Advisory Opinions - Civility vs. Collegiality | Interview: Judges Tom Griffith and David Tatel

Episode Date: August 25, 2026

Sarah Isgur and David French invite  former D.C. Circuit judges Tom Griffith and David Tatel to discuss relationships, judicial independence, and what it means to be a “former” judge. But first, bar complaints and the White House ballroom injunction.  The Agenda: –⁠The worst of the worst, District Judge edition⁠ –Someone file a bar complaint! –⁠We’re the least surprised when the White House injunction came down⁠ –Disagreeing respectfully  –What’s next for judges after they retire? –Breaking news Order Sarah’s book⁠ here.⁠ Advisory Opinions is a production of ⁠The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—⁠click here⁠. If you’d like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠by clicking here⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ready? I was born ready. Welcome to advisory opinions. I'm Sarah Isger. That's David French. We will talk about bar fare. We will talk about administrative stays and interim dockets all the way down. But then we will have an amazing conversation with former D.C. Circuit judges, Tom Griffith and David Tatele.

Now, by way of some background, Tom Griffith served on the D.C. Circuit for the for 15 years from 2005 to 2020. He was a George W. Bush appointee. Judge Taddle was on the D.C. Circuit for 30 years. Appointed by Bill Clinton and retiring just a couple years ago, they've been doing a bit of a roadshow on judicial independence and judicial collegiality. And I thought, well, that sounds very A.O. And also, I summered at Wiley Rine where Judge

Judge Griffith had been a partner. And that summer, I got to use his standing desk. And it was amazing, David. He has incredible taste in wood furniture. So, I mean, that alone. Is that what converted you to standing desks? It actually is. That was my first standing desk.

Oh, amazing. Judge Griffiths. Well, he just had gotten confirmed. So I was supposed to overlap with him that summer. But he left for the D.C. circuit. So I didn't actually get to work with him that summer. Maybe I would have been a real lawyer if Judge Griffith had been partner Griffith that year. Who knows? All right, David, about further ado, let's do this.

Two and five Canadians will hear the words, you have cancer. That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcf walk.ca. Hear that? It's your money calling.

It wants a promotion. Elevate your savings with the Scotia high interest savings account. Always earn high regular interest rates that grow the more you save and invest. Conditions apply. Visit scotiabank.com slash h-I-SA to learn more. Scotia Bank.

You're richer than you think. All right, David. on another fun episode of advisory opinions, I thought we would start with this barfair kerfuffle. So we've talked about lawfare on the podcast, this idea of using criminal or civil laws to get at your political enemies. Well, new term, barfare.

And this is the idea of using bar complaints against lawyers for your perceived political enemies, I want to ask a question of what is bar fare? Is this a thing we should be concerned about? And I want to start with this issue of James Percival, aka Jimmy Percival, the general counsel at DHS. So on July 23rd, he got on Twitter and had a thread. Here's how it starts.

Every day, the brave men and women of ICE risked their lives to remove the worst of the worst from our country. Today, in honor of the DHS, worst of the worst series, I am starting a news series. Worst of the worst, district judge edition. He then criticized four sitting judges. Judge Matthew Caneli for, quote, entering an order staying the termination of TPS for Burma,

even though these decisions are not subject to judicial review. Judge Allison Burroughs for, quote, denying our request to go forward with termination of Somali DPS, notwithstanding our Supreme Court wins. Judge Paula Zinas for entering an order preventing the removal of Kilmar-Abrego Garcia and Judge Hernan Vera for, quote, entering an order micromanaging DHS's use of force policy with respect to violent ice agitators in Los Angeles. Okay. So then last week, David, 128 retired judges filed an ethics complaint against Percival with the

Florida bar. They argued that Percival's worst of the worst thread had, quote, the effect of impugning the integrity of the foresitting judges, mischaracterized important elements of the cases, increased the unfounded perception that the judiciary is biased and its results unfair, and raised the risk of threats of violence against judges. So, David, let's start with you. Is this good or bad, like, are they right or wrong? and separately maybe is this bar fare. This can be a not meritorious bar complaint,

but still not be inappropriate. Or it could be a not meritorious bar complaint and be inappropriate and we can call it bar fare, whatever other term you like. Yeah, so let's give a little bit of background here because some people might be thinking, wait, you could file a bar complaint against somebody for criticizing a judge.

Are you serious? isn't this like core First Amendment protected activity? And the answer is, uh, it's more ambiguous than you might think because there are ethics rules regarding the extent to which that you can criticize a judge, to the extent that you can impugn the integrity of a judge. And so when I was practicing and I practiced,

I was litigating for 21 years before I became, became a journalist, I wouldn't dream of saying any given district judge is the worst of the worst or part of the worst of the worst.

My assumption would be if I did that that the judge to the extent that I was potentially operating in their court or practicing in their court, the judge would respond. In other words,

my attack on a judge would be the business of the judge that I attacked. Going to a bar complaint, sort of going above and around or not above, but around the judge to the state bar association, that was something that never really crossed my mind as a possibility. And this is something that I think that the use of a bar complaint to try to punish or chill someone for engaging in conduct that even... even if you in good faith believe it, my transgress is a big step. I would say your first recourse,

the first recourse, the first person who has the opportunity to step in at this point is the judge himself or herself. Now, that gets a little bit complicated if you're not actually practicing in their court. If you are not even barred in their court, for example, if I'm, if I am a, if I am barred, say, in Tennessee or Kentucky, and I get admitted Prohoc Vich to another district, then I'm squarely in their jurisdiction. It gets complicated. But the bottom line, Sarah, is I generally believe in this circumstance that it is primarily the responsibility of the judge, if the judge feels that this action transgressed ethical boundaries, for the judge to take action.

And that was always who in my mind what I was thinking about, if I was, you know, I would be questioned by the media all the time about a court ruling and say a court ruling that I didn't like it all. And there's a reason why lawyers almost always say we disagree with the judge,

we respectfully disagree with the judge. And that's about it. They don't lay into the judge, not just because they're going to continue to practice in front of them, but also because this is not something that you are supposed to do, anything that impugns the integrity of the court. And the absence really of like real evidence that would cast the integrity of the court into question.

And by the way, an opinion you don't like is not evidence, right? And so this is where I am. If this is for the judge to respond and also I am worried about bar fare. I am worried about coalitions of people filing bar complaints, especially when those coalitions of people haven't actually been injured by the conduct in question. Normally a bar complaint comes from, say, somebody who my attorney misappropriated my funds, I file a bar complaint. You know, an attorney tried to sleep with me. I'll file a bar complaint. Not a realistic possibility, but I'm trying to, I use money and sex as the, those are the classic ways that people lose their license.

