The Dispatch Podcast - Presidents vs. the Supreme Court

Episode Date: April 10, 2026

Steve Hayes is joined by Sarah Isgur, Michael Warren, and Kevin Williamson to discuss Sarah’s new book, Last Branch Standing; the history of partisan attacks on the Supreme Court; and the state of the two-week ceasefire with Iran. The Agenda:—Trump's attacks on the Supreme Court—Public perception of the court—Sarah's writing process—Ambiguity in the ceasefire—Strait of Hormuz tolls—NWYT: The Masters tournament menu Dispatch Recommendations—Schrödinger’s Ceasefire—Ossining, New York, in the ‘Unwoke’ 1950s—SCOTUStoday: Sotomayor criticizes Kavanaugh—A Peaceful Uneasy Feeling Order Sarah’s book here. The Dispatch Podcast 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

Uh, where are my gloves? Come on, heat. Any day now? Winter is hard, but your groceries don't have to be. This winter, stay warm. Tap the banner to order your groceries online at voila.ca. Enjoy in-store prices without leaving your home. You'll find the same regular prices online as in-store.

Many promotions are available both in-store and online, though some may vary. Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. I'm Steve Hayes. On today's roundtable, we'll discuss Sarah Isker's new book, Last Branch Standing, in the history of partisan attacks on the Supreme Court. We'll also discuss the Trump administration's fragile and unclear ceasefire with Iran, and finally, not worth your time. We're talking about the Masters Golf Tournament and the Champions Dinner menus. I'm joined today by my dispatch colleagues Kevin Williamson, Mike Warren, and of course, Sarah Isker. Let's dive in. Hey, everybody. We will be discussing the Supreme Court, as I mentioned, in Iran. But I want to start by noting the forthcoming publication date of Sarah's book. People probably don't know that you've written a book. I mean, I don't know, like, probably have no idea that you've written a book. But you have. Look, there are people who just woke up from comas. Like, they need to know to you.

It's a fair point. So I have, I have gotten my hands on an advanced copy of Sarah's book. I will acknowledge that I'm not yet finished with it, but I've started it. And I will just say at the top, this is a book very much, and I know that this is what you intended, for sort of deep scholars of the Supreme Court will get a lot out of it, but also people who don't know much about the Supreme Court will get a lot out of it. And I would say the book is called Last Branch Standing, a potentially surprising, occasionally witty journey inside today's Supreme Court. And the thing that I come away with just now a little bit into it is how much it's your voice. and you can't sort of... Escape it? You can't escape it was actually what I was going to say.

I figured that might not be the best way to characterize it. I mean, somebody trained that AI really well. It sounds like Sarah all the way through. I've trained all of like the, you know, Alexis and everything in Steve's house as well on my voice. Yeah, well, sometimes it feels that way. There are so many places I'd like, you know, highlight, oh, that's definitely Sarah, that's definitely Sarah.

But anyway, it's a very enjoyable read. and we will get to a brief discussion about the book and sort of what it took to put together. But I want to start sort of on the substance of the court. I mean, you know, if we were to look back as historians in 25 years at the second Donald Trump administration, I think one of the most obvious stories that we would discuss is this tension sort of the back and forth, the push and pull between the Supreme Court and Donald Trump as president. The Supreme Court and the executive, the legislative has basically disappeared. But it's been, I'd say, a main consideration of our politics of the moment.

And I want to start by looking at some of the attacks that Donald Trump has leveled at the court, at the justices himself. And we have some sound to kind of make that clear. The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing. And I'm ashamed of certain members of the court. Absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They're an automatic no, just like in Congress. They're an automatic no.

They're against anything that makes America strong, healthy, and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices. They're an automatic no, no matter how good a case you have. It's a no. but you can't knock their loyalty. It's one thing you can do with some of our people. Others think they're being politically correct, which has happened before far too often with certain members of this court,

and it's happened so often with this court. What a shame, having to do with voting in particular, when in fact they're just being fools and lap dogs for the rhinos and the radical left Democrats and not, that they should have anything at all to do with it. They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.

So justices who don't agree with Donald Trump are unpatriotic, disloyal to the Constitution, and he goes on to say maybe control their influence by foreign interests. Donald Trump does this somewhat regularly. Sarah, is there any precedent for these kinds of attacks on the court as an institution or on the justices as individuals? Yes and no. Obviously, Donald Trump does everything his own way. But historically, the court has always been in this tension with our sort of most powerful, expansive, famous presidents in history. You know, you go back to sort of the original creation of the Supreme Court. Like, yes, the Supreme Court was created when the Constitution. was ratified. But during the George Washington years, it literally didn't really do anything. You know, there's the, like, famous case where they say they won't do an advisory opinion. I guess not doing something was doing something in that case. But, you know, when it's George

Washington, there's not a whole lot that you're checking at that point. And so you're really in that 1803 Marbury versus Madison era, 1805, the impeachment of Samuel Chase, And if you go and study that, and I talk about it in the book, that's the creation of the Supreme Court, in my opinion. Because you have Jefferson constantly attacking the Supreme Court. Like, no, he's not holding a press conference and calling them disgraceful. But he thinks the Supreme Court is disloyal. He thinks they are a disgrace. He thinks they're all Adams dudes, federalists, and they are hurting the country, and that they are under a foreign influence.

That influence being Britain when Jefferson is a France. And, you know, America's in a very different place. We're not a world superpower. We're like quite the opposite. So we have to like pick a team of an actual superpower at that point. So everything that Donald Trump said, I don't doubt that Jefferson said privately. You know, you can give them one thing. They're loyal to their team and it's too bad. You know, they're disloyal to our team. And we need to get rid of them. And so Jefferson concox the impeachment of Samuel Chase for the purpose of then removing him from the Supreme Court. Then he was going to remove Chief Justice. John Marshall and make the Supreme Court bend to his will and reflect his partisanship, which would have put us on a path to do that for every president. Instead, of course, Jefferson's own party, own members of his party in the Senate, even though he has the votes by his party, rejects his efforts. That is the moment that the current Supreme Court is created in 1805. Okay, so John Marshall is the Chief Justice. He has a outlast so many presidents, right? That's the other beautiful thing about the Supreme Court is that we've had

17 chief justices and, you know, nearly 50 presidents. Institutions are built by the guys who just stay there a really long time. So after Marshall survives Jefferson, now he's got Jackson to contend with, another president who really threatened the court, this time, not by trying to impeach them or replace them or say they were disloyal or disgraceful. Jackson's going to try a new strategy of ignoring their decisions. The famous, like, John Marshall made his decision, let him enforce it. Probably, he never said that. But he did say, John Marshall's decision has come stillborn, meaning, like, good luck with that, everyone. And that leads to the trail of tears. So my argument, I guess, is the Supreme Court is actually made by being in tension with really powerful popular

presidents. And when they survive that, withstand that, it builds up the court over time. And that's how we get this Supreme Court is by having FDRs and Lincoln's through the years. Nixon is another challenge. Wouldn't the distinction be that the sort of back and forth in the disagreements that you describe in those early years of the court were largely focused on ideas and conceptions of the proper distribution of power, the proper role of the court, and much less focused on these people are not loyal to me. this person, Donald Trump. Is that a fair distinction or no?

