The Ricochet Podcast - Order In The Court

Episode Date: July 2, 2015

This week on the Ricochet Podcast, we cover the SCOTUS rulings with the best panel anywhere on the internets: Ricochet Editor emeritus Mollie Hemingway stops by to give perspective on how the media covered the rulings, and Ricochet contributor Adam Freedman (buy his new book, A Less Perfect Union) visits to give us the legal rationale — as well as a way the ruling might be circumvented. Also... Source

Take your business international. Enterprise Europe Network is the world's largest network providing free support and advice to SMEs with global ambition. With over 450 partner organisations worldwide, we bring together unparalleled expertise to serve businesses like yours. We can help you discover partners in new markets, advance your digitisation and gain valuable insights into EU funding opportunities. Take advantage of free expert advice and innovation resources.

Visit een-ireland.com and take your business global today. When it comes to seeking fertility treatment, time can be of the essence. At Beacon Care Fertility, we are proud to offer prompt access to affordable fertility care. With over 60,000 babies born

across our fertility clinicility Clinic network, we have both the science and the expertise to deliver. We offer convenient payment plans and are partnered with VHI and LEIA. Beacon Care Fertility, where science meets life. Hello, everyone. I'm not going to get, I don't know what's going to happen here. I don't have any information on that. They don't understand what you're talking about.

And that's going to prove to be disastrous. And what it means is that the people don't want socialism. They want more conservatism. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall It's the Ricochet Podcast with Peter Robinson and Rob Long I'm James Lalex, two guests, not three because that's not legal yet Molly Hemingway and Adam Friedman Let's have ourselves a podcast There you go again.

Okay, can't say that word. Check. That word's off. Check. That concept. Avoid that concept. Can't show that picture. Can't show that flag unless it's rainbow colored.

Okay, I've got my list of everything we can and cannot say according to the current Moors, and we're ready for Ricochet Podcast 265. If I sounded a little strange there, it's because I'm not so sure of some of those consonants, whether or not those are in favor this week or next. So I had to remove those consonants. We may add them later depending on what the Supreme Court says the alphabet is now. We are brought to you by The Great Courses. If the times seem irrational and you're tired of dealing with people who are all over the place like ants shooting off in every direction when it comes to an argument and you'd like to be the most rational person in any room,

you can go to The Great Courses and get the Philosopher's Toolkit. That's right, the Philosopher's Toolkit, how to be the most rational person in any room. You can get that for up to 80% off if you go to thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. greatcourses.com slash ricochet. And as long as you're slashing, don't, because if you take a piece of sharp metal and slash it at your face, what you get is a mess. That's why you need a good blade at a good price. Harry's Shave over paying for drugstore razor blades is a bad habit.

You ought to leave it behind. Make the smart switch to Harry's and use the coupon code Ricochet. And we're brought to you, of course, by the founders themselves who stride among us, giants amongst men. Peter Robinson and Rob Long. Hey, guys. How are you this week? founders themselves who stride among us giants amongst men peter robinson and rob long hey guys how are you this week i'm trying to recover from the idea of rob and me as giants among men they're striding anywhere uh uh doing very well long bago yeah yes right right um before my corns my corn corns and bunions does any do people have corns and bunions anymore is that people have i

did read a piece about bunions people have bun bunions and it comes from wearing flip-flops. Everybody's wearing flip-flops now and it's like creating a greater incidence of bunions among the youth. Do they use the word? I'm just thinking now of ailments that nobody has gout. Nobody has lumbago. Do kids use the word bunions? Yeah. Gout and bunions are back.

I mean you can't have Atkins, all these people on Atkins and Paleo without getting gout. Oh, wonderful. Good. OK. So Ben Franklin would still feel at home. We should say if you are listening to this podcast and you are a member of Ricochet.com, we are thrilled to have you and we thank you for joining us. If you are listening and you're not a member of Ricochet, listen. This is the time when you need Ricochet.

Ricochet is the best, fastest-growing, wittiest, most civil conversation among and between the civil – the senate right on the web. It is literally impossible to talk about the issues that we are talking about today, certainly coming up and also in general without some ground rules about how to talk about them without – end up yelling at each other. But that's just the way it is. Even people who agree – I was talking to two people who agree with each other and they were getting testy. That's right. Come to one of the same-sex marriage debate threads and be called a bigot by

somebody who agrees with you on the economic basis. So Ricochet really is the reason why the only place, I think the actually only place where the web really works as a way to discuss these things in a civil, friendly, fun atmosphere. Check us out.

Go to Ricochet.com. Sign up for The Daily Shot, which is a great daily crib sheet on the day's events. It's very funny, very witty, and will fill your inbox with – arm you for the days – for the day ahead in your exchanges with liberals and let you win every argument. And then the second thing, what you do is just peruse it, look around it, check out our other podcasts. We've got a lot of other great podcasts. And then we know we'll have you hooked. So Ricochet.com, go. Please join.

We need 10,000 members. We're something short of that. But we're getting there. And we hope that if you are listening and have been listening and have been putting off joining, today's a great day for you to join. Absolutely. It's a great day to be out there in the countryside too, at least around here. Skies are blue. The roads are dry.

And I remember this kind of day when I was growing up where you just wanted to head off into the prairie. Like John Steinbeck who went out there with Charlie, his dog, and as we learn now actually probably didn't rough it beneath the stars but stayed at a local motel. Can't blame him. Rob, you just completed such a journey. I did. I know that you guys are basically coastal dwellers. You move from one bubble to the other. But here Rob has made his way across the entire country.

Give us a quick summation of what you saw. Are we falling apart? Are we doomed? Is the heartland still there beating for America? We are never doomed. One of the things I despair of, among the other things that we all despair of, I despair of our our

I guess it's the media age, right? Our propensity and willingness almost to enter into sort of doomsaying. We're not doomed. It's a big, big country. A lot of really cool people doing amazing stuff all over the place. I discovered that if you go – if you drive across the country and I do it all the time and I think the first time I did it was like 10 years ago with a dog and it was really

hard to find a place – find a chain, right? A chain that you knew took dogs. The reason you want a chain is because you want to drive. You don't want to have to think and call ahead and figure out and stop. You want to know, okay, I know that sign ahead. That place takes dogs. And now it's pretty easy. Marriott residence inns take dogs.

Yes, and I'll tell you why. Because as fewer people have children in order to propagate the future of civilization, the species, they have dogs. And so they have to accommodate a new demographic. All right. So we are too doomed for goodness sake. I saw a lot of people, married residents in playing, frolicking in the swimming pool and stuffing themselves with the free breakfast.

I'm sorry. Well, if they still have a swimming pool, it's because the laws haven't forced them to take it out yet because the laws now require them to have – seriously seriously elevators that put disabled people into the pools and some of the big chains can afford it and the smaller ones can't i have seen those those are weird but they look kind of fun i the big chair you sit in and it lowers you to the pool and i've got to tell you that more than once i thought to myself i'll just all i need is a drink and i'm gonna sit in this chair and someone's gonna lower me into this pool no i appreciate the optimism i do i'm just playing the uh oh i know you're right but you

i mean it's it's an amazing thing to wake up in the morning and uh feed your dog and put a leash on her and walk her around the alamo and um uh and and clean up after her uh uh you know just to just to add just just in case anybody wants to know to actually clean up. And then get in the car and keep driving. Favorite state this time? Well, this is a fast trip. So I don't know. I mean I spent a bunch of days in New Orleans. So probably I have to say I spent a lot of time this time in Louisiana.