Like that is, those are the classic ways. And so my general feeling is I do wonder if a judge doesn't take action in when the conduct is directed to a judge, so someone go around that judge to the bar. I have qualms. You know, I see the, I see the pitfalls here. I don't have qualms. I am bordering on outraged. So you're right, though, David.

Let me read you what the Florida Bar prohibits, making false public statements or statements made with reckless disregard for their truth regarding the qualifications or integrity of judicial or legal officers. That is different than you can't criticize judges, by the way. Right. Very different. These need to be basically fact.

actual statements that go to the integrity of the judge. So like, you know, falsely saying that a judge is right-handed instead of left-handed is factually false, but doesn't impugn their integrity, saying they got that opinion wrong because they hold stock in a company that they do not hold stock in would both be false and impuging their integrity. They got this opinion wrong, and I think it's the worst opinion of the decade. is not a factual statement, even though it may impugn their integrity.

I would argue that all of Percival's tweet was either factually true and impugned their integrity. You know, yeah, maybe he didn't provide all the context. Like, if you'd provided more context, you would have had a different light. That is not actionable under Florida bar rules. And I'm no expert on Florida bar rules,

but like my point is number one. Yes, you might give up some First Amendment protections, but not that much joining the Florida Bar, and you are welcome to criticize judges and judicial opinions factually and with opinion. You can have all the opinions you want and you can say those opinions. You're right, David, that the judge can hold you in contempt, they can sanction you, all sorts of things. But as far as the bar is concerned, you did not give up but a tiny sliver,

basically defamatory and only a certain type of defamation. defamation that goes to the integrity of the judge or a legal officer of the court. So that's number one. Number two, if we're applying this rule, this goes to the bar fair point. I know some podcasters who have bar licenses who would be very open to bar complaints if that's our new rule. I know who you're thinking about. I think you and I could be very open to bar complaints if that's the rule. I'm still licensed.

I think you are too. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I'm a member of the Supreme Court Bar, and it was so funny the first time interviewed Justice Gorsuch. He goes, well, how's this going to go? So, you know, we were kind of joking beforehand. It's like, well, I'm a member of the Supreme Court bar.

Justice Gorsuch, well, I'm constrained. No, it was a joke. But yes, if you are barred, you do think about this. Yeah. So, like, someone could file a bar complaint against each of us because we have no doubt criticize judges and judicial opinions. Mm-hmm. And then my number three problem with this, David, former judges using their titles to file

bar complaints because they don't like what someone said. Nope. I think that is a really inappropriate use of being a former judge. You are welcome as a former judge to sign anything you want. As far as I'm concerned, you can go protest from sunrise to sunset. But you can't use the title former judge because the only reason you're using that title is to add the prestige that you had while holding that title. I have complained about this before, David, with these amicus briefs.

Same exact problem, but I think this is more pernicious the idea of state bars receiving complaints from former judges for criticizing current judges along very partisan lines. It's not going to end. I assure you that the second there is a new administration, and maybe not even, conservatives are going to start filing bar complaints against liberal judicial commentators who have active bar licenses. Especially in conservative jurisdictions. Yeah.

Why is this helpful to the rule of law? You know, what we really need to do is understand that dumb or malicious is not the same thing as unethical or unlawful. So one of the reasons why you don't hear lawyers engaging in worst of the worst style language or about judges is because it's dumb. There's no upside really in reality to that. In theory, a judge should be able to put aside any personal insult at all and just rule completely on the law and the facts. But if you don't have in your mind that a judge is a human being just like me and that one of my jobs as an effective advocate is to me, make it easy for them to rule for me. You want no speed bumps. You want no barriers. You want to create

the smoothest possible path to rule for you as a reason why smart lawyers don't do this. And that's a reason why it feels, boom, like very jarring when you see actual practicing lawyers who practice in federal court use that kind of rhetoric. Doesn't mean it's unethical or illegal. And there is a big difference in those concepts. And so that's why, that's why in these kinds of circumstances, I would never dream of filing a bar complaint because I'm going to defer to the judge whose court this is in. How are they interpreting this? How are they responding to this? This is, and if the judge is making no effort at all to implement sanctions in their courtroom, which judges absolutely can do, now you can appeal and you can make your arguments against the judge's action.

To me, when you're talking about an attack on a judge, the judge is the first responder, period. Well, with that, please don't file bar complaints against Will Bowden, Dan Apps, even though I said all that stuff about them. Just kidding. That's exactly who you were thinking. I know it. I can't believe you said it out loud, Sarah. Why you put a target on their back?

All right, David, to the next bit of. of news. The injunction against Donald Trump's administration, continuing construction on the ballroom, was set to take effect. The administration had filed an emergency application at the Supreme Court on the interim docket. And Chief Justice Roberts, acting on his own, issued an administrative stay. So all that means is we keep the status quo in place, that injunction doesn't go into effect. until basically the full court can have thoughts and feelings about this. This is exactly the administrative stay we saw when Justice Alito entered an administrative stay on the Texas abortion restrictions going into effect.

The full court after that did, in fact, vote to not allow those abortion restrictions to go into effect. Even though that was a one-judge administrative stay, that you're not supposed to read anything into. So, David, I present that to you by way of saying, this is what I was talking about with interim dockets all the way down, that like if you want the court to always have to write something and explain itself, you're going to have to then have an interim decision before the interim decision. David, what say you?

You know, I was the least surprised person in the history of the world when this order came down. And one of the reasons why I was least surprised is because, of our conversation that we'd had just days before. How timely is this podcast, Sarah? I feel like our listeners got a real sense of why construction may go forward, even if the statutes at issue seem to be pretty clear that at best they're going to authorize a kitchen remodel, not a wing demolition, right? But when we are walking through standing, standing, I don't know, I mean, I felt like both of us found the standing analysis pretty unconvincing that there was, there were a lot of standing problems there. You know, anytime you're basing, you're standing on, I like the way this looks.

And now I don't like the way this looks. That's not your greatest argument. I've got to say, it's not the best. Husband of the pod, you have no standing to complain in how I'm decorating this house just because you don't like the way it looks. Now, I mean, obviously, I'm exaggerating for effect. But that was a lot of the standing. I mean, go through the, go through it.