No, not for Jefferson. For Jackson, maybe. But with Jefferson, you know, Adams has the Midnight Judges Act, where he creates a whole new line of judges, what we would sort of think of as the circuit judges these days so that the Supreme Court justices don't have to ride circuit. He fills them, of course, all with his party. This is what's going to lead to Marbury versus Madison. Jefferson comes in. This isn't a policy difference. This is a partisan difference. He uncreates all of those judgeships, fires all those judges. He doesn't have distinct policy differences with all of those judges. They're federalists. He doesn't want them to exist. He wipes them out. And even though this case isn't very famous, the Supreme Court upholds him getting rid of all these

judgeships, even though the Constitution says life tenure and all of that. What about Trump singling out in the clip that we just played, who he calls the Democrats, to pick up on your point about partisanship, and said they vote in lockstep, they always oppose him. That's not accurate. Is it? No, it's not accurate at all. We had a record number of seven two cases last term where Kagan splits from Sotomayor and Jackson. It depends, you know, if you count Trump versus conservative, of course.

But just recently, we had the Childs v. Salazar case on conversion therapy, talk therapy, that did not seek to affirm someone's gender identity. that was an 8-1 decision. I think my favorite day is last term, these were considered big cases at the beginning of the term, and then we mind-wiped them. But there was a case on gun manufacture liability, religious liberty for religious organizations in Wisconsin

that didn't proselytize. They weren't eligible for a tax break if you weren't a proselytizing religion, which is sort of amazing. And reverse discrimination if you were straight and argued that you had been fired by a manager who was gay. All three of those cases were unanimous. All three of them were written by a liberal justice. And because of that, because they didn't fit the ideological narrative, we just mind-wiped them entirely.

The liberal justices do not vote in lockstep together at all. I, you know, the stats are all in the book. But what's, I think, more remarkable in what Trump, of course, doesn't want to hit on is what would not be remarkable is that the liberal justices think a president has exceeded. his constitutional bounds. What's remarkable is that the conservative justices did over and over in the Alien Enemies Act case, in the Nationalizing the Federal Guard, in the tariffs case, and of course, what I think we'll see in the birthright citizenship case. So like, it's pretty hard to blame the liberals when the conservatives agree, just like it's pretty hard to blame the conservatives when the liberals agree, which is the beauty of the Supreme Court that they only take the hardest 60 cases that have split the lower judges around the country,

and close to half the time, they decide them unanimously. Yeah, Kevin, a cynic might say that Donald Trump is just expressing in more crude terms, more regularly, more aggressively, the basic views of most presidents regarding the court and justices. I mean, if you look back over the past three presidents, Trump supporters point to Joe Biden's willingness to shrug off court decisions, Barack Obama,

and others, is Trump, really sort of as out of the mainstream as he appears when we listen to something like that kind of unhinged attack on the court and the justices, which obviously seeks to impeach the credibility of the justices themselves and the institution by suggesting that they're on the take? Yeah, I think that Trump's criticisms are different from Jefferson's in that Jefferson's were generally delivered in English and Trump speaks whatever weird Umpa Lumpa language he's doing in that press conference there. He's just kind of hard to follow, I think.

I think that Trump actually really is in the mainstream in this sense that most people, including a lot of people who should know better, don't give a damn about the law or the Constitution. What they want is policy outcomes from the Supreme Court. So it was a big piece. I think it was in the Washington Post on Thursday morning about how the current court is hostile, allegedly, towards civil rights and civil rights cases.

and the entire discussion was about the policy outcomes. You know, they decided against what trans people wanted in this case, and they decided against what gay rights group wanted in this case. And there was essentially no discussion in the entire thing, and it was probably a 4,000-word story about any of the underlying legal points. And this is something that occasionally comes up in the Supreme Court. I mentioned the Senate piece the other day.

There will genuinely seem to perplex people, like the recent conversion therapy case. It was 8 to 1. and all these, you know, nice liberals rule. How could Kagan and Sotomayor be against us on this case when it's these, you know, horrible, homophobic, weirdo Christians in Colorado trying to talk gay kids out of being gay? And because the answer to the question, of course,

it's a legal question and not a policy question. They may think it's a bad policy. They may think that it's a bad undertaking, but that's not to say that the First Amendment doesn't cover people's right to do this sort of thing. You saw a similar thing years ago with Scalia and flag burning, where people would talk about how surprised they were about, well, how is Scalia on the side of these flag burners?

Well, it's not that Scalia was on the side of the flag burners, but the First Amendment certainly was, and Scalia kind of tried to follow that stuff most of the time. And, you know, I've come around a little bit on my views of the Supreme Court a little bit. I used to be a lot more hostile to them, and I can thank Sarah for some of this, but also just the Supreme Court by the number stuff that we have in Skodis blog, when you see how many of the cases actually are unanimously decided

or how many of the cases do not actually break down along the sort of expected ideological lines, how mixed people are, that, you know, Kagan is in the majority of 70% of decisions that aren't unanimous and 80% overall. So I think the expectation that they're going to be a policymaking body that just follows partisan preferences is being frustrated if you actually look at their outcomes, but that's not what people are looking for. And I think the sort of average idiot voter, the average lawyer, and certainly the average idiot American president, looks at these things and says, you know, why didn't they decide for me without even giving any consideration at all

to the underlying legal arguments. Yeah, I would say one difference between what we've seen from Trump and what we've seen from his predecessors, you know, Obama, Biden, but going back to the sort of Jefferson area that you're talking about, Sarah, is that his arguments are heard by a lot more people, right? I mean, Donald Trump says this. They hit, and you sort of can't escape them. I mean, all the arguments that you laid out, Sarah, that Thomas Jefferson was making were known to a small group of people.