I mean I love Louisiana. It's beautiful. Most delightful new culinary surprise? That's a really good question. I'll tell you an unsurprise, a surprise that I feel like the company needs to go back to work. You have to be really careful on these trips that you don't eat the fast food because that's their – you could just sit there and just – by the time you get out of your car, you got type 2 diabetes. You got to be really careful, right? But I do confess to a – I will occasionally and I only it once, have a Chick-fil-A.

And I got to say, they got a problem with the waffle fries. They need to look at those. Yeah, they do. They're a little bit too spongy. The other day on Twitter, there was somebody, I think it was Friday, as a matter of fact, somebody was saying about a politician, somebody I don't even follow, but I've been retweeted by somebody who assembles peculiar reactions, said, I have never heard of you before, but I will never forget what you did on this day.

And it was a really angry tweet and it was about a politician. And I looked at the tweet. I found the original. The politician on Friday had tweeted a picture of himself eating Chick-fil-A with this look on his face that said, what are you going to do? And this act of hate was such that he will be probably held to account for it the next time the election rolls around. So yeah, there's that. Well, as you know, I'm a rhino squish on – especially on this topic.

But I never occurred to me to even – to turn it into a political event, to eating Chick-fil-A. And I will – I've tried never to mix my politics with my fast food. I just think it's a bad idea. Fast food is a proposition on its own. It doesn't need any extra ballast there. Well, let me ask Peter a question to get him in here. Peter, is there anything these days that truly is beyond and outside of politics? Beyond and outside of politics? Beyond and outside of politics. Do we have that story?

Do we have – really? I mean I take your point. The left is trying to jam every aspect of our life into politics and it does take pushing back. But you can still push in the summer. You can still watch a whole baseball game without thinking a single political thought. You can still spend a whole Sunday afternoon with your family, monkeying around on the Pacific beach where the sand feels good under your toes. The water is still a little too cold to enjoy up this far north.

Yeah, there's still room. You can still – you could, James, as soon as we record this, hang up, get in the car and drive off into the prairie just as you said you wanted to and spend a whole day thinking – stop at a diner, chat with people. They won't raise politics and you don't have to. It's still possible. But yes, it's under – we're under pressure. We're under pressure. Well, bless your heart now right now at this moment that sentiment that you just stated uh is the sort of thing that one can say in this country without fear of any sort of repercussion whatsoever because

we still have a free medium we can distribute it ourselves cuba however as you might have noticed has a little bit of a different situation state-controlled media and state-controlled messages and that's it was there celebrating in in the Robinson House, Peter? There was not. Cuba, from what I understand now, wants the United States to drop all of its propagandistic and anti-Cuban

broadcasts. You heard this tale? No, I haven't. I haven't seen that. All right. So let me in. Well, that's just simply it. They want us to stop the broadcast that we have that say, gosh, it wouldn't be great if you guys were free. Let me get you guys to predict how you think the Obama administration will react to that. Oh, that's – the Obama administration will turn Radio Marti. speakers around and start broadcasting into Florida about how wonderful Fidel Castro is and how all you Cubans in Miami ought to quit practicing your religious faith, forget about

50 years of working hard to make it in this country and opposing – it's all over now and we're all good socialists. I mean essentially. Of course, one way or another, sooner or later, they'll do what the Castro brothers want them to do. Well, Peter, what would you – what would be the – not the right. What would be the smart move for Americans? I keep thinking about Cuba as a – Cuba is obviously a very special case, right? 90 miles off the coast of Florida.

It's really not – Cuba does not fit into a larger American foreign policy network. It's its own thing. It's so weird. It's so close. It's got its own problems and its own specific identity, own specific policy. But why wouldn't we have – I mean I guess I don't understand why we would have a trade mission there. I mean I understand why we should have an embassy there. But a trade mission, it would seem to me that the best thing we could do for the Cuban people is have trade and undermine those awful Castros. If you can be very certain that it will undermine those awful Castros,

feel free. Go ahead. However, Cuba has already – we're the only country that has an embargo against them, which means that they're free to trade with everybody else and have been trading with everybody else. And it is possible to get a pretty good look at the results of this and the Castros. What's happened over this last half century is that you've got the Castro brothers, you've got the communist elite and you've got the military. You've got roughly, as best I can tell from reading up on the subject, about a million people in Cuba who in one way or another are privileged. Just like the old system in the old days in the Soviet Union. If you're a military man, if you fall into one or two other specialized categories, you're a privileged member of society. About a million out of a population of six or seven million are privileged.

Overwhelmingly, the benefits of trade have accrued to the special privileged class and not to the poor people. I am a Reagan guy. I believe in trickle-down economics. It turns out, and Russia proved it in the old days and Cuba is proving it again now, that it is possible to prevent growth from trickling down pretty substantially. So if we're going to begin trading with them, Cuba needs us. This is also always to be borne in mind. Cuba needs us far more than we need them. At a minimum, we should be negotiating for a release of political prisoners. But we should also be negotiating for some sort of free trade that really will be free.

You want to force them to open up the system enough so the trade can open it further. To go back to what we had under the Reagan – Bush – really the Reagan policy with South Africa, which is constructive engagement, right? It actually did do – constructive engagement actually did do an amazing job of unpacking apartheid in South Africa. Take your business international. Enterprise Europe Network is the world's largest network providing free support and advice to SMEs with global ambitions. With over 450 partner organisations worldwide, we bring together unparalleled expertise to serve businesses like yours. We can help you discover partners in new markets, advance your digitisation and gain valuable insights into EU funding opportunities. Take advantage of free expert advice and innovation resources.

Visit een-ireland.com and take your business global today. When it comes to seeking fertility treatment, time can be of the essence. At Beacon Care Fertility, we are proud to offer prompt access to affordable fertility care. With over 60,000 babies born

across our fertility clinic network, we have both the science and the expertise to deliver. We offer convenient payment plans and are partnered with VHI and Leia. Beacon Care Fertility, where science meets life. Take your business international. Enterprise Europe Network is the world's largest network providing free support and advice to SMEs with global ambition. With over 450 partner organisations worldwide, we bring together

unparalleled expertise to serve businesses like yours. We can help you discover partners in new markets, advance your digitisation and gain valuable insights into EU funding opportunities. Take advantage of free expert advice

and innovation resources. Visit een-ireland.com and take your business global today. Much more than sanctions did. And it seems like actually a smart plan in Cuba, which recognizes the Castro's are sort of evil and bad and all sorts of things, could be immensely to the benefit of the Cuban people

and also the American people. But instead there's this, this just feels like Twitter diplomacy. Remember, South Africa in the old days was broken into three groups. It wasn't white against black. Within the white proportion of the country, you had the Afrikaans, the Dutch. Those were the ones who really, really believed and insisted on apartheid. But you also had a smaller but still very large class of people who were of British descent and they were the traders. They were the diamond mines, the trading. So you had within South Africa a large community that wanted to use free trade to undermine apartheid and was in positions of power and wealth and influence and was able to do so.

But the principle could be the same. No such group exists in Cuba. The Castros have been made – have been very careful to force them all to Miami. But I guess what I mean is it is possible. You could construct a thought – Oh, yeah. And diabolical to the Castro's plan to open up – to open up more – to be more open to Cuba while at the same time undermining their regime. That's possible but you first have to admit that it was evil and second, have to take a fundamentally serious approach to this rather than what I think is happening, which is this kind of strange misdirection from other foreign policy disasters. Yeah, correct.

