Power Line

Well that certainly was a week. Seems more like a year now since the news that Judge Cannon declared special DoJ prosecutor Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, but it was only Monday. But we didn't even get into this issue in this episode, even though weekly defense of the Constitution is in our union contract.

Is there anything new or original left to be said about the political events of the week, starting with the attempted assassination of President Trump, the nomination of J.D. Vance (allowing Lurcretia to say "I told you so!" yet again—isn't this getting monotonous by this point), and then Trump's near Castroesque-length acceptance speech? Why yes—yes there is. Steve, John, and Lucretia offer several observations we haven't yet heard from the legion of other pundits and analysts, which leads to a surprisingly sharp argument about free trade and potential tariffs under a Trump-Vance administration, which extends to a vigorous discussion of another substantial import of the moment—illegal immigrants.

Steve also explains why, if you listened carefully to Trump's speech, you'll see that Reaganism isn't quite dead yet, why it was also a Jedi-mind trick on Biden, and why many of the news stories about Biden's possible withdrawal from the race have a implicit subtext that party leaders really really don't want Kamala Harris either, but can't say so publicly. We end the week with our shopping lists: more popcorn for John and Steve, and more tin foil for Lucretia.

The prolonged agony of Joe Biden is causing rifts in the political universe similar to what a black hole does—a vortex sucking everything into a void beyond which lie quantum unknowns. This episode ponders a number of those unknowns as best we can.

First off, we note the sudden media/Democratic Party discovery of "Project 2025," and enumerate a few items we wish would be included, like year-round McRibs at McDonalds, and an end to the designated hitter rule in the National League. Then John provides an on-scene account of this week's National Conservatism conference where he was a speaker, and where he took note for the very first time of the "trad wives" movement, which really represents an implicit final rejection of immanentizing the eschaton. 

From there we take up some listener requests for "explainers" about the peculiar 12th Amendment (since Trump may choose a running mate from Florida, causing confusion and uncertainty), and then the workings of the 25th Amendment, which we all agree is unlikely to work on President Biden unless he actually lapses into a coma or something. Trump can render this moot, however, if he picks Steve and Lucretia's choices for Veep; John is going for a Florida veepnom.

Beneath the surface of all these issues is the knotty problem of KAH-mala. We ponder a few possibilities on this that so far we haven't heard anyone else present.  

Exit music this week, once against chosen for topicality: "Rift" from Phish, since some aspects of it sound like they almost could be thinking of Kamala:

Last night, in the moments my thoughts were adrift
And coasting a terrace, approaching a rift
Through which I could spy several glimpses beneath
Of the darkness the light from above could not reach
I spied wings of reason, herself taking flight
And upon yonder precipice saw her alight
And glared back at me one last look of dismay
As if she were the last one she thought I'd betray

For your listening pleasure while you fire up the grill and align your fireworks today or over the weekend, the gang assembled for a special July 4 edition of the 3WHH, with extensive discussion—and disagreement—about whether President Biden will step aside and whether Kamala Harris will replace him. Steve says Yes, John says no, Lucretia is simply horrified at the whole scene. 

Meanwhile, there's a good dad joke going around (so naturally Steve told it, but you'll have to listen to catch it—this is a no-spoiler show note zone man!) that sets up a pivot to the last couple of decisions of the Supreme Court term just ended, especially the case involving presidential immunity. John explains why both sides of the issue are getting it wrong, while Steve and Lucretia trump John's legalese with some good old political philosophy, enlisting as an expert witness Harvey Mansfield.

Picking exit music this week was a no-brainer, given the main topic: The Clash (fits, no?), "Should I Stay or Should I Go?"

Should I stay, or should I go now?
Should I stay, or should I go now?
If I go, there will be trouble
And if I stay, it will be double
So come on and let me know

This indecision's bugging me
If you don't want me, set me free
Exactly whom I'm supposed to be
Don't you know which clothes even fit me?
Come on and let me know 
Should I cool it, or should I blow?

Last month John Yoo and Steve Hayward, larping around central Europe in search of the rule of law, happened to make the acquaintance for former (and perhaps future?) Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who graciously agreed to sit down for a conversation about his broad gauge view of the world scene right now. We heard him give a terrific speech at the Danube Institute, which you can take in at the beginning of this YouTube video.

In our conversation Abbott ranges from the Ukraine War and the Middle East to the Climate Cult and the ruin of identity politics everywhere. We also digress to learn more about the origins of Australia's mandatory voting system, which reformers in the U.S. sometimes think we should try.

