saxon law than any ideology. No such thing as ideology existed until the 19th century.
Finistein wasn't just discremantory she was literally saying its ok that activist unlawful "culture rulings" is only ok if they do it or it furthers there agends.
Why are these videos not showing up in my feed
lovely discussion. almost feels like we can voice our political opinions again
Epstein, you are a biased professional person????? Give Mr. Yoo more time to give his opinions.
Federalist 45 seems to indicate that the Founders left decisions concerning healthcare matters, of which I would include abortion, to the States to each decide for themselves. Yes, I would include the ACA to be a State Rights issue and matter to decide for themselves as well, and SCOTUS exceeded its Constitutional authority in both cases. Perhaps Roberts could and should be impeached for his vote on the ACA, alone.
Of course, my formal education ended when I graduated from high school, so lack the indoctrination one receives attending any University. AND, Civics was a required course when I attended Jr and Sr High School.
As recently as the 1930’s, the idea of a federal police power was suspect. We forget that the United State sis in fact a union of several republics, each of whose form of government the general government is sworn to republic.
I agree wholeheartedly that the supreme Court must intervene and protect this election. We cannot change rules to suit one party over another. What's wrong with what we've been doing? In person and absentee is plenty. If you need more than that should you be voting? Vote in person if possible it just makes all this nonsense disappear.
Libertarian here and I've always really, really despised John Yoo for his famous and cartoonishly evil arguments in favor of federal officials torturing enemy combatants in a time of war.
However, I'm starting to warm up to him the more I hear him argue.
I'd one day love to hear him completely denounce his previous views on torture since it's very hard to give someone the benefit of the doubt about human rights as long as you hold that torture is moral and legal.
I always feel like Epstein is taking me to school however. He's amazing.
And Peter Robinson is always great. Such an insightful interviewer who stays in the background but seems to be every bit the intellectual equal of those he's interviewing despite his modesty.
So thankful to Stanford/Hoover institute for their work here
Exactly. Yoo is a monster, and should have been kicked out of the country decades ago.
love you guys!
Most entertaining and informative: roman repairum law?
This episode was the absolute best review of Constitutional and secular law ever. Both well defined proponents of seemingly opposite views most clearly shows to the World just why the United States of America is, indeed, the “......Best Hope” of all humanity. I’ll not ever put “Last” before “best”...... especially after bringing back former President Reagan’s story, retold by Education Czar Bill Bennet, of the “illegal” immigrant’s greeting..... “hey, freedom man,” which says it all. My Lord, we are beyond Blessed to live in this wonderful country. Dave in Phoenix Arizona USA
Don't you mean, replace a non constitutional judge, with a constitutional one.
I’ve been waiting for this 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
The only time I can feel like an intellectual 😎
What a wonderful, lively, good-natured discussion among friends with differing views. I thought that was illegal in today's USA. Perhaps come November 4th...
Never bow down to the mob...
Go Donald...and fill that vacant seat as soon as possible.
As a right leaning independent. I am appalled that any Judge let alone a supreme court justice. Would vote based on Feelings and Political Agenda. That is Abuse. Their job is to interpret both the Spirited intention of the Law, and The law as written. Ruling based on Precedent itself is problematic. As Rulings can be wrong. Why echo a wrong precedent.
The President needs to abide by the Constitution as written. IT’S hIS JOB ! ! ! !
he is
I LOVED hearing what Epstein had to say about Feinstein's inquisition with Amy Barrett! I completely agree that it was quite improper, since the question has already been asked and answered, and the confrontation was done in a manner that was rather cold and demeaning. I did not agree with what he said about some other issues, but I enjoyed listening in on this whole dialogue. As always, John Yoo is top notch. Would have liked to hear more from him.
Wonderfully edifying. Peter would make a superb moderator for a presidential debate. But I would not wish that sort of almost tragic role on him.
I think he would shine. He is everything past moderators have not been. Competent.
Feinstein seems to have little understanding of principles. A basis in similar moral principles is of no concern.