What Peter brought up there when you said constructive engagement in the Reagan years reminds me of the – I mean I'm sure, Peter, that you probably thought that Kirkpatrick was being sensible when she made a distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian. I mean these are the phrases that drove the left nuts. Right. left nuts because they weren't emotional enough. You really couldn't get a good head of steam up and yell at people and chant in rhyming slogans if you were talking about constructive engagement. No, it was better to point fingers and get red-faced and spit-a-flecked and the rest of it. In other words, to be like the left, often throwing a temper tantrum. Hard to argue with those people, isn't it? Well, if you find yourself wanting to do so anyway and to calm them down and to parse their arguments and perhaps, shall we say, to win, then you might want to take one

of these great courses being offered for you, the Ricochet reader, at a very, very low price. Now, most of you listening to this podcast are lifelong learners, and you're interested in learning for your own personal enrichment. That's the motivation behind the great courses. We recently watched some of the lectures, if you will, the Philosopher's Toolkit, I believe Peter was telling us about earlier. It's called How to Be the Most Rational Person in Any Room. It's taught by the award-winning professor Patrick Grimm

and it gives you strategies on how to be more creative, rational, and inventive in your own daily life. It's not just for argument's sake, it's how to live a more rational existence. It supplies the exercises to help you think outside of the box and it shows you how to use, quote, conceptual visualization, end quote, to manage your information. Now, the Great Courses are celebrating their 25th anniversary,

and they've got over 500 in many subjects, philosophy, history, religion, and so much more. It's DVDs, CDs, streaming, digital downloads, or the Great Courses apps, every medium covered. Now, for a limited time only, the Great Courses has a special offer for you, the Ricochet listener. Order from six of their best-selling courses, including The Philosopher's Toolkit, at up to 80% off the original price, but only available for a limited time.

So hurry. Order today. Go to thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. That's thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. That's thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. Don't forget, what did I say? Thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. Now we move along to our first guest. I don't know.

I don't know why we keep bringing these people back because, you know, it's – you know, they come in. They're right. I'm in. They pull a Claire. They go away and we never see them again. And then one day it's like, oh, I want to be on your podcast. And we're, oh, fine. There's no harm, no hurt feelings or anything at all.

Welcome back. Hi, Molly Hemingway to this, the Ricochet podcast. Of course, you remember her from her fine work at the site and senior editor at The Federalist where she's hitting them out of the park on a daily basis. The crack of the rhetorical bat is a constant delight. One of our favorite writers, period. It's great to be here. Thank you very much. So what's in the news?

It's been a really slow news month. I've been talking with my friends who do not believe that there's going to be a religious freedom tax exemption challenge. It's like, well, that could happen. We'll see. If it happens, you get to say I told you so. I don't want to say I told you so. I don't want this to happen at all. But I don't know how it's inevitable, is it?

Well, what's interesting is I saw some journalists saying that it was a straw man argument to say that there would be problems with religious liberty battles. And if you actually read the opinion, the Obergefell opinion and the dissents, the chief justice specifically says they're going to be religious liberty battles. And he gives some examples of where they might be. And he notes that Obama's solicitor general all but promised it when he said that churches that didn't assent to this new doctrinal teaching would – could lose their tax-exempt status. He said that in oral arguments. This isn't like a hypothetical. This is just the logical next step. Has the Missouri Synod announced that it's going to be performing same-sex marriages?

I asked my Lutheran friend, Molly. Yeah, no, we had a very strong statement announcing that we do not change our doctrine based on unelected oligarchs such as Anthony Kennedy. And so we will retain our traditional teaching on this matter. And I think that's actually what's going to be interesting is people don't realize they've been so confused by the media coverage, which makes it seem like everybody is all for this same sex marriage bandwagon, that they don't realize that actually the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of religious people, like actual practicing religious people, are nowhere near in line on this, and that they will not change their teachings on it. And when that happens,

I think people are going to be very surprised. Like they thought that all it would take was a mandate from the Supreme Court for you to change your doctrinal positions. And for many of us, it's not going to happen. By the way, were you a little, this is Peter here, Molly, were you, I was surprised. I'm asking if you were also surprised by the speed with which your folks, the Lutherans, and my folks, the Catholic bishops – I know through long experience screw up everything they touch virtually. And yet both had very strong statements right away when the court made its ruling, as if to suggest this time around, religious people are the leaders of certain religious groups, including the Catholics and the Lutherans, have thought it

through. They're ready. No more hemming and hawing. No more pained defensiveness. They've had it. Does it seem that way to you? Yeah, I think what happened in this, I mean, my church body rarely weighs in on any political matter. It takes something pretty extreme for us to actually say anything because we believe that there's the realm of the church and there's the realm of the state and these are largely separate and we are very focused on church and worship and sacraments and that type of stuff and spreading the gospel and we leave it to the state to handle its things. But in recent years it has become so clear that there is this collision course between the way the state is operating and religious freedom that we have no

choice but to weigh in on these things. So yeah, we were, we were prepared. We knew, I think that our church body had kind of seen where things were going and we feel very strongly. The whole reason why we are in america is because we had some problems um we had to flee here because we were being forced to worship in ways that and uh practice religion in ways that contradicted our confessions so we care about this a great deal and uh and we will continue to be strong on it hey molly it's rob how are you

good to talk to you thanks for coming again it's great to be here on it. Hey, Molly, it's Rob. How are you? Good to talk to you. Thanks for coming again. It's great to be here. I guess the last time I saw you was in D.C., right? Because I think I saw you in D.C. It was. And it was the funniest night of my life when you hosted the panel discussion on fatherhood. I mean, I. Aren't you kind?

I wasn't asking for that. But, oh, isn't that interesting? It was great. Thank you. No, it's not that that, but oh, isn't that interesting? It was great. Thank you. No, it's not that interesting. Move along, Rob. So you said – it's funny because you said that your church tends not to insert itself into political issues. But of course politics tends – lately tends to insert itself constantly into religious issues, which is sort of the – it's sort of like saying France doesn't insert itself into Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany inserts itself into France. But that happens a lot and I noticed when it was covered and I media, that there's a kind of this weird bafflement about religion and religious categories and what counts and people who go to church in general.

There was this kind of – I don't want to say condescending but a surprise that all the churches in Charleston, all the church leaders in Charleston got together after the shooting, that there was a unity among churchgoers and that there was this kind of strange cross-racial bounds, cross-economic bounds reaching out in Charleston. And it was sort of said as if this monumental thing, this big surprising thing because of course nobody in New York City knows that everybody in Charleston goes to church. Everyone goes to church on Sunday and every church has Bible study the same night. And so this was – this event was this incredibly sacrilegious invasion of this very sacred space that everyone felt violated by. But of course if you're from the north, you missed all that. I mean how much do you think that the journalists in America are missing when they talk about religion, especially in the cases like the Supreme Court decision? Just the general – I mean you said they don't understand how religious people even operate. Are they getting – is anybody getting the picture right?

You know, I – this is kind of not directly related but yesterday the New York Times had a piece about how the United Church of Christ had passed some divestment strategy where they're going to punish Israeli companies for being Israeli. And the very first sentence of the New York Times piece said, one of the largest Protestant denominations in America, the United Church of Christ. It's my mom's old church body. She fled in 1969. No member of her family remains, and hardly anybody else does either. The United Church of Christ approved same-sex marriage so long ago that I think it was like 2007, way back in the early days. It's before even gay people wanted it. And they've gone from a height of two million, which wasn't that big to begin with, to under 1 million, they're not even going to exist in a few more decades. But in the mind of the New York Times,

it is one of the largest Christian Protestant denominations because they only know two, the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ. They're so narrow in their understanding of the actual religious landscape that they'll they they also put forth things like oh look at all these churches that support same-sex marriage and it'll be like quakers which number 85 000 in the united states compared to the roman catholic church 70 million you know i mean it's just they act like those are equivalents and they're not in any way equivalent and they don't think about the trajectory of churches that have followed followed the culture on sexual ethics versus those that don't. There's a strange attitude about the black churches because the black church is of course a very big part of that community. But there's this kind of weird paternalistic liberal condescension in a sense to those churches.