Maybe people who were news consumers and stayed up on sort of, or were civically engaged, these arguments, blunt and crude as they are, are reaching a lot more people. Wait, I want to push back on that idea really quickly because I agree, except that back then Jefferson, by a percentage, was probably reaching way more voters. Well, and there's also, I think, something that has to be kept in mind was that in Jefferson's time, people were getting their news generally from a, mostly from a partisan press, and these newspapers had something close to monopolies in a lot of places. Now, I mean, Trump can say what he's going to say, but people have lots of choices about what we're going to

where they get their news and feedback. If you lived in Sherman, Texas, and this is after Jefferson's time, obviously, because there was no Texas back then. And you got the Sherman Democrat newspaper, you got a newspaper that was going to have Democratic views on things, and there wasn't a Sherman Republican newspaper down the street. I agree with that.

Obviously, that's accurate descriptively. But I would say that in today's media environment, people are choosing partisan outlets rather than having to consume them because of what's available. Yes, they have sought out ignorance rather than having ignorance thrust upon. Yes, this is increasingly a problem. Sarah, go ahead and make that argument. I mean, I think it's maybe true that Jefferson was reaching more voters because they were more concentrated, but there's no question, I think, that Trump, in the media environment that we live in right now is reaching more people. And I think, I would argue, has the ability to shape opinions and perceptions about the court in a way that Jefferson couldn't back 200 plus years ago. I don't know if I agree with that. My only point was on the franchise expanding so much that with a much more limited. franchise, they were reading the newspapers that Kevin's talking about. And so Jefferson, I think,

had a lot of sway near complete control over his party. And, you know, Donald Trump is, we have a much bigger country with a lot more people. The franchise is near universal. And so just as a percentage, he's never going to reach a higher percentage than Jefferson reached. I think the threat to the court, you know, in FDR's time when he's talking about packing the court, if they don't decide the case the way that he wants from now on, was more existential than anything we're seeing from Donald Trump yet. Yet, that's an ominous yet. Mike, let me go to you quickly, though,

the question of public perception of the court, I don't think there's any doubt that what Trump has done, the consistency of his attacks has contributed to a decline in the esteem in which the court has been held. How much does that matter? Well, I don't think we should. should discount the way that the people's view of the court has, I think, been on the decline even before Trump.

For sure. Really, I mean, Sarah could probably, has her favorite, you know, starting point, origin point for where we are at this moment, but you could start it at Bork. You could start it somewhere else. But this essentially, this idea that it is a partisan tug of war. And is our side, do we have the most muscle right now and how are we going to do it? Are we going to really take advantage of that? I do think it matters in lots of different ways.

It matters on a sort of a campaign perspective because the court has become, depending on who's in power, and right now I think because conservatives are correctly perceived as having the majority and the power on the court, it's an issue in campaigns for democratic politicians, liberals, are interested in this, and they want to hear Democratic politicians talk about expanding the court or other kinds of ways.

of limiting the court's power or shifting the power of the court toward their preferred policy preference. I think Trump is, in many ways, voicing something that conservatives and Republican voters have been hearing on talk radio for 20 years prior. You know,

all you have to do is sort of go back to, say, like the Rush Limbaugh transcripts from the 1990s to hear complaining about David Souter, who was a Republican appointee to the court, but sided with the more liberal justices over his tenure. and a sort of degraded and less accurate version of those complaints

are what you hear today about, say, Justice Amy Coney-Barrant from Donald Trump himself. So the difference is, I think it's less accurate, and it does have a bigger megaphone for as much as people, you know, say talk radio was a huge influence. I think the president adds a lot of heft to any argument because he is the president and his partisans do listen to what he says. And so it's louder, it's cruder, it's less accurate and more personalized than it was, say, 30 years ago. So I think it matters in the way it continues to degrade our trust and institutions.

But one thing I'm interested in in Sarah's book and also sort of Sarah's sort of thesis about this, because I think it's really interesting perspective, you know, to point out that the conflict makes the court stronger, makes the institution stronger. I'm curious about historical precedent or any knowledge that we have about the way the individual people on the court now and in the past were affected by these kind of presidential incursions or the ways that presidents sort of get involved in arguing and going after the court itself or justices in particular because we forget sometimes that they are human beings and they are not legal and judicial robots and they have reactions and feelings. And that's something I would be interested in sort of knowing a little more about not just how it's affecting the public's perception, but even the court members themselves, their perception of their power, their position, what they need to do, what they ought to be doing in response to these kind of presidential whining and gnashing of teeth. So I feel like Trump's attacks, like these attacks from past presidents, have this double-edged sword. Like you guys are saying, on the one hand, it gives voice to this frustration on the right about outcomes. And that hurts the court's legitimacy and credibility over time, perhaps. You know, it certainly hurts their approval numbers.

At the same time, the president is actually describing how independent the court is from partisan politics. And that builds the court's legitimacy and credibility over time. And, you know, you look at the approval numbers right now, and they do follow very partisan lines. You know, Democrat approval of the court went down. Now Republican approval of the court is going down. And so you have to look at those cross tabs to actually see the real story of the Supreme Court's approval numbers. Mike, to your point on the individuals, I think you're exactly right. They're humans too. Breaking news.

And by the way, during FDR's time when he's attacking them, they hate each other and they're all miserable. This is the book, The Scorpions by Noah Feldman. You have the three musketeers who are pro FDR and the four horsemen of the apocalypse, who are the anti-FDR guys, like the media, to Kevin's point, was not biased at all about that. But I think that all of the justices today, like truce serum, polygraph, whatever you want, truly believe themselves to be independent, believe that it is an independent branch of government, do not see themselves as partisans. They are the good guys in their own stories. So you can disagree with their outcome on any given case or criticize it as inconsistent or hypocritical.

They do not believe that. They can tell you why they are being consistent. And so when Trump attacks them, I think it actually does bond them closer together and make them sit up a little straighter because, see, we are independent. He is validating my view of myself, the more he attacks me. I think they are concerned about threats, fears for their children, stuff like that. I'd say the biggest thing that Donald Trump has accomplished with these attacks has been to make it less likely that we get normal people. raising their hand to do this job in the future. Because between the confirmation hearing, the assassination attempts, and then this attention and increased threats to your family and sort of lack of ability to live a normal life, the secret recordings, I mean, you name it. Like, if you're a normal, highly successful lawyer, the type that would generally be in line for these types of jobs, you're looking at that and saying, you know, I think I'll take the money. Like, I just, I'm not sure that I can do this to my family. And I've talked to shortlisters who are

already on the circuit courts, meaning they've already sort of made that choice to serve and go into public service. And even the idea of putting themselves up for the promotion to the Supreme Court, for those that have young children, they question whether they would be a bad parent if they did that to their children. That's the effect of Donald Trump's attacks is the types of people who are going to raise their hand in the future. For the longest time, it wasn't sort of like that. There's this famous thing about how four years or eight years in the presidency ages someone 20 years, Like Supreme Court justice is tend to do kind of okay over time. It's a good life, yeah.