My concern about RBG was all her medical diagnosis’ what zags it at Time of de idoine at tge time
This is utmost superior learning than most of what's offered in college nowadays.
The amazing thing is that they all speak in plain English.
22:00 *Catholic* *Church* is not against death sentence (for murder) as it is specifically stated in the bible that this form of punishment is necessary.
Exodus 21:14-17 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 24:17
“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 24:17
“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.
A bit harsh if you ask me “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death” The Old Testament “God” is something else that is pretending to be God. An evil, cruel entity if there ever was one and certainly no God. With an objective reading of the five books you can hardly come up with a different assessment, but with some impressive mental gymnastics, you can justify anything.
And even into the New Testament:
ACTS 25: 11 & ROMANS 13: 4
MARANATHA!
The Roman Catholic Church takes the position that, in light of the dignity of human life granted by God, Christians are called to protect and support all life and therefore the death penalty should never be imposed if there is any alternative. They view the death penalty as valid *only* when the State has no other way to practically protect the community from the threat to life a criminal poses. In the modern era, society always has other options as we have prisons.
As Pope John Paul II said:
"The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty...."
It is fair to disagree on any number of grounds, including religious ones, but that is currently the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. In that Church, the opinions of individual members are not "co-equal" with the Pope's on doctrinal matters.
Always like these 2 guys when they speak together
Great discussion.
Thank you again, Hoover Institution. Dear Peter, John and Richard: since there's already the GoodFellows (John Cochrane, Niall Ferguson, and H.R. McMaster), how about you guys call yourselves The Three Amigos? PS: on the subject of Republicans nominating apparently "conservative" justices who turned out not to be so "conservative"- unless I missed it- Why did you not mention Henry Blackmun? Nommed by Nixon, yet wrote the majority opinion on Roe v. Wade? I'm a Libertarian/Objectivist... torn between Rothbard and Rand...
Didn't the Court also legalize gay marriage over the one dispute of inheritance ?
I say it required the redefinition of marriage in freudian terms,.
PLEASE will you get either PAUL GOTTFRIED or PETER SLOTERDIJKE on Uncommon Knowlege!!! Thank You
That was such a joy to listen to, socially as I totally agree with what they say. Except on the use of the words “dogma” Euclid’s parallel postulate is a dogma, and Kant treated it so. That does not mean that a different dogma can be proposed. and serve as the foundation of a different geometry. Feinstein has a double prejudice. She is a total positivist in her understanding of law, and sociological in her thinking about religion. Finally, given Barret faith, unconstitutional in forgetting the origin of the words religious test.
Solid discussions.
RBG also made very political statements reference Candidate Trump and President Trump. She bowed she would outlast him. So what I am hearing is that her fans are really blowing her actions as Justice out of proportion. Thanks for the reasonable honest panel and discussion on her.
So it had to be a woman simply to replace a woman. So does this create a permanent fem-seat on the court...?
"One word reaction, gentleman." Mine would have been "Excellent." Burns style.
Prof. Yoo might be an effective public officer.
Owing to the horrid Yoo and his neocon ilk, the lasting history of the US' role in the War on Terror will read, "They destroyed countless antiquities of ancient Mesopotamia, and they tortured."
I'm used to only hearing John and Richard together with Troy herding them.
asking the question are we well into a period where democrats, republicans, conservative, liberal have reduced meaning? would this help explain the angst?
The court seat will be filled by Trump, Period!
Would much rather have heard Michael McConnell than either one of these guys, and he's right there at Stanford.
Sorry for my stupidity but I almost had a heart attack thinking that this episode was about Epstein.. you know.. the guy...
Anyway, I love your channel. It is very instructive contrary to mainstream media where topics are very trivial. God bless you.
LOL! 😱
LOL
I, too, found myself here, for pretty much the same reason -- checking to see what POSSIBLE connection THAT could be. You could say ---
I came for the circus, stayed for the bread.
Kudos to both of you for staying.