They're elaborately courteous, elaborately supportive, elaborately – I don't know what the word would be but loving towards those churches. Whereas these are just normal Americans going to church every Sunday and then going to Bible study on Wednesday like everybody else, right? Like millions of Americans. I mean do – what do you – project this out. Gay marriage is now legal in the United States. That's not going to change. But project out the next 16 or the next 12 to 18 months for people who are of faith and believe in good faith that their faith does not allow this. Are we going to just see more people being forced to bake cakes or are we going to see more cake baking Supreme Court cases?

Are we going to see more churches being forced to host gay marriage? What do you think is going to be the next – what are the next two big milestones we're going to face? I think what was interesting was to see in the aftermath, this was just a serious victory by people who want to redefine marriage. And almost immediately, the march kept going. So we saw the New York Times religion columnist Mark Oppenheimer call for the removal of tax-exempt status for all religious organizations. That was something that another very popular, very large following business writer, Felix Salmon, said only those churches that retain traditional Christian teaching on sexual ethics should their landmark religious freedom legislation, which they worked so hard to pass in 1995.

You know, you just saw it all sort of happen very quickly. And, of course, people keep talking about how polygamy will be soon legalized, which I don't think is as big of a deal as people think it is. It's obvious that it will happen, but it's not that radical of a change compared to same-sex marriage. So you're going to have all these areas where people are in conflict. Excuse me. Not that big of a change.

You're just giving James an aneurysm, by the way, Molly. That was the sound of you giving James an aneurysm. I had major portions of my brain go dark temporarily. If we do legalize polygamy, which again, I think it's... With over 60,000 babies born across our fertility clinic network, we have both the science and the expertise to deliver. We offer convenient payment plans and are partnered with VHI and Leia. Beacon Care Fertility, where science meets life. Next, because there's no logical argument against it anymore.

It's one thing to say that the definition of a marriage of two people now gets expanded to say that marriage is now three or four or nine or 12, I think is big. No, tell me where I'm wrong. I'm just saying that there's a tremendous historical precedent for polygamy. There are religions that permit it and require it or not require it, but really strongly support it including you know one of the world's major religions islam there are it's just not really comparable to uh redefining marriage to include same-sex couples when marriage through all time and place and history and across all religions was understood precisely as the the union of male and female that's basically the only

thing it meant to take away that, that really foundational thing. I'm just saying it's not that big of a deal. I don't think that, I don't think that it will change things that much. Still polygamy is basically just multi, it's just multiple marriages. It's not even group marriage, which might be a little bit more radical,

which will of course also become, well, a serial polygamy. People have described our contemporary society as serial polygamy, people have described our contemporary society as serial polygamy, yes, but still it's one after the other and the old line about time exists to keep everything from happening at once

does come to mind here. In America, the fringe organizations have practiced polygamy and had it driven out of their culture by general disapproval. If we are to say that because other cultures whose other values and baggage and cultural accoutrements are inimical to western civilization aren't we acquiescing then

and saying oh heck bring the rest of it in as well because it's been a precedent in your culture for thousands of years i i think it's i think it's i think it's large but we can just i think that i think molly's husband mark is just thinking to himself after hearing this, hey, baby, I got an idea. Maybe not. He's probably thinking there's no way I could handle more than one of these. That's probably right. But no, I do. I mean it's very different culturally.

It's very destabilizing to have polygamy. It's bad for men, women, and children. But none of that – it doesn't matter because if we believe that people have the freedom to organize their lives however they want and if they – if their dignity is violated by not allowing them to express their marriage however they want to, then there's – I mean I'm just saying. Right. It's not – Intellectually, it's not a big deal. Once Anthony Kennedy produces this waffle, then marriage is essentially – it can be anything because it's essentially meaningless. That's roughly your point, correct?

Yes. OK. So James, is that all right for – could we – if that's all right with you? All right. So Molly, can I ask you one more question before Peter asks a series of final questions? What do you – what would you recommend religious believers in traditional marriage to do? on some hilltop retreat and figure out a way and who they're going to hire to create a religious liberty foundation where they're going to fill it with lawyers and those lawyers are going to scour the country and look for cases to take to all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend. So there's going to be – hundreds of millions of dollars are going to be spent right there. But what else can they do?

And let me lead with my suggestion. They can right now, I'm assuming that this marriage law, gay marriage law of the land, but they could advocate for strengthening marriage. There's no reason why gay marriage can't be strengthened

along with traditional marriage if you accept it. The weakening of marriage over the past 30, 40, 50 years has been sort of unbroken pattern. Why don't religious people say, OK, we think that we've lost the same-sex argument, but we still believe marriage is really important and two-parent household is really important. So we think we want to go back to a pre-no-fault divorce world to strengthen marriage. Why wouldn't they do that?

Okay, well, first off, I do think it's important to note that the norms that we associate with marriage only make sense in a heterosexual union of male and female. I mean, you have fidelity and monogamy because of how destabilizing it is when people have sex with other people and make babies with other people. And if that is not an, as that, that's not a thing you need to be concerned about, it's a less important norm. And so the norms will change. I think people need to understand that it's not an issue of, uh, I mean, I guess what I'd say is people should continue advocating for the truth of natural marriage, that it's based on sexual complementarity and the fact that the government has said otherwise doesn't change that one whit except to show the importance of advocating that truth.

And there are already great religious liberty law firms, the Beckett Fund and Alliance Defending Freedom, which will be fighting very hard for people's religious liberty and conscience protections, which are going to be under attack. And the thing that's like important here is people say, oh, well, you'll be forced to gay marry. That's, that's a kind of a red herring. It's not really, uh, that's not where the problems are. The problems are millions upon millions of people will suffer discrimination in their jobs, or they will lose the freedom to do their jobs the way they want to, or they'll be targeted in lawsuits. And these are people who don't have big lobbying firms. like the Catholic bishops have money to spend defending themselves, but like individuals don't. So it's good to have these religious liberty firms. And then I think what's interesting is we're going to see whether progressive activists succeed in their continued portrayal of people who advocate the truth of

marriage as being bigots who need to be removed from public life, or if it'll be more like pro-lifers who the government opposes them, but they permit them some freedom to be Americans and, you know, work in public life and advocate for their beliefs and live out their beliefs. You know, Anthony Kennedy had such a narrow religious liberty protection in his opinion. He said, oh, you can still talk about your beliefs. And that's not, that's nowhere near enough. And that is not what freedom of religious expression means. And it means that we need to be free to be Christians or, you know, whatever our religious orientation is in the public square without oppression from the government. And your answer to David Brooks, who wrote a column the other day, that noted conservative

David Brooks, who wrote a column the other day, day before yesterday, as I recall, saying that although he was, of course, left socially of the people who believed in people who opposed gay marriage, he still wrote as a, I think the term he used was friend and admirer and hoped he would take some advice from him. And his advice was, drop it. Stop trying to fight a battle you've already lost. Concentrate your energies elsewhere. How do you answer that?