You know, Taff lost like 70 pounds. He came out of the Supreme Court just looking, you know, looking probably the best he had his adult life. He was taking these long walks, very healthy. Yeah. Good life. Not no more. Speaking of the personal implications of work,

Sarah, this is your first book. Writing a book is not easy. I've written two. My last one was 20 years ago. There's a reason that my last one was 20 years ago. I have questions. What was the most difficult aspect of writing this book for you on a personal level? And what did you learn about yourself as you went through the process?

We're putting you on the couch. I know. I think those are kind of the same answer because I thought all you guys were crazy because I loved writing the book. Like researching it, learning new things, interviewing clerks and judges and like collecting all my information. And even the writing it part, I was surprised that I had. a really good time with, like, you know, giggling to myself and like, oh, my gosh, can you believe this? And I need this in a footnote. The John Jay getting hit with a brick in the head during the anatomy riots, which is why he doesn't finish writing the Federalist Papers with Hamilton and

Madison. I was like, whoa, how cool is that? And it really felt like there were, you know, so many moments where things would sort of fall into my lap that were perfect for what I was writing right then. And so I was like, you guys, this is so, it's fun. You know, it's hard in the good way, in the way that makes you feel good at the end of the day. So, like, all you people complaining about writing books are out of your mind. Then I finished the draft, and everything from that point forward was incredibly hard. So I wrote, like, 165,000 words. And my publisher was like, we told you 80,000.

We will accept a maximum of 100,000. And I was like, oh. And they're like, and you have five days. to get it from 165,000 to 100,000. That was miserable and, like, incredibly long hours. And, like, reading your own stuff sucks. So just to clarify that for our listeners, your superiors in this case gave you a specific instruction

and you just ignored it. Totally. Okay. Just wanted to understand that. Totally good. Things are falling into place. How that worked. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, not surprisingly, like the learning part, the writing, you know, funny little sarcastic quips, like that part I loved. And all the rest of it felt like it is like having a child, but you have to start from the very beginning, right? The pregnancy, you know, at the very beginning, you maybe are like, oh, this is hard. Like I need to like get over the writer's block or whatever. Like eventually it's like actually pretty easy. It's pretty fun. You're wearing cute maternity clothes. And you're like, I hope. hope this never ends. And then, like, you start having contractions and you're like, oh, this is not fun. This is not what I wanted to do. And I would say that, like, here we are, you know, but days, you know, hours from the book coming out. And it definitely feels like, you know, the head is crowning. Wow. Kevin, did you enjoy the cute maternity clothes moments of your books? Yes. As Tara was saying, the best part about a book is, like, like the best part about, you know, having kids, which is the very beginning part when you get paid.

You know, the advance is good. Guys, come on. I knew from before we started recording that this was going to go off the rails at some point. It's going to go off the rails. Wow. So I've been trying to finish a book of any sort. I've got like three kind of in the works for like two years now, and I'm finding it really hard to get anything done. And I'm kind of wondering how Sarah pulled that off while, you know, having a regular job.

And the kids and all that, I'm finding it really quite difficult myself. But I was actually a slightly more serious question, though. Well, two things. One is, did you have an editor who actually knew the material? Like, did you have an editor who was someone who kind of knew the history of the court of the legal stuff? Or you had someone who's just editing you on kind of purely, is just a good book grounds? Yeah, the latter. And did you find that better?

Or would you have preferred it the other way? I found it better, although shout out to David Latt and Zach Shemtob, who were sort of my subject matter experts. You know, my husband, Scott, Supreme Court clerk, did some, you know, fact-checking for me. So, like, it takes a village to raise a book. Yes, it does. I had a lot of people sort of helping me with little fact-oids. I think I talked to a clerk from every justice's chambers at one point for the book or another, again, to, like, fact-check, make sure I'm getting some things right. I needed, you know, I knew that portraits of Marbury and Madison hang in the dining room that the justices eat in after each of the oral arguments. But like, you know, I was like,

are they on opposite sides of the wall or are they sitting together Marbury and Madison facing the justices, stuff like that? So like, it's amazing, like, even if you've clerked at the court or something, people are like, I don't remember that. Like, I, you know, because they don't care about the things that I care about. So, like, stuff like that took a weirdly long amount of time. And by the way, I thought, obviously, they should sit across from each other, like on walls facing each other Marbury and Madison, but they don't. They're next to each other. Also, a word of advice for you on the publicity step. You probably already have an idea of this because you've done a lot of communications work, but think really carefully when your publisher

asked you to write sample questions for interviewers. Because... I just was doing this last night. At like one in the morning, Kevin. In 90% of the cases, the interview will consist of them asking you the questions that you sent to them, in the words you sent them, in the order you sent them. And because you, you're you, you're You know, I've written a lot of these books that, you know, get you on conservative talk radio a lot. And so I would do, you know, I'd do 20 radio interviews in a day or something like that. And having exactly the same questions. Literally.

And I've never been so sick of the sound of my own voice. So people listening to this podcast probably sympathize with that. But yeah, I put some thought into that because they're going to be in your face for a while. They're not all going to read every word of my book and be curious about things. But that, like, isn't that the most basic question? The one guy will. And he will ask you about stuff. you've forgotten about your book already by this point. No, it'll be great. And you know, I mean,

it was interesting. It never occurred to me that people wouldn't have read the book when they're going to interview me about the book in a public setting. Like, how do you do that? But I'll just echo Kevin's point. And you know very quickly that people who did read your book and took time. I would say, like, credit to Hugh Hewitt, always read the book. He asked really good questions. I've certainly had my differences with him since then. But I was texting with him last night. Yeah. Their interviews were great. And the other people, people. You just can't even imagine that they're literally asking you the questions that you have prepared for yourself. And some people who review the book will not have read it as well.

Read it. I haven't even reviewed it. That's probably true, too. All right. We're going to take a quick break, but we'll be back soon with more from the dispatch podcast. This episode is brought to you by FedEx. These days, the power move isn't having a big metallic credit card to drop on the check at a corporate launch. The real power move is leveling up your business with FedEx intelligence and accessing one of the biggest data networks powered by one of the biggest delivery networks. Level up your business with FedEx, the new power move. When Westcham first took flight in 1996, the vibes were a bit different.