Look at it. Oh, no, it's actually, I don't think you're exaggerating. She was like, I walk through this park a lot and I like the architectural style that they used. And now I don't. That is an injury. That's not an injury, guys. I mean, now, there are environmental cases, for example, that's less of an injury than I fish in this river and now I can't fish in this river. That's a-

I study this dragonfly and it's about to go extinct. Right. That's a different thing. This is, that's building is ugly now. I mean, I, wow. And I only like pretty buildings. Too much gold leaf. I'm going to sue.

As I said, I think the east. the building next to the White House, it used to be called the OEOB, the old executive office building. Now it's called the Eisenhower Executive Office building. I think it looks like MC Escher had a stroke. I would like it torn down. I hate it, but nobody's giving me standing.

Yeah. Let's file, Sarah. Oh, well, I mean, we haven't. Don't knock until you've tried to get standing. Fair. So, yeah, I, and I'm very happy to have, and we keep not doing this, and one day we should do this,

is to have expert standing person on this podcast to sort through, when do my hurt eyes qualify for standing, when do they not, et cetera. I'll get all of it out there, really dive into it. But as I was reading, I just had this feeling like, I don't.

I can't count a five on this standing analysis. It's really hard. Well, this is only an administrative stay. It says nothing about the underlying merits of the case and it's only been issued by one justice of the court. We know nothing, except in our era of interim docket decisions where you have to have a decision before the interim docket decision. So take that for what it's worth. We'll see. Maybe David and I are way off. David, we get back from this break. We are welcoming to former judges from the D.C. Circuit. We will talk about, I don't know, relationship. what it means to have judicial independence and judicial collegiality at the same time. And we're going to ask though about this former judge thing. So stay tuned. Two and five Canadians will hear the words you have cancer. That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of

life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcfwalk.ca.ca. Your summer travels deserve an upgrade. With select Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac vehicles connected by OnStar, you can stream, game, and more on the go. Whether you're headed to a music festival or a cottage getaway, you can access hundreds of apps on Google Play right from your center display.

Explore OnStar Tech today at OnStar. and discover how to take your summer to the next level. OnStar. Better never stops. Hello. Former judges Griffith and Tatele. Thank you so much for joining advisory opinions. Thank you. It's good to be here. Thank you. Now, you guys have done this as a bit of a road show before. You know, adorable little Ginsberg and Scalia thing. Fewer elephants seem to be involved, but the idea is there. You were judges on the D.C. Circuit together appointed by different presidents, pretty different judicial philosophies. And you have been out there speaking about that relationship between judicial independence and civility. And I guess I think our listeners will take for granted

the importance of judicial independence. But I don't want to take for granted whether civility is necessary for that or just a nice thing to have? Hey, so can I take issue with one point that you made that we have very different judicial philosophies? I think we may have different political philosophies, but I think our judicial philosophy is pretty similar, and that is that the role of a judge is to apply the law to figure out what value the American people have chosen

and put into law, and the judge is to apply that. So maybe we can quarrel over what you mean by judicial philosophy. But, you know, I embarrassed Judge Tatele. This is a joke. I embarrassed Judge Tadled at his portrait ceremony. He was kind enough to invite me to speak. And in front of all his family and lifetime friends, I announced that he was a judicial

conservative. And he is, by my definition, judicial conservative, somebody who's not making decisions to favor your own policy. outcomes, but to make decisions that are required by the law regardless of whether you favor the policy outcomes. So in that sense, I think we're very, I think we're very similar. Sarah, it was a hot bench for you already. You barely got through the opening. I know. So I like Tom's, I like that story a lot that Tom tells because he keeps telling it over and over again. It's great. And coming is a shock to call Judge Tatele a judicial

conservative. But this idea of civility, okay? On the one hand, I get why it's nice at a workplace for everyone to be civil to each other. It's more pleasant to go to work with people who you enjoy being around. But that's different that being necessary to judicial independence, to good judicial outcomes. And I think that some people could argue pretty persuasively that sometimes civility can get in the way of the right outcomes, especially for judicial independence. If you're trying so hard to stay friendly with someone, maybe you're not going to write a dissent that is as vociferous as it should be. And you guys have talked about like not writing that many dissents during your time on the D.C. Circuit. So is civility a value in and of itself, or is it a value

that actually feeds judicial independence? Well, let me try to answer it this way. First of all, this relationship that Judge Griffith and I were talking about was not just the two of us. During those decades, there were other of our colleagues who approached the job the same way. It was an unusually collegial court and composed of judges with very different political perspectives. But when it came to judging, we were all basically following the same rules. But, Sarah, I think you've made a good distinction here between civility and judicial collegiality. Civility is important. If you're with people all your lives, you want to be civil and pleasant. But that isn't what I view judicial collegiality is. Judicial collegiality is a phrase that I use for judges who are listening to each other, respecting each other, responding on the. the merits and sometimes even changing their minds in view of what their colleagues say. And that collegiality is, I think, critical to the appellate judicial process because it's through

those respectful discussions that three judges can find ways to reach agreement on important issues. And, you know, I can, Tom and I can both give you many examples of the those I talk about several of them in my book, and I've talked about them in our speeches together. But judicial collegiality, the kind that I'm talking about, is, I said, critical to the judicial process, not just because it's a way of reaching consensus, but it's, you know, the Chief Justice has said, if it's not necessary to decide something, it's necessary not to decide it. it's it's the conferences among the judges where that happens it's when you return from oral argument and you sit down with two of your colleagues and you start discussing the case and you may realize

that you disagree on some big issues but you can find a narrower way to decide the case and you can produce a unanimous opinion that way and that does not happen without the kind of judicial collegiality that Judge Griffith and I were happy to practice and that we did with our other colleagues, people like Judge Centell and Judge Silberman and Judge Williams and Judge Garland. It was an unusual group of people approaching their judging responsibility that way. And you can see it in the results of the court. What you see in the results is large numbers, many unanimous opinions on issues you would not expect unanimity, that's a result of that collegiality and fewer dissents. And you can see that in the record of the D.C. Circuit during those years.

The word civility is perhaps vague and ambiguous and misused in many ways. When I think of civility, I'm not thinking of pulling punches on things that you think are important. It's the way you do that and that you don't call into question the good faith of someone with whom you're disagreeing. They just see things differently than you do. They're not a bad person. They're not a corrupt judge. They're not rogue or anything like that.

You just see things differently. And so I think that's an important qualification. I'm not talking about not disagreeing. We're talking about that you disagree in a way that respects the person with whom you disagree. So I was, I asked a couple of years ago, I asked Justice Gorsuch about, this very issue about civility on the Supreme Court. And he gave a really interesting answer. And I'll give you sort of the paraphrase of it, which was essentially, let's talk about what we're really talking about when talking about civility. Are we talking about going to the movies together?