Well, it was an interesting piece. And not that I don't always take – You've already conceded too much as far as I'm concerned. But go ahead. Take all of David's advice and everything he ever suggests. Where has he gone wrong? But that it was just complete hogwash. The idea that, first of all, there's a slander cooked into the piece, which is that Christians care more about sex issues than feeding the poor. Just when you look at the actual raw numbers spent, it's so many billions of dollars spent on feeding the poor and caring for the poor. Just when you look at the actual raw numbers spent, it's so many billions of dollars

spent on feeding the poor and caring for the poor versus, as we can sadly see, almost nothing spent on fighting for defense of traditional Christian sexual ethics. So this is just a totally wrong statement to begin with. This is what Christians have been doing forever anyway. Now, having said all that, it's also stupid to act like, and Christians are not the culture war aggressors here. They're the victims. As John Gabriel always says, the progressives won the culture war and now they're roaming the countryside shooting survivors. And that's, you know, it's not true on that point either. But finally, the reason why people care about sexual ethics is because of all the ways that it hurts the family. When you don't have children, you know, 40% of all American children are born out of wedlock.

If you're born out of wedlock, your prospects in life are severely diminished. Your chance of being in poverty, being a drug addict, being a victim of sexual assault. All these things go up so high when you don't have an intact two-parent, you know, when you're not being raised by your own mother and father, it invites all sorts of dangerous deviations that are bad for society and bad for people and harms them. And that's why people care about it. It's not because they're, like, interested in what's going on in the bedroom. It's kind of surprising that someone like David Brooks wouldn't understand how

Christian sexual ethics, uh, relates to all these other important social issues, but not surprising perhaps. It's just off the table to talk about whether or not a two parent family of different genders might in any way be confer an advantage. I mean, that can't be said. That places you outside the realm of decent people these days. Molly, what's coming up next? What's your next piece in The Federalist? Oh, I don't know.

But we did just – we've had a lot of fun talking on all these issues of identity and from Rachel Dolezal to Bruce Caitlyn Jenner. Um, and so we'll just continue looking at these issues and making sure people understand, uh, where their liberty is threatened. And I just want to say Ricochet is where I began thinking deeply about these things. I never thought deeply about the issue of marriage until a bunch of wonderful members started taking me to task. And I began to think more and it actually changed my mind. And it's so rare for a grown person to change their mind. And I'm so thankful for the members of Ricochet for gently getting me to think about these things and really challenging me. And it was life changing for me. And now I

can't stop seeing what I learned. And it's just such a wonderful place for that. And life-changing for everybody who was introduced to your work there at Ricochet as well. Molly, thanks for coming by today. We'll see you around the internet. Thank you. Thanks, Molly. Thanks.

The point about the churches that we were discussing before, Molly touched on this when she said that Brooks ignored what churches do in terms of charity. And there seems to be this feeling amongst the left. You say, well, if we tax the churches, they're not going to have as much money to survive. And people on the left will either say that's great. They shouldn't because they're bigoted and they need to die. Or they will say the tax money that the state gets can then be used to help the poor as if that money, 100 percent of it, will flow seamlessly and without friction through the instruments of government and land itself in the hands of the people. There's a church around here to the north of me that our church connects with to run their homeless shelter.

And so when you go there, it's very, very odd. The food is donated. The labor is donated. Everything is donated. The toiletries, oddly enough, do not come as government surplus. There's a whole bin of soaps, of shampoos, of things. And they don't have the mark from the US government. They're all things that people themselves have given and given of their time, given of their money. There's a whole, I mean, for example, who would ever think that you go to Target sometimes and you pick up an extra pack of those cheap little disposable razors because you're going

to the church to do the food shelter and you better toss them in the bin. Well, you know what? If you do that, if you are the sort of person who even looks at razors in a store when you're shopping, you're making a mistake and you need to get your mind set to the way things are now. And that is the razors come to you. That's right. Harry's has this model wherein a blade that was made in a fine German factory comes to your door seamlessly and provides you with an experience that you – well, if you're used to paying too much for drugstore razors, you're going to love getting used to paying just the right amount of money for Harry's.

They bought the blade factory. They cut out the middleman. They can offer an amazing shave at a fraction at the price of drugstore brands. And they ship those blades right to you. The starter kit is $15. That includes the razor, three blades, and your choice of Harry's shave cream or foaming gel. Your choice. And as an added bonus, of course, you get $5 off your first purchase with the code

RICOSHET. After using that code, you can use an entire month's worth of shaving for $10. Shipping is free. You don't have to run down when you run out of blades. If you find yourself scraping your face with something that feels like Winston Smith after using those blades in 1984 for six months, yeah, well, this is what you want. Go to Harry's.com

and Harry's will give you $5 off. As I said, if you use the coupon code RICOSHET, that's H-A-R-R-Y-S.com. Coupon code Ricochet. Check out. Five bucks off. Start shaving smarter today. And the money you save, perhaps you might give it to the local homeless shelter so they can find ways in which to serve the poor. Because I don't think if you tax the churches, it's a great thing.

I think a lot of churches are going to go away, which with some people is just fine. As John Gabriel said in Molly's quote, roaming the country, shooting the survivors, there is an air of vengeance. The phrase gay reparations has been brooded about recently, and I can't wait for the chattering classes who themselves have been rolling their eyes and saying nothing about slavery reparations for years to all of a sudden start to stroke their chin and say, yes, indeed. A, gay reparations might be a great idea. And B, I feel a little bit of stubble here. I should get a better, better place. Anyway, we are – Now, I just say the reason I did not interrupt that segue is because I felt it was – I loved the story of it too much.

I didn't feel – I thought it was inappropriate for me to interrupt your talk about how the little – basically the little travel packs of toiletries people give to homeless shelters. I didn't want to step on it. So I'm stepping on it now. You're not coughing during Mozart for goodness sake. Yeah, you can't want to step on it. So I'm stepping on it now. You're not coughing during Mozart, for goodness sake. That's exactly right. You're telling that it's exactly true that if you ever, people are listening and you do go to CVS or wherever

it is and you see those little travel things and you pick up a few, there's always a church with a homeless shelter there that can use those. Right, and I felt it by wrapping the segue to something that was that had a veneer of selflessness that seemed like it was a decent thing being related, even though I was shamelessly using it

for commercial purposes, that I might silence, I will add that to the things Rob requires in order to keep his gob shut. Well, I'll just change it on you. You know that. I'll just change the rules tomorrow, so don't start trying to figure me out. But of course you would. Of course. Well, it was nice to get through that. It was nice to get through that and feel free.

I felt like a free man. If you had a D to that, you got freed, and you got Adam, freed man, our favorite Ricochet contributor of the moment because he's here talking to us. Of course, he's been writing about law and politics and language for some years now. And his new book on states' rights, A Less Perfect Union, is published by, well, HarperCollins. We're not talking some guy who just throws out an e-book here. This is the real deal. His book on constitutional originalism, The Naked Constitution, came out in 2012.

Wait a minute. Did you write that, Adam? I did. Well, shucks and gosh, you've got a whole bunch of things coming on. So Peter was about to get in there on a question. I was just about to say, Adam, congratulations. That must have sold pretty well because HarperCollins signed you up for a second book, which is now out.

