3 Whisky Happy Hour

To paraphrase—awkwardly—that 70s-era lyric, "International Law! What Is It Good For? Absolutely. Nothing! Good God!" 

Lucretia host's this week's episode, which combines her skepticism of international law, especially as it relates to our current military operations against Iran, along with her impatience with our willful refusal to take radical Islam seriously, now that Islam-inspired violence in the U.S. is now a daily occurence. 

The first topic was inspired by John Yoo's latest article on the subject; the latter subject inspired by the news headlines, needless to say.

Oh, we also make the case briefly for invading Iceland. It has to do with hamburgers. 

Also there are dogs.

This special "Give War a Chance" episode, the second under our joint sponsorship of the Civitas Institute and Ricochet, had some peculiar technical glitches that make it quite odd and somewhat disjointed. Steve cut out halfway through, and getting him back was a great bollix.

In any case, we reviewed some key points of the Great Iran War of 2026, along with observations on the Supreme Court's intervention on the side of California parents (we can't believe this was even an issue, but it is), and then after Steve came back, a mad scramble to the finish.

We do manage to get in some important cultural notes, such as the new McDonald's 1,000-calorie-plus Big Arch burger, and talking John down from his first ever visit to Buc-ees.

This week we went round-robin format—or the podcast equivalent of potluck—with each bartender bringing a subject on their mind. John wonders whether the Clinton deposition about Epstein is really sensible, Steve wonders how Gaffen-Gavin Newsom can possible survive this week's "George Romney Moment" (you need to be a certain age, or have read some political history from the 1960s, to get this reference), and Lucretia wonders why universities have allowed themselves to be swallowed whole by useless administrators.

Along the way we do lighting round hot takes on Trump's stupendous State of the Union speech, whether we're going to go to war with Iran perhaps before these pixels are dry on the screen, and, in response to a listener question, clarifying our discussion last week about the Supreme Court's tariff decision, along with some great pop culture trivia that we hadn't planned.

Plus—this episode opens with a BIG ANNOUNCEMENT about the future of this podcast! And some upcoming events.

Was the Supreme Court's tariff case Friday a no-lose case for conservatives, as Steve argues in this fast-paced episode, or a serious setback for President Trump? We were just surprised John Yoo had any voice left at all to break it down for us after being on call throughout the day for Fox News, but he saved his best for us. Hint: The fact that the three liberals on the Court wrote concurring opinions disagreeing with Chief Justice Roberts's reasoning behind the decision suggests some useful mischief at work in the decision. 

The second half of this episode turns briefly to whether the "vibe shift" against wokism is really taking place, with caveats about whether it will survive Trump's presidency, or be reversed by the next Democrat who lies their way into the White House. Not only is the Wokerati engaging in "massive resistance" to steps to end government-sponsored racism and human nature-denying trans-axels, but some Democrats are darkly threatening retribution for people and institutions that are abandoning DEI and other wokist totems right now.

Whether free and fair elections can be saved with the SAVE Act is the first topic of debate this week, along with a celebration of the Trump Administration rolling back the EPA's power to make our energy scarce and expensive. Steve describes this bold step as the "Inchon Landing" in the war against the administrative state. Forget Nixon-to-China cliches: only Trump could take such a bold step that no other conventional Republican would dare take. 

We also spend a good deal of time recalling the passing, ten years ago now, of Justice Antonin Scalia, whose shadow over contemporary jurisprudence continues to lengthen. We think Scalia is displacing Holmes as the most significant jurist of the last century for his enduring influence and for his central role in reviving constituitional originalism, even though he once described himself as a "faint-hearted originalist." There's a paradox at work in Scalia's jurisprudential legacy that requires someone like G.K. Chesterton to understand—and that, kids, ought to be a strong hint as to exactly what it is.

This week all three of your whisky-swilling disputationists found themselves together in Austin, Texas, for a Civitas Institute conference, and we managed to sneak away to record this week's episode in -person. Though you wish earnestly for us to return to Substack or Zoom, since we had some technical challenges with our sound mix (one microphone wouldn't work at all, and we weren't able to fix it much in post-production).

In any case, after noting how John's beloved McRibb is going to rescue Bitcoin from its recent 40% slump, we get down to business, answering a reader/ listener comment asking what, exactly, is "scientific" about "political science"? And for our second topic, we beat up John (so what else is new, you ask) about his forthcoming essay on "The Declaration of Independence as a Constitution," part of our ongoing consideration of the Declaration ahead of the 250th anniversary this summer.  To be continued. . .

Alas, since this is an audio-only episode, there is no video availabe to be posted to YouTube, but we'll resume our livestream format experiments next week.

This may sound like a very esoteric subject for our weekly podcast, but did you know this year is the 100th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case of Euclid v. Ambler Realty? No, really—it is! We're not making this up. Okay, we know what you're thinking: what is Euclid v. Ambler Realty and why should I care, especially a hindred years later?

The Euclid decision, written by one of the most conservative and principled Justices of the Supreme Court (George Sutherland) declared that land use zoning was constitutional and didn't violate the "takings clause" of the 5th Amendment ("No shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation"). I know: stifle your excitement. But don't zone out on us. John and Steve agree (for once) that Sutherland got this one badly wrong, and trust us, we liven it up in our discussion.

Lucretia, hostess for this week's episode, wonders whether there is a "right to protest." Sure the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech and the right to assemble, but does it actually protect protests—like those we see in Minneapolis right now, where the dividing line between protest and active interference of federal law enforcement is hard to make out (on purpose).

Then, finally, Lucretia gets Steve to reflect on the 20th anniversary of Al Gore's horror film about climate change, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore's film was hysterically wrong, but he's still with us somehow.

A lot of interesting legal questions this week for rotating host John Yoo, and we don't even get through all of them (can you believe Lucretia actually passed up the chance to dunk on her "favorite" Justice KBJ for this week's embarrassment at the Court), because we move directly to the question of whether Gov. Spanberger and Virginia are a canary in a coal mine of a Progressive mine-shaft explosion. Holy-moly!

And Steve thinks it isn't too soon to begin thinking about what "New Right 5.0" after Trump is going to look like.

Exit music today from Cosigner, which we are thinking of making the official bumper music band for the 3WHH, since the lead singer and motive force of the band is a certified conservative and listener to this podcast. Let us know if you approve.

Is it just us, or did this week seem even crazier than usual? We didn't have time to cover all the crazy in the news, and had to settle for trying to select the most stupid crazy thing said this week, though even that was a hard selection to make. But we gave a group award to everyone involved in trying to persuade the Supreme Court that boys should be allowed in girls sports. So much to work with.

We considered whether and how the Insurrection Act might work in the case of insurrectiony Minnesota, and then move on to our main event today: is America in fact the "best regime" in the classical, Platonic/Aristotelian meaning of the term (Steve and Lucretia say Yes, while John is confused and cantankerous as usual), and if so does this help explain the left's deep hatred for America?

Our second livestream on our Political Questions Substack was a lively tour through frivolous lawsuits against the McRib, to wondering what is happening in Iran. Could it really be the end of the line for the mullahocracy? If so we agree the likely deciding factor is Trump. Who also, you may have heard, knocked over Venezuela last weekend. Finally, what to make of events in Minneapolis. Well, a lot, as you might imagine.