Or are we talking about being able to do the job? And he was saying that the court has all of the civility that it needs to do its job well, that they interact with each other, they produce a lot of unanimous opinions, they work together as a court. And I was reflecting on that answer. And I thought, huh, that's interesting. And although I would love to get a, like be on the fly on the wall if like Justice Gorsuch and Justice Sotomayor ever went to like Spider-Man together, that would be an interesting story. But I was, the more I thought about, the more I got skeptical about that sort of bifurcation. Like a, I don't think people necessarily work in such a way that they're completely civil and collegial sort of at the job,

but there isn't really that there are two sharply distinct spheres between sort of friendship and professional civility and courtesy, etc. I think they bleed into each other a bit. Because everyone I've ever known who's talked a lot about civility across differences, like you all, you know, Robbie George and Cornell West do a kind of roadshow on colleges that's very effective because people realize that Robbie George and Cornell West are very different politically. But they also seem to genuinely like each other. And I've never seen like a sort of civility roadshow where the folks don't also seem to genuinely like each other. So how sharp are

those distinctions? Because it feels to me that workplace collegiality almost invariably bleeds into friendship and friendship bleeds into workplace collegiality. This is where Judge Tatele says He effing hates Judge Griffith. I know. This is what I've been setting up the whole time. Yes. Yes. Look, I think having a good relationship with your colleagues and as you said, David, truly liking them, helps produce judicial collegiality.

But it isn't absolutely necessary. And I'm not going to go into personalities here. But on my court, there were a couple of judges who I deeply liked and enjoyed. And there were others who I didn't, but we all worked well together because we respected each other's views and we were engaged in the same undertaking. And, you know, I can point to you, point many examples of situations where, you know, because I respected my colleagues, they would convince me of something at oral art. argument that I looked at a case a different way after what I heard from that. And vice versa. Happens all the time. But it happened because we all respect the rules under which we were operating. That is, you know, we were bound by precedent. We respected the language of the

Constitution and the statutes. I'll tell you an interesting quick, just a side story. So Judge Sintel and I, Judge Sintel was appointed by Reagan. I, by. Clinton. You couldn't find two people with two different policy views about most of the world, but yet as judges, we produce many unanimous opinions in situations where you wouldn't expect it to. Well, one day at lunch, we were talking about a grand jury issue. I can't even remember what it was. And one of us said, you know, let's write an op-ed piece about that. So we decided to do it. And I'd write a draft and sent it to him, and he sent it back. And you know what? We we couldn't do it because we weren't operating, you know, under the rules of judicial restraint.

There weren't any guidelines under which we were operating. We were just disagreeing as a matter of policy. We couldn't produce another bed piece under those circumstances. And that's always illustrated to me how important these principles of judicial restraint are to producing judicial collegiality and operating within that system. Does that make sense? Absolutely. Yeah, yeah, but David, I think I think you're on to something. David French. I think it has a lot to do with small group dynamics. For example, David Taylor just

mentioned having lunch together with Judge Centell. One of the advantages of the D.C. Circuit is we're all in the same building. And what that means is we would have lunch together regularly. We had a regularly scheduled lunch every month where we'd have a guest speaker come in and listen to them. But there's lots of other interaction. Judges routinely have lunches in each other's chambers with their clerks. And so I think that, I think the, the, the nice guy friendship part has a lot to do with it. I, I think it is true. It's not necessary that you'd be a friend with someone to be simple with them. But I think it helps. And I think the more there is of small group dynamics, getting to know each other, getting another family and their background and interest, I think,

I think it helps in that regard. Okay, Judge Griffith. We have listeners to this podcast who are passionate conservatives, passionate liberals. And I think they are listening to this. Let's just take our typical conservative, passionate conservative. And they're saying, okay, that's great that you guys had happy fun time braiding each other's hair and painting each other's toenails at the D.C. Circuit slumber party. But the times you're referring to, and the cases, for instance, that y'all raise in some of these examples, Shelby County, for instance, that is a very liberal time for the D.C. Circuit. And when the rule of law is at stake, your job as a judge is not to be there to make friends. Your job is to fight for the Constitution,

even if that means alienating all of your colleagues. You are to speak truth to the time and posterity, right? Your job is to be John Marshall Harlan is the sole dissenter. And so saying that dissents can undermine collegiality on bonk votes can undermine collegiality, that's not, you know, that's not the proper role of a judge. And by the way, same with our passionate liberals who I think would say, Judge Tatel, if it means burning the house down to say what truth and justice is by God, that's what you were supposed to be doing. And how do you respond to people who say that these times call for different measures. Yeah. What I say is you can stick to your conviction about what the law applies without being a jerk about it. No, I mean that.

What if I can't? Well, then you shouldn't be a judge. That's what a judicial temperament is about. And it comes from humility. A judge needs to be humble. Look, I think I'm getting it. I think I'm getting it right. I think I've thought carefully about the case. I think I've studied the law carefully. I think I'm getting right. But you know what? I might not be.

I might not be. And the person who sees things differently than I do, they actually might be right. And so you approach it with a certain sense of humility that I think this is the right answer. I think this is the right way to go. And, you know, you don't pull punches. Is the Constitution's involved?

And you're applying the law? No, you're applying the law. You're not there to make night. but it's the way you go about doing it that makes all the difference in the world. And so, I mean, I saw many times where an opinion would be circulated, and the chief judge in various chief judges would ask one of my colleagues or ask me to change the wording because that's just a little snarky. Can't you make the point without the snark?

And the judge would comply with that. And so, no, no, you stick to your convictions, you apply. the law and you're going to dissent sometimes, you're going to disagree sometimes, but it's all the way you go about it. And I believe you approach it with a fair degree of humility, that you think you're right, but you may not be. You know, that was the famous quote that Justice Scalia loved from learned hand, you know, the spirit of liberty. The spirit of liberty is the spirit that's not too sure that it's right. So there's a humility point here. Yeah. Let me add two thoughts. What's to that? Sarah, about your question. First of all, I think there's a big difference in terms of

judging between being on a court of appeals and the Supreme Court. The fact is that at the circuit court level, there are answers to most of the cases we have. People can work together and produce an answer. We're much more bound by our own precedent and by Supreme Court precedent. So that's number one. Number two, you know, I've written my share of passionate dissent. when I thought I needed to. And you know, you mentioned, I don't know what you meant by Shelby County was at a time when we had a liberal D.C. Circuit.