It's nice of you to think that. But that book, I'll steal Rob's joke here that I heard him say once, which is that the book isn't giving me any tax troubles. All right, we've got two Roberts here on display this week. Which Roberts do you like? John Roberts of the Obergefell decision. He was pretty strong and principled. I guess what I come away with about John Roberts is that I guess he's willing to play fast and loose when it comes to regular old statutes, but he's still a stickler for the Constitution. So I guess I'll take half a loaf when it comes to that, because his Obergefell dissent was quite good, I thought. George Will, right in Adam Friedman's face this morning, quote, during April's oral arguments,

Chief Justice John Roberts said that people seeking same-sex marriage are, quote, not seeking to join the institution, close quote, but are, quote, seeking to change what the institution is, close quote. That's John Roberts. George Will continues, but this institution has been changed by American attitude and behavior. Marriage in America will be over time what Americans say it is. And last week's decision came with almost three and four Americans already living in states where same-sex marriage is legal. George Will to Adam Friedman, get with the program. Adam Friedman to George Will.

Let the people decide what the definition of marriage, of civil marriage, will be in their own states. It's a political reality that there was an ongoing debate about what civil marriage should be, and that's a perfectly healthy debate. Assuming the government is going to have any role in handing out marriage licenses, then there ought to be a debate about what that constitutes. But this decision simply disenfranchises the people of all 50 states from that debate. It

takes it out of our hands on the basis that Justice Anthony Kennedy has simply decided that debate and discussion has gone on long enough, Gosh darn it, it's time for the Supreme Court to tell us what marriage means. Adam, you've got three options among Republican presidential candidates. One is just sort of say, gee, I wish it hadn't happened this way. That seems to be the Jeb Bush position, at least for now. They may all change their positions. That's the Marco Rubio position. Marco Rubio issued a statement of regret but devoted more sentences, doesn't touch the question of gay marriage. It simply says that it would return the right of states to decide marriage law. And then the third option is Ted Cruz who says it's been many decades now since has had to learn that certain social issues just will not go away if the court encroaches upon them.

We've had the Federalist Society. We've had Ronald Reagan try to appoint justices. This long effort to reestablish reasonable jurisprudence on the Constitution, Scalia's effort to reestablish originalism. It has all failed. The Supreme Court is a political party. We ought to admit that. And Ted Cruz is proposing judicial retention elections. Every so often, we get to vote on whether a justice ought to stay on the court. Option one, express regret but do nothing. Option two, Scott Walker, amend the Constitution to return the power to regulate marriages to states. Option three to achieve it, which is I'm surprised that people aren't talking about this more. The way to turn this back to the states is limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. So the Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over the state court systems. That's a matter of congressional

discretion. And so by simple majority vote, assuming you had a president of the same party, Congress could simply take away, it could take away all jurisdiction of federal courts over state court decisions, or it could, as Ron Paul actually introduced legislation some years ago, to take away federal appellate jurisdiction with respect to abortion, gay marriage, and judicial districting, I think. There were three issues. And that means that these issues could still be litigated in courts, but it would go as high as the Texas Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court, and no further. And that's the solution I would recommend. I would like to quote Brother Rob Long, who earlier in this podcast said, it was sort of on the way to his question when he was talking to Molly Hemingway,

gay marriage is the law of the land and that's not going to change. You're saying that by rejiggering the Supreme Court's ability to review cases, that could be changed? It's not too late? It's not too late. It's not too late because... Okay, over to you, Rob. Yeah. Wait. Okay, we'll finish, Adam. It's not too late. Why again? It's not too late because in a system where state courts have the last word, they would have the last word even with respect to the interpretation of federal law, including the Constitution. And so, you know, if you took away the appellate jurisdiction tomorrow, the Texas Supreme Court could say, you know, we interpret the due process clause differently than Mr. Justice Kennedy and his friends.

Thank you very much. And so we're not going to mandate same-sex marriage in our state, and there would be no further appeal from that. And for those people who think that's chaotic, that actually happens all the time. That different – federal laws mean different things in different parts of the country all the time. So why is that not – why is that your solution, which is sort of elegant and simple and obvious and really achievable, why is that not brooded about? suggestions by Ted Cruz to now have a – to now have Supreme Court – federal – U.S. Supreme Court justices stand for reelection or a constitutional amendment suggested by Scott Walker. Why not this simple way?

What's holding everybody back? Well, it's not – it didn't hold – Ron Paul made that suggestion. There are some people who advocate that. You know, I would speculate that it's easier to suggest something like a constitutional amendment that is kind of pie in the sky and isn't actually going to come up for a vote anytime soon and put anyone in a difficult position than it is great thing for Republicans because then they don't have to – it takes the issue out of their hands. So let me ask you – can we broaden this a little bit because I know – I mean full disclosure. I think we have to tell everybody. Adam, you are openly married to a female. Yeah, no, it's true. And I have to say that I proudly attended. I've been out as a heterosexual for a while.

I proudly attended your, I guess, what's the word, traditional marriage? I guess we call it traditional marriage to your wife. So I've known you a long time, and so I want to make sure we make this really clear. You have a book out right now. Yes. The book is called A Less Perfect Union. It is about states' rights essentially. It's a new look at states' rights and sort of a reinvigorated argument for states' rights and how states' rights fit into our world today.

You started writing this book when? I started writing this in the fall of 2012 actually, just when the last book came out. So you started writing this book about three years ago, and the pub date was set about, let's say, two years ago, a year and a half ago, whatever it was. You had no idea that this book was going to be published roughly 10 days – within 10 days of the Obergefell decision or the renewed clamor about the Confederate flag. So I have two questions for you. One, are you some kind of sorcerer? Two, will you now with your riches on this incredibly timely bestseller take me out to dinner? And three – I know I said two, but I have three. The third question is actually related to your topic.

Is there a way for you to – for people to talk about states' rights without having other people, and you know the other kind, roll their eyes and say oh yeah the code you know dog whistle we know what yeah um yeah no that that's right so look in order um am i a sorcerer yes um will i take you out to dinner no um and then uh you know on the on the on the relevant question on the title look um and the fact is liberals and progressives talk about states' rights when it suits them, and then they get amnesia as soon as conservatives talk about it. Barney Frank, two or three times, introduced medical marijuana legislation called States' Rights for Medical Marijuana. That was his popular title for that piece of legislation he used states rights and in the title and the you know it's slate when when when Republicans during the Bush administration Republicans had you know had all levers of government.

There was all this talk about states' rights for liberals. Slate had a piece, you know, Slate's rights are for liberals. The states' rights are for liberals, too. So there's the usual double standard. But the fact is, you know, there were Southern politicians who, no question, used states' rights as an excuse for supporting segregation. My point in the book is that, first of all, all of those politicians were card-carrying Democrats, too. So does that mean that the Democratic Party is forever tainted by association with segregation? Of course not. It's tainted by a lot of other things, but not by historical association with segregation.

If you look at states' rights historically, and I outline this in the book, states have almost always been the champions of the causes that progressives now hold most dear. The abolitionists were states' riders. The progressives of the early 20th century were states' riders. The horrible Lochner era of Supreme Court jurisprudence was all about the Supreme Court using substantive due process to overturn state progressive legislation. And now that the Supreme Court is using substantive due process to overturn state legislation that it doesn't like, suddenly federal power is great and states' rights is bad. But that could turn any day. You know what? I didn't – I had never – I'll tell you one reason that this is difficult for presidential candidates.

If Rob and I and I assume James didn't know any of this, in a campaign, it's just hard to engage in education. But wow, I had never thought of it that way. You just said ten things in a row I wasn't even aware of. Wow. Now, however, may I take you back to Obergefell, which I still can't even pronounce? Sure. Okay, here's the question. Justice Scalia is getting whacked around all all over the press for the passion, I think we can say the anger that he displays in his dissents, but in particular in his dissent of the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy in the Obergefell case. And I want to see what Adam Friedman makes of it.