People thought denim on denim was peak fashion, inline skates were everywhere, and two out of three women rocked, the Rachel. While those things stayed in the 90s, one thing that hasn't is that fuzzy feeling you get when WestJet welcomes you on board. Here's to WestJetting since 96. Travel back in time with us and actually travel with us at westjet.com slash 30 years. After 19 years, they're back. Frankie Muniz, Brian Cranston, and the rest of the family reunite in Malcolm in the middle, life's still unfair. After 10 years avoiding them how and lowest demand Malcolm be at their anniversary party, pulling him straight back into their chaos. Malcolm in the middle, life's still unfair. A special four-part event. Stream now on Hulu

on Disney Plus. We're back. You're listening to the Dispatch podcast. Let's jump in. We need to spend a few minutes on a run. There have been some arguably significant changes to the trajectory of things over the past several weeks that took place this week, but maybe not actually significant changes. And I think that's one of the things that we should try to help people understand. And I've been away. I was overseas in Ireland and in Spain. I kept up with the news, but I wasn't consumed with the news as I am on a professional basis when I'm here paying attention. So I will use you to help bring me up to speed and understand what we've seen. Mike, let me start with you on this ceasefire of two days ago that came after Donald Trump basically threatened to end

Iranian Persian civilization, arguably threatening war crimes. That's not arguably threatening war crimes. That's not arguably threatening war crimes. And then at the last minute came this ceasefire. There have been many different statements from the participants, from the parties about the ceasefire, about what it means, about what it includes. It seems pretty clear that there was a lot of ambiguity in the language of the ceasefire and in the negotiations that led to the ceasefire, which is something that people have done this before would know not to do, but it has led to two days of information chaos about the ceasefire and in many ways continued fighting, except mostly from Americans. So, Mike, what's your understanding now of what the ceasefire was and where we are today?

I think you cannot think about the ceasefire itself on Tuesday night without including the threat that you mentioned at the beginning of your spiel just now, Steve, which is that threat from Donald Trump to wipe out Iranian civilization, which we all woke up to on Tuesday morning, and basically those of us following this, but I think also just a lot of the world was sort of on pins and needles waiting to find out what that meant. Is this a real threat? Is this a credible threat? What does it mean? What is he prepared to do? And what kind of off-ramps,

is everybody going to take? So when that announcement came on Tuesday night from the Pakistani government that they had brokered a ceasefire deal, I mean, I think there was a lot of relief that it seemed that the president was not going to fulfill this threat. Again, whatever that was actually going to look like, and that there seemed to be some kind of agreement to stop fighting. And, you know, I have to wonder how tied together those two things really were from the president's perspective, you know, sort of create a crisis out of kind of nothing, out of his own words, in order to get some kind of agreement or some kind of deal that sort of heads off the crisis that he created. That's like straight from the Trump toolbox.

He loves to sort of deploy that. We've never really quite seen it in terms of, you know, international relations. and civilizational war and fighting and potential destruction of that civilization. So what you're looking for there is genocide. Yes, genocide is another word that would be a correct way of describing that threat. So the agreement to stop the fighting happens.

But then as you say, Steve, nobody can agree on what the agreement is or whether it even exists. It's like a phantom agreement. And it seems to have been bought into on the margins, maybe not so, but bought into by both the Americans and the Iranians.

The fighting stopped, except for some missile launches from Iran on some Gulf State allies of the U.S. Which is a pretty big, it's a pretty big asterisk, right? If you ask the people in Dubai... 100%. But the sort of lie that there is a ceasefire

is kind of limping along here, and it is now turning into, you know, negotiations are ongoing. The vice president is going. to Pakistan to engage more in negotiations. And I think there's, in the way that the president set things up on Tuesday, there is a benefit to both the Iranians and the Americans sort of engaging in the lie that there's some kind of agreement, even as they disagree about what is in that agreement.

The Iranians basically have a maximalist approach to what they say. There was like a 10-point plan, and it was all these long-term goals of the Iranian regime in that. The American said that's not what the agreement is or ever was. There was this whole question about whether there had been an agreement for Israel to stop bombing Hezbollah sites in Lebanon. The American said that was never in the deal. The Iranian says it was. Hezbollah, of course, is a proxy for the IRGC. And so nobody can agree on what the agreement is, or I suspect, is there really actually some kind of substantive agreement? I don't think so, but everybody has sort of agreed to stop the big, you know, fighting on the American side, certainly,

and try to approach some kind of peace deal. And I think that's to the benefit of the Iranians. Like, they now have the ability to sort of drag out this idea of a peace deal and maybe extract as much as they can from this. And the Americans, I think, and Donald Trump are in a position where they're really seeking some kind of end to this. But in terms of clarity about what the ceasefire really is about and what a ceasefire really is about and what peace deal could be, we don't have any of that kind of clarity at now. Yeah, Sarah, the one thing that we heard from Trump supporters and proponents of this alleged ceasefire was that it would result in the opening of the Strait of Armuz.

That has most decidedly not happened. Where does that stand? Well, we don't, I mean, to Mike's point, in law, we talk about contracts being a meeting of the minds. You know, if you have a contract and you both sign it, if you don't agree on what those words mean, you know, if you thought literally meant literally and the other person thought literally meant figuratively, you didn't have a meeting of the minds, even though you both signed the contract. I mean, here we don't even have a written agreement, but we definitely don't have

a meeting of the minds when it comes to the straits, at least as best as we can tell where we're sitting right now. If you talk to people who have worked in the Department of Defense in these sort of long-term planning policy-type roles, everyone has always seen Iran as a threat. You know, they will point to, like, what we should have done in the 80s. We basically let the roots of the Iranian regime take hold at a time where maybe we could have done something in the early 80s. We had some other things going on than if anyone remembers, and we didn't do that. Now the roots are quite deep. And the options have just never been very good. But any of those people would tell you, like, of course, we'd love to attack the Iranian regime. We'd love regime collapse.

We'd love regime change. The problem is the first thing that they will do is shut the Straits of Hormuz. This just wasn't like an unthinkable thing. It was the obvious thing that would happen. And so I think for those sort of DOD veterans and military planning folks, they're just sort of scratching their heads, they're confused about what appears to be the administration's confusion or lack of foresight that that would happen. That being said, the other thing that I've heard, you know, just really universally is, which might surprise you, like, they're really rooting for America to succeed. Like, there were always talks of attacking the Iranian regime, and past presidents didn't take that step. And so now it's like, well, we're in it. There were always plans to potentially

do this. It was always sort of a close call. like, let's do this, let's see this through. But you have to understand this mirroring problem where the Iranian regime does not think like we do. They don't have the goals that we do. They don't react to the incentives that we do. And so when it comes to something, for instance, like the Straits or anything else,

like they're not going to act rationally as we define rationality because they're on a very different project than the American project has been for the last 250 years. and their project has been 50 years. They are willing to kill 200,000 of their own people toward that project.