Is that what you said? Yeah, that's what I said. Do you want to say what you mean about that? I'm not sure what you know. I'm trying my best to, you know, steal man the other side here. Conservatives had long seen the D.C. circuit as a, the most important circuit that was liberal,

and this is what causes the judicial confirmation wars, the blocking of Miguel Estrada. they blow up the filibuster over the three seats on the D.C. Circuit all over maintaining liberal control over the circuit. That's how the argument goes. Well, all I can tell you is that I think that the experience that the three of us, Judge Williams, Judge Griffith and I had in Shelby County is just a classic example of how good judging should work. Will you tell everyone the just basics of this, by the way, I do think it's a really good story, and I want you to tell it. Okay. I'd be happy to tell it. I'll tell the first part of it, and Judge McEugh can tell the second part of it.

So, you know, Shelby County was before the D.C. Circuit. The question was the constitutionality of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. We had had the case five years earlier in Northwest Austin. And as you remember, and I was on that also. And we found it, we found it constitutional, went to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court. court ducked the constitutional issue. You warned the Congress that there's serious constitutional issues here. Congress being Congress didn't respond. It came back in Shelby County, and the Supreme Court invalidated the provision five to four. On the D.C. Circuit, there were three of us, two Republican appointees, Judge Williams, Judge Griffith, and me. And this was, I'd say this was maybe the most important case the D.C. Circuit had that year in terms of, is the

The Voting Rights Act is, I think most people agree, the most important, effective civil rights law ever passed. It was a big deal case. And we approached it. It was really interesting the way the three of us approached it. There was quite a bit of discussion ahead of time. I mean, Judge Williams, who was appointed by Reagan, wrote me a note and said, I know where I think I think I know where the Supreme Court's going on this one.

he was citing Northwest Austin, but he said, I'm open-minded about it. I want to talk about it. And we tried several ways to avoid the constitutional question. We thought maybe there would be a standing issue, and we tried that. But we eventually concluded that the merits were no choice. We had no choice about it. And I'd say after oral argument, we must have exchanged, you know, half a dozen or a dozen

the memos had more conversations. And what happened was, in the end, was Judge Williams and I just viewed the record differently. And Judge Griffith can tell his story. But, you know, as I saw him struggling with it, what brought him around to my side was the understanding that under Section 2 of the 15th Amendment, you know, close calls go to Congress. and in fact, he wrote that sentence in a memo to me, and that's the last sentence of the opinion. I used it in my opinion. And when you look at the two opinions now, the majority opinion that I wrote and the Williams descent, you will see a very respectful disagreement over pretty much the record.

So that was just a good example of where three judges set aside their very different views about how they would have acted on this, how they would have handled the Voting Rights Act if they had been senators and really focused on legalists. Now, we didn't agree in the end, but it was a principal disagreement. You know, one thing that it seems like both of you agree on, and tell me if you think I'm wrong in this assessment, you know, sort of based on our conversation and reading your work, that all other things being equal, narrow plus unanimous, seems to be. better than broad plus divided as far as if? Absolutely.

Yes. Okay. Make that case because that is not necessarily intuitive to a lot of people. That if broad is the right answer, they would say, broad plus divided should be the answer. Narrow plus unanimous seems to be a concession to maybe to office politics, more so to the cause of justice. But you would make the argument that the cause of justice is better served by narrow plus unanimous than maybe broad versus divided.

And tell me if I'm, you know, tell me if I'm putting words in your mouth. No, I don't think you are at all. I think that's exactly right. I think it has to do with how the public perceives the work of the court. And when the public sees the court working as a court, that's better for democracy. It's better for the courts. I also think this comes back to the judicial humility point. When you go through the confirmation process, you're constantly asked about judicial temperament.

What does that mean, judicial temperament? And I think this is what it means. I think it means that there's a certain humility that you think you're right, but you're going to listen to others who might have a different perspective that will persuade you, that maybe you're not exactly right. But the larger point, I think, is how does the public perceive the role of the court? And if you have a court, if you have courts that are dividing along what appear to be partisan lines all the time, that's not good, that undermines trust and confidence in the judiciary.

All right, when we get back, more from judges Tatele and Griffith, and don't miss out, because we've got some breaking news happening in Justice Tatele's own home. Two and five Canadians will hear the words, you have cancer. That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, joined thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcf walk.ca.

Real Canadian Superstore has everything you need this back-to-school season. Save on lunchbox savers like Ziggy's sliced deli-meat products for always 375. And get life brand pure Vita shampoo or conditioner for $8 each. At Real Canadian Superstore, when you're ready, ready with a whole world and more. All right. I want to move on to some more current events, if we can. Let's start with the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Tatele, in this roadshow that y'all were on for a bit, you left open.

This was a year ago now. What grade you might give the Supreme Court? We didn't, y'all didn't talk about grades. But you were sort of like, yeah, we'll see how it's going. I don't know. So here we are in the Year Our Lord, 2026. with another term behind us, you care a lot about judicial collegiality, civility, and judicial independence. How's the Supreme Court doing? Well, in my book, in the two chapters on the administrative

agencies and the Voting Rights Act, I gave the court a pretty low grade because I felt the court was not of following basic principles of judicial restraint. I thought it wasn't being sufficiently respectful to its own precedent, to the language of the Constitution, and to statutes. And I haven't changed my view about that. So here's an area where we disagree. So good, good, good. I give the court high marks.

And I refer you to a book that I think really makes the argument better than I can. this fabulous book called Last Branch Standing, which I think, and I'm serious, I think it's a wonderful contribution to public understanding of what's going on with the court. So, no, I'm, I'm, I'm much more sympathetic to the work of the Robbers Court. I'm very high on the Robbers Court. We have eight who were appeals court judges before, and I know some criticize that as being narrow. I think that's a benefit. I think to have someone who's had judicial experience, who's had to deal with the collegiality that Judge Saddle was talking about. I think that's a good thing.

I think you get people who think like judges, who think that the purpose here is to find out what the law is and to apply it without fear of favor. And I think they've done that. Not perfect. You know, I have my quibbles here and there. But generally speaking, I think I give the Roberts Court high marks in a very difficult and polarized time. I want to poke Judge Tatele a little bit, though, because I think what he said could have a lot of different causes, factors, right?