By the way, the Washington Post, for example, I'm looking at a piece online right now. The Washington Post column, not news story, compared Scalia to an old man yelling at you to get off his lawn. Quote Justice Scalia. This is a naked judicial claim to legislative, indeed super legislative power, a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government, a system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers, does not deserve to be called a democracy. Close quote. Two questions. One, do you agree with the justice? Two, was it useful for him to say so in quite such terms? Yeah, well, let's put it this way. Um, years ago, when the Supreme Court in the Lawrence case overturned its earlier decision

in Bowers saying that state state sodomy laws were unconstitutional. Anthony Kennedy wrote that opinion with similar amorphous language about how, you know, not just saying that the sodomy laws were unconstitutional, but with this broad justification that the state must respect same-sex unions. In his dissent, Justice Scalia said, this will lead to a right to same-sex marriage. And the majority said, oh, you're ridiculous, Justice Scalia. You're just trying to scare people. And then Windsor came along, the DOMA case, Defense of Marriage Act. And again, Justice Kennedy wrote a very broad decision saying that,

you know, that the federal government can't take a position against same-sex marriage because it's bigoted and it's driven by an animus, and the federal government has to recognize these unions. And in dissent, Justice Scalia said, I'm saying again, you're going to create a right to same-sex marriage out of this amorphous language you're using. And again, the majority said, you're ridiculous. You're just trying to scare people. And even Justice Roberts, in his separate dissent, said, I don't agree with Scalia on that. And now we've finally achieved exactly what Scalia has been warning us about since 2003, which is Justice Kennedy's jurisprudence was always meant to invent a federal right to same-sex

marriage. So yeah, I think Justice Scalia has every right to be angry. This has been building for years. He's been warning people, and he's been dismissed as a crank for over a decade now. He's completely vindicated. And I think at this point, there's really not much reason for him to be any more diplomatic than he was about it, because Kennedy has got what he wanted now. And I can forgive Scalia for letting off a little bit of steam. Well, is that – okay. So one more quotation from Scalia followed by my last question. Again, Justice Scalia. If even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote I ever joined an opinion for the court that began, and here he quotes Justice Kennedy, the Constitution promises

liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons within a lawful realm to define and express their identity, close quote. We return to Justice Scalia in his own words, I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has dissented from the disciplined legal reasoning of Chief Justice John Marshall and Joseph Story, another famous justice, to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie. Close quote. Is he just letting off steam or is he laying down a marker for the 22-year-old kids who are going into law schools across the country next fall? He's vivid. He's making a point.

He's saying there are certain things in the law that are perfectly straightforward. And one of them is language like that is not legal reasoning. Useful or over the top? Yeah, no, I think my only objection to that quotation is that it's not entirely fair to fortune cookies. I think fortune cookies are generally a lot better than whatever Kennedy laid out. So, yeah, no, again, I think you can um, I'm not sure there's much to be gained from, uh, you know, from being diplomatic because, and I think we, you know, Kennedy's kind of a

lost cause. I mean, he's, he's, uh, he is what he is. Um, but the other, he's really shaking his finger right at the, at the four liberals for, you know, they paid a high price, right? None of them gave separate concurrences. None of them signed, you know, they all got behind Kennedy and just allowed him to be the sort of Earl Warren of this court. And there are plenty of, you know, there are plenty of left of center jurists, you jurists who I disagree with on policy, but who at least show some rigor in their thinking. And yeah, I think this is useful to say that the emperor has no clothes, because not everyone who comes to liberal conclusions does it through the kind of sloppy reasoning that Kennedy used.

It's much better for left-wing lawyers and jurists to use principled arguments because then at least you can engage with them. Kennedy's opinion is, you really can't argue with it. It's like, choose your metaphor. It's like trying to nail jello to the wall, right? It's all about autonomy and self-determination and dignity, and there's no real principles there. So I think Scalia's – I'm still in favor of Scalia's point, even that footnote. Adam, it's Rob again. I'm trying to come up with a good final question for you. Now, let me ask you something.

Where do you think the fight happens next? So just one or two – so I don't want to keep you for too long because I know you have a day job. But one or two things. What do you think the next big fight is on the horizon for – around the topic of states' rights? It's going to be what? What state is going to stand up and say it's ours to decide? Right. Well, the fight that Obergefell unleashes is going to move to the religion context, right?

So religious liberties. But the next one after that that will actually run in parallel with the fallout from Obergefell is environmental law. That's really the next big fight. The Obama administration has had an agenda from the beginning to continue a trend that had been going on for a while, but a much more radical way to remove all land use decisions and all manufacturing regulation away from the states. We're moving away from what Congress decided years ago, where navigable waters between the states would be regulated by the federal government and, you know, a certain level

of national air quality will be regulated, but the rest would be implemented by the states and decided by the states. Now we're moving to a situation where the federal government controls every inch of land, every pond, every puddle, and every factory. That's where the next big states' rights issue happens. All right. Well, that should be – A less perfect union. I was going to say. I was going to say. I was exactly right.

Well, no. I knew the time. I was just trying to come up with a – that should be the sequel to A Less Perfect Union. All right. The book is called A Less Perfect Union. It is excellent. Here's how good it is. I actually bought a copy even though Adam gave me a copy.

Although when he gave me – he gave me one of those review copies that are kind of cheap. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Adam gave you a copy? He gave a few of us a copy, but it's like – it was kind of like the El Cheapo. It wasn't the kind of copy you buy. But I did in fact buy a copy in addition to the copy that I have that's free. It's really interesting, and it's a remarkable piece of timing. I don't think anything right now is more interesting or more timely than that topic.

And, Adam, you write beautifully as always. Adam may have given you one of those specially printed ones that has you in the index. No, I looked. I looked for me in the acknowledgments and the index and the thanks, and I was nowhere to be found. Oh, shoot. You got Peter's copy. Oh, I'm going to in the acknowledgments and the index and the thanks, and I was nowhere to be found. Oh, shoot. You got Peter's copy. Oh, I'm going to drop the line. Adam, thanks for dropping by.

Good luck with the book. And we look forward to the sequel, an even more less perfect union until, of course, we're talking about – now that we have three separate United States here, let's see what we can do to reconstitute. New Brazil. Yeah. All right. Talk to you later. See you.

Thanks for having me on, guys. Thanks, Adam. And we'll see you on the site. On that site, incidentally, we've got new community moderators who step in and wield the band hammer and whip people and make them cry. And generally to reinforce the notion that Ricochet is going to heck. No, I'm kidding, of course. The people who are there to make sure it is indeed the sprightly and civil place that it is. We've got Midget Faded. These are names that should be well familiar

to you. Trusted names. Midget Faded Rattlesnake. James of England, of course, who we saw last in Washington last time we were there. And Mike Rapcott. Did I pronounce that correctly? Koch? Or is it? Okay. It's Rapcott. And you're supposed to know them. You're supposed to fear them. But you're supposed to love

them. So let's give them all a round of applause here. They're doing a great job. And I think it's a little late. We should have done it a while ago, but it's really working and we're going to sort of add to it. So we're excited. This is exactly the way Ricochet's got to grow and do all the things it's got to do.