Of course they're willing to shut the straits of Hormuz and have the economic consequences of that. And by the way, they see it mostly helping Putin, who, you know, like this all has these second and third order of facts that at this point, I won't say it goes to their benefit in every case because obviously what America has been able to do just from the air is no joke. Like we shouldn't ignore what has been accomplished.

That being said, again, when you look at it from their perspective, the survival of the regime is number one, always number one. Everything else is secondary to that. And the purpose of the regime, which is an Islamic caliphate state between this Sunni-Shiya war that has been going on, that America is only a part of that war to them. we are not sort of a separate thing. Yeah, Kevin, I want to ask you about something that Secretary of Defense Pete Hengseth said at his briefing on Wednesday morning.

Was it really I can drive? No, it wasn't that, but we do have the clip. Listen, I would love to see the Iranian people take advantage of this opportunity. They have been oppressed by the previous regime and they'll have a new opportunity. But this regime that remains to be seen. That was not our objective in this effort, but they're brave people. Horrible things have been done to them by the previous regime, tens of thousand targeted and killed and assassinated in a way they government never should.

And we wish them the best, absolutely. Thank you all very much. Kevin, he said, quote, they will have an opportunity with this regime, end quote, contrasting this regime with what he described as the previous regime. what is he talking about? God knows. Does he? What's the opportunity and what's the regime?

Well, I think this goes back to the mistake that Trump administration seems to have made them thinking of this as essentially the Venezuela thing replayed out. They go in, they do this decapitation. They're going to get a whole bunch of different people and they can call that a victory without understanding what they've done is they just cleared out of a bunch of elderly Ayatollahs

and replaced them with younger versions of the same thing. I think what we're seeing here is that the Iranians have an advantage in the sense that they understand the American administration better than the Americans understand them. So when Trump is out there talking about, you know, open the F and straits and escalating from I'm going to commit war crimes to I'm going to commit genocide over the course of a weekend, the Iranians don't hear that and think that he's going to nuke them. They hear that and they run it through their Trump-Dakotor ring. and what they hear is, oh my God, I didn't think they were going to close to Strait of Hormuz. I'm really scared about this, and I don't know what to do. And so they put out this wonderful Van Halen tour writer of a peace deal. You know, you're going to take all your troops out of the Middle East.

You're going to pay us reparations. You're going to give us a sniffter full of M&Ms with all the brown ones removed. And they send that over to the Trump administration. And the Trump administration does exactly what you expect them to do in a situation like this, which is pretend like they got what they wanted, which was some sort of reasonable proposal from the Iranians. and then follow essentially what the Pakistani-Chinese proposal is, which is a ceasefire that's just a ceasefire while we try to figure stuff out.

So let's take a couple of weeks, hope we can get some ships through the straight, and then begin negotiations with nobody basically having any real commitments anywhere, which is not an uncomfortable place for the Trump administration to be, I think. I think that the Trump administration and the Iranians, in this case, both want the same things, which is a temporary cessation in combat, or at least a reduction of it to get it out of the headlines a little bit here and to give the Iranians a little bit of a break at home

while they start to try to figure out other stuff, which is how we're going to go about leaving the Iranians in control of the strait and leaving the regime in place while pretending that we didn't. Because that's where this thing is going and that's how we're going to settle this thing out. So Hegsteth and people are out there talking about

like the new Iranian leadership as though it were some kind of radical change in regime as though there were some sort of new, like they had an election or something or there was a constitutional convention somewhere rather than just its, you know, the chain of command has gone down a few links and now it is where it is.

But that's what we're seem to be pointing toward is pretending as a matter of policy that some kind of big change has been affected there. I've heard sort of the, how to say, lower information types talking about, well, this is great because now the Strait of Hormuz will be open. When was the last time that was the case? Well, like three weeks ago, actually.

So the whole problem that now has to be solved is a problem that wasn't really much of a problem until the war was started. The strait was open and functioning, was vulnerable, of course, and subject to Iranian whimsy. But now we're probably going to see a situation in which Iranian control over the strait

has been tightened, and that they're going to be, you know, essentially charging a toll. They've been throwing around the number of a dollar per barrel of oil or something like that. So you figure, you know, $2 million for every good-sized shift

that goes through, creating a new revenue stream for them to rebuild their missiles and weapons programs and rearm and do all the rest of that stuff. this is just another version, I think, of the Trump administration, not understanding that there's no question that the American military can always accomplish its military goals. In terms of conventional warfare, there's not an army anywhere in the world that can stand against the U.S. military, not even the Chinese, not even big countries like that. There's never any question that we're going to be able to kill the people we want to kill and destroy the property we want to destroy.

What we're looking for in Iran isn't a military outcome, but a political outcome. Political outcomes take negotiation and intelligence and creativity and knowledge and work. of the sort that the Trump administration doesn't do, never has done, is never going to do. So, again, they're thinking that the military victory is a goal in and of itself when it's just a means to something that they're not going to get to because they don't know where they want to get.

And can I say to the point of the misunderstanding or the mismatch of understanding of who is going to be across the negotiating table from them? I mean, the way in which Trump administration has a very personalized view of how they negotiate in general, And that goes, you know, from negotiating with Congress to negotiating on the international stage is that, you know, you get the right people together in the room and you just cut the deal. That is, I think, how Trump views things. And that is, I think, what you can see in those Heggseth remarks when he talks about the regime being different than the last one.

They view the regime as being the people who are in the room and not, say, the ideology, the very deep seated, as Sarah pointed out, you know, the roots go deep. on this particular regime, which it is the same regime that has been in power since 1979 in Iran. That misunderstanding of how the Iranians are going to be approaching these negotiations, that they are interested primarily in civilizational survival and regime survival, and that they're not going to be whined and d. Vance or anyone else and sort of giving away what they think is existential for them. And that mismatch is just really apparent in what Hegset said and I think in the approach here to the ceasefire agreement and whatever peace negotiations are going to be happening from here on now. So, Steve, before we finish out in Iran, I just, to go back to our previous conversation about what a sociopath writing a book makes you, it's really important that the day your book comes out, the week your book comes out, that there's no sort of other really big news.

that knocks your interviews to get canceled. And so here's what a sociopath, this book has made me, as you ask about the process of book writing and what I've learned about myself. When this ceasefire was announced, my first thought was, that's super helpful for me. Yes, sociopath. Indeed, I think there's a philosophical debate

to be had about whether it makes you a psychopath or just reveals that you're a psychopath. Excellent point. I think my wife probably would say it revealed that I was a psychopath, but that was hiding inside me all in a while. Should we take a vote? Let's not. Thank you very much. No, Kevin.