There's, I disagree with this outcome. If I had been on the panel, so to speak, I would have voted differently. That's different than, like, I think they're not doing their job correctly. And that's different than sort of a rule of law judicial independence is being undermined. So Judge Tatele, I'm going to push you. What's the problem? Well, I'll give you just two examples. One is Louisiana against Calais, the Section 2 case.

The Supreme Court said in Calais that Congress's power under Section 2, the 15th Amendment, is eliminated. That's not true. The framers of the 15th Amendment intended to give Congress all the power it needed. to rid the country of racial discrimination and voting. And that's what the Supreme Court said in South Carolina v. Kotsenbach, very clearly. The last thing you can say about Congress's power under the 15th, under Section 2 of the 15th Amendment, is that it's limited. And that declaration, to me, revealed, you know, the fundamental flaw at the heart of both Shelby County and Calais. What you have is a Supreme Court on an ideological, vote. Six to three in Calais, five to four in the exercising powers that the framers of the 15th Amendment had intended to give the Congress, but would have been taken over by the court. And the court used them to invalidate the most important civil rights law ever passed. So let's just give you one more. Take slaughter of the independent agency case.

You know, I, look, I think that's an interesting question. The hard question in slaughter is not what you think about independent agencies is whether the court should have overruled Humphrey's executor, a case that had been around for 75 years and over which on the basis of which our entire government has been structured. And we know from the court's precedence about stare decisis is that one of the most important issues the court is to consider is a reliance interest. And here we have a situation where, you know, our government has essentially relied on Humphrey's executor for most of its modern existence. And I saw really nothing in that opinion that persuaded me, even if you thought Humphrey's executive was wrong, that the court should

overrule it. Just, I was completely unpersuaded. And so, so let me weigh in. I will agree with part and disagree with part. I agree with Judge Tatele. I don't think this court has, has applied the 15th Amendment as it should be applied. And again, I think Calais is of a piece with Shelby County in my view. And I disagree with that. I think that. I think they just undervalue what happened in the reconstruction amendments and what power was given to Congress. So with that, when I'm in full accord with Judge Tatele, I don't, I'm not worried about overruling Humphreys' executive. There was a heavy reliance interest, but I just think it was wrong. It was wrongly decided in the first instance, and this is part of, one of the reasons I'm a fan of the Roberts Court is,

I think the issue that they care about most deeply seems to be the separation of powers. And that's an issue. I think that's correct to have that sort of concern. I think in too many instances, we've allowed tinkering with the constitutional structure to run amok in pursuit of very good goals. But there are lanes that are created by the Constitution. and I'm more comfortable with each of the branches staying in their own lanes. And I see that as really the great project of the Roberts Court is to define those lanes and to make certain the various powers act within those lanes. Now, there's a lot more work to do after Slaughter because of the reliance interests that Judge Tadles talks about.

Congress for years has thought they were creating a certain type of agency. And it turns out that's not the agencies that we have now. And to me, that'll be the interesting next set of battles is what happens to those agencies now that they have so much power given to the president. But the answer, again, from this great book I read recently, the answer is, Congress, do your job. And I think that's part of this. I mean, I can't speak for anyone in the Roberts Court, but I think that's part of the motivation of the court doing what they're doing is they, They see that Congress is not doing its job and sending the signal time to do your job, write statutes that are clearer.

Be careful about delegated authority. Get back in your lane, but swim. While you're in lane, swim, do some work. I think we would not be in this pickle if we had a function in Congress. Historically, there have been many times when Congress has stepped up, exercised its constitutional rule, and checked both the Supreme Court and the president. And we don't have that Congress now. So I completely agree with you about that.

This four-person panel has unanimously ruled that Congress must do its job. Yeah. But that, this, it leads into a natural kind of next question, which is, what is the role of a retired Article III judge in the public square? So, you know, I think there are some things like that what you all are doing, which is sort of in many ways lifting the veil on what it is like to be a circuit judge, how the process works,

how you reach your decisions. I think that's easy. That's a layup. I think Article III judges, retired Article III judges should be out there more lifting that veil because we have, you know, there really is a lot of public ignorance

about how this whole system works. It's the most mysterious branch of government to most people. It's the most opaque to most people. But that's on one spectrum. And then, you know, as you're talking about your agreements, disagreements with the current Supreme Court, that's moving into a little bit more sort of publicly, for lack of it, our term, aggressive posture. What, where do we go on that spectrum? Because we've also seen retired judges filing, for example, amicus briefs or trying to intervene in cases. That's, it seems, it strikes me that this is somewhat similar to the discussion that maybe retired or, you know, older presidents have.

You know, when do I say, it's a really hard job. I'm going to let the person in the Oval Office handle it without my, the peanut gallery. Or when do you say, this is wrong? As a former president with all the constituency that I have, this is wrong. Well, I think that's a really good question you've asked. And it's one that I've struggled with myself since I left the D.C. Circuit a little over two years ago. The one thing I've been very comfortable with is speaking about the importance of judicial independence and protecting judges from attacks. And both Tom and I are part of this

Article III coalition, and its judges, as part of that, have been speaking about that around the country to community groups, high schools. I think that's a very valuable role for us. It's one of the reasons why I volunteer two days a week here in Rappanac High School to talk to 12th graders about the Constitution. I think that's useful role. I'm much more cautious about what we can do beyond that. I don't think our active colleagues need to be lectured by a bunch of retired judges about the law. They can do that. Now, there may be issues that are so, that goes so to the heart of the judge's role that we might want to speak out. I haven't seen that yet, But I do think that whatever we do, retired judges have to have to speak rarely and careful about in pending cases.

Judge Griffith, will you weigh in on this and also add in this idea of bar fare that they've dubbed it, you know, filing bar complaints against lawyers for criticizing judges? what's in bounds, what's out of bounds, what's the role of former judges in policing that? So I'm actually not familiar with the bar fare phenomenon, but so I'll be careful about coming in that, but I agree with everything Judge Tatele said in the first one. And I'll add one practical point. I'm pretty certain that it really ticks off the justices to get an amicus brief from former judges. I mean, I haven't discussed that with any of them, but I don't think they're impressed.