Well, a couple of last things here. Chicago's announced today they're going to put a 9% tax on Netflix and cloud purchases. That'll work. Things like that. That's another great thing to tell you what a fine place Chicago is to live and do business. And people will – what I love is that the netizens, the young, the millennial will complain bitterly about it and have absolutely no idea in general how it connects to the world in which they live and the things that they want, the things that they vote for, because they get their news from BuzzFeed. This week, I've heard in the YouHude show a couple of BuzzFeed editors, Ben Smith and their political editor, and I always

can't shake the feeling, the fear that the millennials are being educated on politics, essentially by a children's crusade. But then again, on our side here, what do we have? We've got Donald Trump at 12 percent. The theory being, of course, Southern pessimists point this out in a Sultan link and also Ace of Spades is saying the same thing today. The reason that Trump perhaps is doing a – well, for the right, what Bernie Sanders may be doing for the left is his full-throated, unmoderated channeling of the party id. In other words, people are tired of manicured people who just carefully issue statements that seem too timid by half. And a guy who gets out there – I mean it's an old, old kind of trope.

Do you think that's the case or is Trump's position on making Mexico pay for a wall really catching fire out there in the heartland. Well, I think that the last part of that is sort of stupid Trump blowiness. I'll make Mexico pay for it. But I think he is touching a chord about immigration, which is one of those things that people in government on both sides of the aisle kind of agree on,

and they kind of agree that we're not going to talk about it in certain ways, and he's talking about it in certain ways. And so I think that's one of the reasons kind of agree on and they kind of agree that we're not going to talk about it in certain ways and he's talking about in certain ways and so i think that's one of the reasons he's catching fire i don't think he's going to go very far but you know something like 60 of all republicans say that they will never vote for donald trump which is you know it's a very hard way to win right it's tough for me to win primaries if that's the case um but it is interesting that he's saying what he's saying and not backing down. And he clearly is someone who says what he thinks. You don't imagine Donald Trump sitting there with a bunch of consultants and word doctors helping him craft his statement.

He just kind of like answers the question. I heard someone say on the news the other day, even when he announced he was running for president, he handed out for the announcement. The press got a five-page speech, the transcript of the speech he was about to give, and then he talked for an hour and he didn't say anything in the speech. He didn't use it at all. He just sort of talked for an hour extemporaneously, which is sort of compelling. Look, I think that the race goes to the person who can behave like a normal human being for the longest. And that person isn't going to be Donald Trump, but it's going to be somebody else. And Donald Trump is certainly showing that there is a benefit to being authentic. Well, Peter, when it comes to love, which people want, the guy who mentions love the most probably is Chris Christie. He loves everybody.

He's full of love. He's motivated by love. Love springs eternal gushes in quart sizes from his heart. And he announced and there's something less than rabid, wide-eyed enthusiasm, it seems, for Chris Christie and even for his speech, which I thought was just an endless recitation of banalities. Oh, you did? I watched a YouTube video that the campaign put out the day he announced or some hours

after he announced, which was an edited version of the speech. Of course, if you can't make a video that's effective and compelling, you really – you shouldn't even be the 19th person to announce. I thought it was actually pretty compelling but then I didn't listen to the whole thing. They clearly edited it very heavily. So what's wrong with – what's good about Chris Christie? We all know.

It's a little bit of that Donald Trump. You feel as though he's talking back and in this case, the person to whom he's – the man he's talking back to is the liberals, the progressives. He's talking back to them. And that gives our side higher heart. The problem with it is that Chris Christie has been talking back for a long time. He hasn't accomplished as much as in his own state as he had led people to suppose that he might. He probably that's his own fault, probably for a Republican in a very, very heavily Democratic state, it was going to be difficult to achieve as much as he suggested he

could in any event. And then, of course, this catastrophic set of dirty tricks that produced a three-day traffic jam at the George Washington Bridge is correctly viewed by the people of New Jersey as unforgivable. And whether Chris Christie ever gets charged, whether an email is produced showing the governor knew about it, at this point, I doubt he did know about it. But people very close to him were involved. His approval rating is 30 percent. It's just hard to do – hard to run for president when the people of your own state have such doubts about you. I understand that and I get that.

But honest to God, if Chris Christie ends up as the nominee and the press goes after him for Bridgegate, when we have a woman who ran her own server surrounded by people about – who lied about whether or not they knew about it and herself when she finally releases some stuff has edited out some lines in edited them out which as far as i understand is kind of sort of like a crime maybe if those two are possibly going to be seen on the same level plane then it makes me almost think that the press has got all the problems you know the problem j right? Which is that of course what Hillary Clinton did is a far graver offense than anything. And again, at this point, it seems to me pretty clear Chris Christie really didn't know what was going on. But the problem is have you ever sat in traffic in the ramp leading up to the GW Bridge? I have and believe me, everybody in New Jersey has and the idea that that guy made ordinary people sit there for hours. You get the – I don't know.

Hillary Clinton didn't get in anybody's face that way. You can't feel it necessarily. The Bridgegate thing seems to me like tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny little potatoes and over-reported and over-hyped and I don't know. I think the problem with the Christie candidacy is there's no room there anymore. I don't know what he's doing. I don't know what his message is. Now, all those guys can be – the benefit for Chris Christie is all those guys crowded on a dais together. It's good for him because he's got sharp elbows and he knows how to break into a conversation.

He'll be memorable, right. He'll be memorable. He'll get heard. But it's still uphill. Like I don't – I mean I don't know where these guys – who knows? Who knows? But I'm not sure why I know what his message is. Is it a radical reformist conservative governor against the progressive bureaucrats in New Jersey? Well, he didn't really have that many – he doesn't really have that many scores on the board compared to Scott Walker. Is it I'm a moderate who can speak to the moderates in the center?

Well, yeah, but then I got Jeb Bush, right? I got a blue chip moderate if I want a moderate. I don't really know where that is for him. Of course, early days, who knows? Where it is is he's going to make Washington work because too long there have been factions and arguments, and he's going to go in there and make it work, which was the banality that I heard from his announcement. It's easy. He's not exactly the first person to say, I'm going to go in there and fix it

by bringing both sides together at this end. Does anybody want that? No. Well, people are grasping, are flocking to Trump because he seems like the sort of guy who says on the first day I'm going to lock the doors and have the opposition shot. I mean, that's that'll do.

That'll do. That'll do. And, yeah, we would have things to talk about then, wouldn't we, as the police state descends upon us. But until that day, we advise everybody, of course, to bone up on why Western civilization needs to be preserved and what's good about it. That's why you can go to thegreatcourses.com, thegreatcourses.com, TheGreatCourses.com. You can also go to Harry's Shave and shave cheaper, better, smarter, all these things. And in both cases, Ricochet is your coupon code. Add that, save a little better. And of course, you can visit the Ricochet store where there's lots of great Ricochet swag there as well.

You can walk around in public with a shirt. You can sit in your coffee house with your own mug with the R on it and fend off... Still legal. Inquiry. Well, at this moment, yes. At this moment, yes. Bill de Blasio may outlaw the use of a Ricochet cup in your apartment at some point, but we'll have to wait for that. And if he does, of course, it'll be done for the good of all.

Particularly the children. No children at Ricochet.com. Just smart adults having a good time and arguing with each other with a civil spirit of, as Christy would say, love. We'll see you all in the comments, everybody, at Ricochet 2.0. Next week, fellas. Next week, boys. Somewhere over the rainbow Way up high

and the dreams that you dream of once in a love abide high oh somewhere over the rainbow

Bluebirds fly And the dreams that you dream of Dreams really do come true Someday you'll wish upon a star Wake up where the clouds are far behind Me Where trouble melts like lemon drops High above the chimney top

That's where You'll find me, oh, somewhere over the rainbow, bluebirds fly. Ricochet! Join the conversation. Oh, why, oh, why can't I? I, well, I see trees of green and red roses, too. I'll watch them bloom for me and you and I think to myself, what a wonderful world. The lassie skies of blue and I see clouds of white and the brightness of deep. I like the dark and I think to myself,

what a wonderful world. you