No, you will not get to vote on that. Before we take an ad break, please consider becoming a member of the dispatch. You'll unlock access to bonus podcast episodes and all of our exclusive newsletters and articles. You can sign up at the dispatch.com slash join. if you use the promo code Roundtable, you'll get one month free. And speaking of ads, if they aren't your thing, you could upgrade to a premium membership. No ads, early access to all episodes, two free gift memberships to give away, exclusive town halls with the founders, and much, much more.

Also, from March 31st through April 14th, readers who purchased Last Branch Standing and submit their order number as proof of purchase will receive 25% off a dispatch annual or premium membership. Current dispatch members will receive one additional month added to their current membership. Simply email members at the dispatch.com with your confirmation number and will extend your membership. Okay, we'll be right back. Welcome back. Let's return to our discussion. We have a delicious not worth your time coming in a moment, but I do want to take just a second to ask each of you. If you have something that we published at the dispatch that you would recommend, I will start with mind since it is what we were just talking about. Nick's terrific newsletter published Wednesday evening

Schrodinger's ceasefire goes through sort of point by point what this means the kind of chaos, the information chaos that this represents the lack of clarity from the administration. It is really a sharp analysis of what we've just been through with the ceasefire. So I highly recommend everybody go give that a read. We will put that and these other recommendations in the show notes. As always. Kevin. Well, that was going to be my choice too, but my second choice is the piece on Austining, New York in the 1950s from the Where I'm From series. That was terrific. Was that Thomas Dichter? Yes. Talking about going to high school in Austining in the supposedly more innocent and carefree days in the 1950s and what was really like. I thought it was a really

interesting and worthwhile piece of reading. So go check it out. Yeah, fantastic. I will say I really like this. I was probably a little bit skeptical of this where I'm from series. I liked it, but you know, you always worry that it could be self-indulgent or might not work. We've had some great pieces in that collection. We're going to get about 15,000 words on Lubbock, Texas, so I hope you're ready for that one. Well, I'm even motivated to write about Wawitoosa, Wisconsin at some point. I don't find that hard to believe. I need to get going. Fair. Sarah, recommendation. Scotus Today, the Scotus blog newsletter, but not for any high-minded reason. I just really liked, they have a quote at the bottom that always comes from oral argument, and this one was from

the famous 2014 Yates case about whether fish can be documents. It led to a well-known citation in Justice Kagan's opinion where she cites to one fish, two fish, redfish, blue fish. But I had not remembered this quote from the oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts. Well, what if you stopped them on the street and said, is a fish a record document or tangible object, the advocate. I think if you, if you asked them that question and you, you pointed them to the fact that Justice Scalia interrupts, I don't think you would get a polite answer to either of those questions. So check out SCADA today. There's always a fun quote at the end. It's like a little treat waiting for you in the center of the Tutsi roll pop. Sort of like not worth your time when we

talk about food. Mike, what's your recommendation? If you want a more informed and better articulated sort of version of what we were talking about with this Iran ceasefire. I can't recommend enough a peaceful uneasy feeling. The latest piece from our contributing writer Mike Nelson, give it a read for some really informed analysis of what this ceasefire really was, what it entails or what we don't know still, but what it means on the ground. Yeah, I second that recommendation. As well, finally, not worth your time today,

as most of our listeners know, Sarah has a very strict definition of not worth your time as something news adjacent or in the zeitgeist. I think she said at one point what the kids are talking about on social media. And I like those too, but I also like Not Worth Your Time that gives us a break from the news cycle and might give us all greater insights into the panelists as people outside of their roles as reporters and analysts in the news. Sarah in particular has strongly objected to my occasional inclusion of food as a topic, as we've discussed here before. So, of course, I want to end our discussion today with a not worth your time on food. We're recording this. It's about 10 o'clock on Thursday, April 9th, the Masters golf tournament teed off about two hours ago. And on Tuesday, the tournament held something called the Champions Dinner, hosted each year for all

previous master's champions by the winner of last year's master's tournament, who has the privilege of choosing the menu. And usually, sort of customarily, this includes foods that represent the home countries or hometowns of the champions. It says something about these champions, but this year's menu was chosen by last year's winner Rory McElroy of Ireland. And it's been the subject of a lot of buzz because McElroy didn't represent his native land in his choices and instead went very highbrow with his picks. And he was asked about, why didn't you represent Ireland? And I've got a quote here from Rory McElroy said, people keep asking me, why didn't you go more Irish? And I said, because I want to enjoy the dinner as well. I shot at Ireland and Irish food. And I think, look, there's some good

Irish food. I was just in Dublin for five days. We had some wonderful meals there, some great cottage pie. We got cottage pie the next meal, and we got cottage pie the next meal. We did have fish and chips. It's a very narrow menu. What can be considered good. You're able to get a good meal in Ireland. In Dublin, really. But I want to ask the panel here, McElroy had a great menu, and I will read some of this, but I want to ask the panel here, if you were next year's master's champion and had to come up with the menu, what would you offer as your menu representative of you or memories or where you're from? So here's a few things that McElroy included. I'll go first while I give you all time to talk. So McElroy's appetizers included peach and ricotta flat bread, which he said

the tournament organizers insisted that he have at least one vegetarian option. That was it with balsamic hot honey and basil. Rock shrimp tempura. bacon-wrapped dates, grilled elk sliders with caramelized onion jam, roasted garlic aoli. Then his first course was yellowfin tuna carpaccio or foie gras. Main course was Wagu, filet, mignon, or seared salmon, and a variety of other sides, Brussels sprouts, glazed carrots. And then for dessert, he had sticky toffee pudding with vanilla ice cream and warm toffee sauce. The wines that he chose generated a lot of discussion because they were extraordinarily

ordinarily expensive. I think all of them above $1,000 a bottle. But if you've won the Masters, you can afford to pick those things. So my menu is basically a combination of Wisconsin and Spain, not surprising anybody. So I think I would start with lightly breaded deep-fried cheese curds and mini cocktail brots, sort of pigs in a blanket. But then pivot to gambas pilpil and harmoni Beredico with Manchego cheese as the pass-around appetizers. The first course would be Salmorejo, which is a chilled Spanish tomato soup with hard-boiled eggs and hamone, and then grilled octopus, which is also a great Spanish entree or appetizer. Main course, two choices, panseared walleye from northern Wisconsin, or brisket and

ground chuck half-pound cheeseburger. My featured drinks would be Pabst, Blue Ribbon. or spotted cow, which is a great beer from Nuclaris. And my wines would be Pintia from a red wine from Spain's Tora region, or Pago de Carovejas el anion. And then finally, the dessert would be tart de queso Vasco, Basque country cheesecake, very light, fluffy, incredible, and a selection of frozen custards from Wisconsin.