by that. But I don't know about the bar fear phenomenon that you're talking about. Well, we saw a bar complaint filed last week by 128 former judges. That included mostly state, but I do believe a few former federal judges signed in a bar complaint against the Department of Homeland Security General Counsel for criticizing sitting judges. You know, there's the very specifics of this example. David and I, you know, we'll talk about that on the pod when you guys are on. But there's also the more general idea as a former judge, you're signing something as a former judge. What else is the purpose of saying you're a former judge other than to sort of lend that prestige or whatever to what you're signing? And you're doing it to say that a lawyer

criticizing a sitting judge should be disciplined by their state bar for criticizing a judge. you know, are some criticisms outside the bounds of what a barred attorney should be able to do, right? We give up some of our rights to become attorneys, no doubt. But lots of people are criticizing judges and are we just going to sort of have this turtles all the way down problem of, you know, everyone now just filing bar complaints against each other for things they don't like that are being said by lawyers. Again, I'm not, I really don't know that the facts of the case and, judicial temperament suggests I not weigh in. But the way you framed it, yeah, that sounds, that sounds crazy. You know, that doesn't sound like, uh, again, I think, I think it comes back to, does it do any good? And I don't, I don't know what good that it does, because I, I tell you as,

as, as, I, I don't remember, uh, being on the DC circuit and getting an amicus brief filed by former judges, but I can tell you, uh, that wouldn't do much for me, uh, you know, I mean, how about you, David? So I, you know, I read about that case, and I know there have been other cases. I am confident that the sitting judges who are presiding over this cases, they're the ones who are in the best position to manage their courtrooms and discipline the lawyers. And I have tremendous confidence in these district judge's ability to manage that. They don't need me sitting out here in Castleton telling them what I think about a case I'm not involved in. Now, I would, now, here's where I might, if a district judge took an action against a lawyer for what he thought was unethical behavior, and that issue came up on appeal, you know, I might consider whether an amicus brief from former judges might, would be helpful to the court of appeals. I'm not sure it would be. But that's, to me, very different than initiating a bunch of retired judges initiating a complaint against a lawyer in a courtroom where,

they haven't been. Yeah, I'm more comfortable with us, again, staying in the lane that David French described at the outset, lifting the veil to teach people. That's where the real good work can come. You know, I was on the D.C. Circuit for 15 years, and I wish the American people could have sat by my side, because when you get on the inside of this and you see how it works, it is really inspiring. You get these really smart people, hardworking people coming from. from different backgrounds, different political perspectives, working really hard to get the right answer. You know, in my stump speech, I say in 15 years on the D.C. Circuit,

I only once saw a case in which I thought that any of my colleagues rendered a decision that was tainted by their partisan priors. And I did see that. That did happen. But it was once. It was once. And I think, I think, you know, pundits and politicians and the American public think that that's standard fair. And it's not. And if they could see the way things really work, I think they'd be inspired. Now, you could say, oh, that's just Griffith. He's naive. He likes people. He's not seeing the boogie man out there. What I say about my time, my 15 years on the D.C. Circuit,

Stephen Breyer says the same thing about his 28 years on the Supreme Court. And Justice Breyer was writing a lot of dissents, right? He was in dissent. a lot. And yet he says the same thing about his time there. There's not, this isn't, we're not partisans in robes. We have different approaches to how you read a statute, how you interpret a regulation, how you read the Constitution. Yeah, there are differences of opinion about that. But no one on this court, no one on my courts is sitting there trying to win one for Trump or stick it to the Democrat. That's just, that's just not how judges think. And I, I just wish more people saw that. And so to that end, that's what I like to hear judges out there doing.

It says, you say, they're lifting the veil so people can see how this thing works, because it's really amazing. And I think people underestimate how important that is. I had this really interesting conversation a couple of years ago with a Polish law professor who was talking about. Now, Poland is a much more ancient country slash civilization. than ours, but its constitutional history is much more recent than ours. And so, you know, Poland, like many European countries, has been really wrestling with what it means to be governed by the rule of law versus strong man governance, et cetera. And law professors fanned out across the country and judges with law professors fanned out across

the country just to teach what the rule of law is, what is constitutional law. And it was remarkably effective at informing the public. And I've thought about that a lot because we have so much civic ignorance about just the very basics of what constitutional governance is. And, you know, I'm just raising this because I feel like people listen and they hear, well, that sounds like safe advocacy. That sounds like you're not really reaching out there. You're not really pushing yourself out there.

But it feels to me like more foundational advocacy. In other words, what are the rules under which we govern this republic? And I think listeners to advisory opinions would be surprised at the level of broader civic ignorance on those very basic points. Okay. We get to the breaking news portion of this advisory opinions episode. Judge Tatele has been known for having his dog Vixen by his side for many years now. but I am here with breaking news to tell you, Vixen has retired. Judge Tadle, please tell us all about this development and what you can share.

I was hoping you would ask me that question. I mean, you had a sign right on your desk in chambers that said, please ask me about my dog? Yes, and I still have that sign. It's right here. Yeah. So Dixon, my first guy dog was Vickson, a wonderful German Shepherd. she was with me for seven years. The last chapter in my book is called The Dog That Changed My Life, and that is not an overstatement. The guide dog human relationship is miraculous.

But, unfortunately, like humans, dogs retire. And Vickson has made it very clear in the past year that she's worked really hard and she don't want to do it anymore. And that's true of all guide dogs. And it took me a long time to accept that. But I did, and we've done the right thing. Vixen has retired. She's still in our family. She lives with our daughter, Stephanie, in Charlottesville.

And she has a wonderful home there, and she'll be visiting us regularly. And I have a new guide dog. She's been with me for three months. She's also a German Shepherd. She's a two-year-old German Shepherd named Zyra, X. Y-R-A-H, and she's just as magnificent as Vixen. I'm still learning to work with her. It's going to take a while.

But, you know, I know blind people who have had six or seven guide dogs in their lives. This is my first transition from an original dog to, it was very hard. She was an important part of my life. And I actually miss her every day. but I'm comforted by the fact that she's happy and still in our family and that I have a wonderful replacement for her. Well, welcome to the family, Zaira. We're thrilled to have you.

Thank you. Look forward to her chapter in your next book. There is not going to be a next book. You are looking at a one book author. Well, Judge Tadle, Judge Griffith. Thank you so much for joining us. And Zira, we know you're there too. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, boom. Enjoyed the conversation. Yeah. Well, David, I thought ending with the breaking news was pretty important. But that truly, like, I think that was a really interesting conversation. I was really interested what they said about sort of the role of former judges. But I was interested in the answer that you got on friendship being upstream or downstream of judicial collegiality.