So that's mine. So I could go on. I have other options, but I'll, I'll caught myself short there. And Sarah, I'm really interested in what you would choose. Oh, this is real easy. We're going to do red checkered tablecloth, old school, smokehouse, Texas barbecue. There's no appetizers.

That's what the pickles are doing on your table. Feel free to eat those if you're hungry and you're waiting. So it's just a whole lot of stuff put on your table at once. It will be sausage links. you know, cut at that nice angle. Turkey, brisket. The end. Smoke turkey.

What? Yes, the smoked turkey and the smoked brisket. The brisket's going to have been on for about 20 hours. Look, if we're doing high end, I'm going to go get a waggy brisket. It's pretty delicious. For my sides, I'm doing mac and cheese, coleslaw, and green beans. And for dessert, Blackberry Cobbler. For my drinks, obviously, I will have unsweetened. beaten iced tea, and you'll have some lemonade if you want to pour it and make the Arnold Palmer,

because this is the Masters, right? Wow. Wow. What a pro. And I will offer Basque cider, which is like funky, smoky brisket. And I think that would be a delicious meal, and everyone would leave super satisfied without any of the fru-frew. I mean, I'm hungry right now. Kevin. You know, there was a really good taco stand in my hometown, and they made really good barbecos. and barbicua traditionally is made from the head of a cow. And I was there one day and I was having my barbicoa and I'm eating my barbicoa. And I bite into something that is not barbacoa and I spit it out. And can you guess what it was?

No idea. Well, it was a tooth. It was a cow tooth. Oh, my God. There was a tooth from a cow that had just gotten off into the barbaco because they're doing it the way you're supposed to, right? Yeah. And so I think my meal would be barbacoa from that particular part. place. Mike, bring us home. From Georgia. Yeah, originally from Georgia. So I've been thinking about

this a lot, not just for this, not worth your time in the last, you know, 120 seconds, but the Masters is always a sort of exciting time. I grew about two hours from Augusta. So I can't say I'm a local, but it's just always been a part of my life. And so my meal starts with something that you see a lot of at the Masters, which is pimento cheese. Pimento cheese is just. Disgusting. Well, more for me than, Sarah. So good. Halapino pimento. Halapino pimento.

Is that legit? I was actually thinking that would be a good side to Sarah's barbecue. Yes, I agree with that, actually. Yeah, so was I, actually. Well, and as you'll see, there's some, there is some crossover. She's shaking her head, no, no encroachment. You don't have to eat it, Sarah. You know, you can have the hot boiled peanuts, which is also.

Also, no. Oh, going down in South Georgia to a stand, you know, on the side of the road, on the way to the beach in Florida and getting a bag of hop-boiled peanuts. Oh, so good, so good. Nice and salty and it's 95 and humid and you want some hot boiled peanuts. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. So, but starting with those pomeo cheese and hop-boiled peanuts is like a nice starter. My wife makes an excellent pomeo cheese, but also palmetto cheese, which is a South Carolina store-bought cheese is also a great store-bought substitute. By the way, for a cocktail, Chatham Artillery Punch, I don't know if anyone is familiar with it. It is a classic Savannah. Savannah's in Chatham County, and so Chatham

artillery punch. It's just a classic Southern punch. I think it's got like bourbon and rum and cognac and lots of different stuff and it'll get you going. And being Savannah, they serve it at seven o'clock in the morning. Obviously for the end of the night actually at seven o'clock in the morning. The main course, of course, is barbecue, but not brisket, but pork barbecue, which is what we have in Georgia. Georgia doesn't have its own sort of defined barbecue style. It's a kind of a mix of whatever part of Georgia you're in. I'm from North Georgia, and so it looks much more like a Western North Carolina sauce, but it's got to be pork. It's got to be pulled or chopped. I prefer pulled pork. So you let that butt roast for a long time and then it just falls off the bone. You mix it with

some more of that Western Carolina sauce and you can have it with nice thick pickles and have it on a sandwich or just eat it. And then for, you know, you can throw in some collards or some green beans. I kind of prefer green beans, actually, as my side. Throw that in with some really savory, not sweet. I'm sorry, other Georgians, but savory coleslaw. That's just got, you know, a ton of, like, mustard and celery salt in there to really bring out the savouriness of the slaw. And then we end the night with a peach cobbler. You've got to do it with peach cobbler and vanilla bean ice cream.

That's kind of the perfect, I mean, you know, when I win the masters, when I get that green jacket in just a few years. That's going to be what everybody's going to be eating. Well, at least we can agree on the pickles. Oh, good. It's interesting, though, that all three of you, I would say, offered some variety of barbecue. Yeah. I wouldn't have necessarily... It's America.

Damn right. Maybe we should have some kind of process by which, when we have a dispatch, all-staff get-together, somebody gets to choose the menu. This is a good idea. Some kind of incentive reward. Yeah. I mean, we wouldn't do it based on, like, web traffic. or anything like that, but maybe a productivity thing or a...

This has been a productive, not worth your time, not just for content, but for administrative purposes. We've got like ideas for... Yeah, we got to give this some thought. I think this could be a thing. Well, thank you, Sarah, for indulging my food talk. And for the conversation about Iran and the Supreme Court, Sarah, good luck with the book. Thank you. For people who don't know, she's got a book coming out.

I guess you know if you've been listening. Thanks for joining us. We will see you next time. Finally, if you like what we're doing here, you can rate, review, and subscribe to the show on your podcast player of choice to help new listeners find us. And as always, if you've got questions, comments, concerns, or corrections, you can email us at Roundtable at the dispatch.com. We read everything, even the ones from people who prefer Sarah's not worth your time to mind. That's going to do it for today's show. Thanks so much for tuning in.

And thank you to the folks behind the scenes who made this episode possible, Noah Hickey, and Peter Bonaventure. Thanks again for listening. Please join us next time.