I don't know, I don't know that it's upstream. I don't think you become friends with someone and then are collegial. I actually think if you try to be collegial with someone, you almost can't help but forming, not necessarily as you say, like a going to the movies friendship, but a mutual admiration society friendship. And, you know, I agree with that completely, that when you're trying to be kind to somebody, when you're trying to be considerate, when you attribute best motives to them and not worst motives and the absence of compelling evidence, friendships kind of can spring up pretty organically

with that mindset. And it struck me that so much of this is mindset, Sarah. So you go back and you, Judge Griffith very eloquently talked about humility. Well, I think of it like this. When you're talking about the extremely conservative or the extremely liberal or the passionate conservative or passionate liberal is the way I think you said it,

a lot of that passion is tied to certainty. And with certainty comes a lot of, of ferocity and with certainty comes a lot of lack of understanding because when you are certain when you are certain it is very difficult for you to see somebody else's dissenting or disagreeing opinion as being arrived at in good faith or with any sort of knowledge so you'll often ascribe when you're certain about something that somebody is disagreeing with you out of malice or ignorance or some combination of the two and a lot of i think growing up, and this is me reflecting on my own transition from a lot of certainty on a lot of

issues to learning more about it and being, oh, oh, there's this that I hadn't thought about and this that I hadn't thought about. I think a lot of our lives is about disrupting certainty. A lot of our, the growth of humility is about disrupting certainty. And so the certainty breeds ferocity, how do you deal with unjustified certainty? I think is one of our biggest issues, not just in law, but in politics as well. I had someone advise me and talked to me before I joined the Times, and they were saying, you know what? What you're going to find is like, readers are really open to a lot of descending points of view, you know, your median times reader, except in issue A, B, or C. And then you're going to run into this sort of

brick wall of this is what people, all right thinking people agree on. And that, those are the zones, those are the areas where that ferocity then rears its head. It's very hard to be ferocious when you're not sure you're right. And that's sort of the chicken or egg problem is the, how do you disrupt certainty in the face of ferocity when the entire point of ferocity is to destroy any sort of uncertainty. Well, David, having moved to, you know, a new city and put my kids in a new school, I am in adult friendmaking mode. And it is like a whole thing, right?

Like, it's a different way of being than when you're just hanging out with like your people. And I think overall it brings out kind of a better version of yourself, in some ways at least. You know, you're infinitely curious about other people. you're asking questions. You're thinking, what would make this person feel most welcome in my home? That, by the way, has no furniture. But that's all the more reason to have some lemonade available,

you know, things like this. Well, in some people, when they go into adult friend finder mode, they do it like a heat-seeking missile. Like, I'm looking for the people who completely agree with me. And which I think is a pretty sad way to do it, honestly, as opposed to I'm looking for people who are good and decent, people. But again, that goes to that certainty, ferocity. The good and decent people, are they the people agree with me? And that's, that's, honestly, I think one of the central problems in our culture right now is

an enormous number of people, certainly not everybody, certainly not a majority, not the so-called exhausted majority, but an enormous number of people center all of their friendships and relationships around that heat-seeking missile approach, looking for finding that person who's going to vibe with me politically, vibe with me culturally, five with me in every way that matters to me. And it's a very narrow approach. And it's an over time replicated by the millions, a very destructive approach. Well, I have set up five play dates. And I don't think I've talked about politics in any one of them. Excellent. Wow. Which is also, by the way, a pretty good thing to have to work on. Because, you know, with like my friends in D.C., like, yeah, politics comes

all the time. We may disagree about them, but like it's still sort of the topic of conversation in a company town like D.C. But to have to hold a two-hour conversation with someone and never get to talk about sort of politics and all of that, again, a muscle I am exercising. Well, Sarah, I've got a Houston question unrelated to friendship. Okay. Okay. So you've lived in Chicago at Northwestern. You're back at Houston. If push comes to shove, what do you prefer? 18 degrees or 108? Lull. This isn't even a close call, David.

Really? Oh, no. Seven days a week and twice on Sunday. I pick Houston, Texas, over Chicago, Illinois, purely on weather. But add in almost anything else, and I pick Houston too. Last night, we've been here for 10 days. Last night, we were sitting outside. And I was like, wow, this is like really lovely out here tonight.

I wonder what the temperature is. And I looked up the temperature. David, it was 88 degrees. And I was like, boy, any colder. And I think I'd need a sweater. No way. Yes. That is so funny.

I have evolved to the total opposite. I get, once it hits, for example, September 1, I'm like, I'm done. I'm over it. I am over the really hot temperatures. I am sick of it. and, you know, one thing that made me, one thing about Tennessee, and Tennessee is not Houston. Houston is its own deal compared to Nashville.

No question. Like, it'd be about like comparing Columbus, Ohio to Chicago. Not the same deal in temperature. But when we had, I think, 25 of 30 days in September were more than 90. And not just any 90, but that humid southern 90, I was thinking, I'm honestly more miserable than I am in February where it's really cold. I'm honestly, just more miserable. I haven't taken you to Typhoon, Texas.

A premier water park of Houston out in Katie, Texas. And I don't know, we did all the rides this weekend. And like there's one where you swoop, you like have a deep drop. and then it swoops up onto an enormous, I don't even know how to describe how enormous this Texas flag is, and the goal is to get your raft, you know, sort of high enough

with gravity to, and momentum, to hit the lone star. So come to Typhoon, Texas. You won't feel hot. Although they did dump, they did dump 2,000 pounds of ice into the wave pool at 2 o'clock.

And I was like, my back of the envelope calculation is that that will make no difference to the temperature of the water in the wave pool. So actually did some math, David. Do you want to know how much 2,000 pounds of ice lowered the temperature of that wave pool? I'm going to say less than a degree, but you tell me. One tenth of a degree. Okay. So is it just stabilizing the temperature for than anything else? Yeah. Or just is it like for the morale of the people? It's morale and you feel like you're sort of bobbing in some lemonade, you know?

And well, that makes it sound like everyone peed in the wave full. But, you know, like you're bobbing in some nice cold ice water. So, so listeners, you tell us 18 or 108, would you rather be watching a football game in 108 or 18? Oh, neither. I stay home in that. I'm not doing either of those. I'm 18, 100 days out of 100. You could offer me premier tickets to any sporting event.

in either of those temperatures, I will turn it down. I was in Soldier Field when the Bears beat the Packers, and I think it was about 18 degrees. And it was one of the best evenings. It was funny, but that was a bucket list thing. I wanted to nearly freeze to death in an NFL playoff game once in my life. And Chicago delivered on that night. All right, David.

Next on advisory opinions, we have Congressman Oshon Klaus joining us to talk about why Congress isn't doing its job. be an amazing episode. I cannot wait. Two and five Canadians will hear the words, you have cancer. That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research.

Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcf walk.ca.ca.