Has there been a worse week for the left in the last 25 years? First "Squadster" Jamal Bowman loses his House seat, then the Supreme Court delivers blow-after-blow to the foundations of the administrative state, and then Biden didn't show up for a debate. Oh, wait—he did show up, though you had to wonder whether they really intended a Weekend at Bernie's sequel.

John Yoo hosts this week's episode, and manages both to coax some cheerfulness out of Lucretia, but also skillfully avoiding the important Supreme Court opinion involving The Statute That Cannot Be Named on This Podcast. 

We break down the highlights and lowlights of both the debate and the Supreme Court opinions, with Lucretia offering some praise for Chief Justice Roberts for a change, while just about giving up hope for Justice Barrett, who seems to be angling to become the next David Souter on the Court. To be continued with a special July 4 episode next week.

If you follow news out of Israel these days—and who doesn't?—you may have caught the story early this week that Israel's Supreme Court issued a ruling that the government may not exempt the haredim (Israel's ultra-orthodox community) from military service. The ruling went further, though, than just ending an exemption from service: the court ruled that government funding must be cut off from any yeshivas (schools) that do not comply with the ruling.

Aside from the legal reasoning behind this ruling is the larger question of the continuing arrogation of power by Israel's high court. Last month John Yoo and Steve Hayward, overseas for a conference on international law, sat with with Simcha Rothman, a senior member of the Knesset who, as chair of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, has been deeply involved with proposals to reform and rein in the runaway judiciary. This controversy was roiling Israeli politics last year until the events of October 7 put it on the back burner, but we think Americans will be surprised to learn more about the peculiar circumstances of Israeli's judiciary. If you think America's judiciary can be activist and unaccountable, just wait till you hear from Simcha.

Toward the end we also move on to a general discussion of the Gaza War.

We hadn't even planned to do a regular episode this week because John Yoo is over in Korea, Steve has been away at a three-day conference, and Lucretia is breaking in a new kitten. But we received urgent messages from listeners and readers asking us to please decode just what the Supreme Court did this week, especially in the Moore v U.S. case that dealt with the income tax. Expert commentary seems divided on just what the Court meant, but as John filed an amicus brief in that case, he's the ideal person to break it down for us. 

But not before finding a new way to torment him with a successor to the Statute That Cannot Be Named—the nitrogen cycle! And really it fits if you think about it, since the Supreme Court seems to have hit the nitrous oxide a bit too hard in this week's rulings. 

Finally, a look at the latest campus news, including how Columbia University is surely going to regret that Alvin Bragg dismissed charges against Columbia students who occupied and vandalized university property. Prediction: there's a 50/50 chance that Columbia doesn't even open up for in-person campus life this fall.

No sooner do we have a "reunion" episode last week than travel schedules blow it all up again. With John Yoo away on another junket (supposedly teaching a summer law seminar somewhere, but really in search of more elusive McRibs), Lucretia and Steve decided to do a live episode where they pondered what might be called the "meta-narrative" (that would be "McNarrative" to John Yoo) behind the sharply differing constitutional views of left and right. 

Steve argues that behind the left's primal drive for power that can explain the outcome-oriented constitutionalism of the left on display since the Progressive Era lies a more sinister but less recognized aspect of leftist politics: American leftists are basically socialist revolutionaries, but rather than conduct direct revolution (with certain isolated exceptions), they prefer to use the rule of law to subvert the rule of law.  Steve thinks an important clue to understanding this dynamic (about which too many conservatives and Republicans are clueless) can be found in a reconsideration of . . . the Spanish Civil War. (See Nathan Pinkoski's fine essay reviewing the revisionist literature that essentially says everything you think you know about teh Spanish Civil War is wrong, and just imagine what Franco could have done if only he'd had some helicopters.)

Lucretia as always is less convinced by Steve's historical analogies and, having had three espressos after lunch and before taping, offers her own special sauce to understanding the problem, yet somehow omitted the usual snark about Steve's whisky of the week, Laphroaig Quarter-Cask.

Finally, in honor of Pride Month, some topical exit music this week from the great Jonathan Richman.

And thanks to the many Power Line readers who tuned in for the live taping.  Sorry we didn't get to more of your questions and comments.

The Three Whisky Happy Hour bartenders are finally back in the same time zone, and Lucretia fills in Steve and John about what happened while they were away partying in Europe. We mostly skip over doting on Biden's dotage, and take up Jed Rubenfeld's argument that Trump isn't technically a "convicted felon" yet, and might have strong case for immediate relief from the Supreme Court. 

We finally have a long-postponed update on the situation in Ukraine, where there have been a number of developments over the last two weeks that make the war more volatile. The French are sending in troops ('advisers,' but that sounds too familiar), while we have apparently greenlit Ukraine to attack inside Russian with our weapons—so long as we approve the targets. What could go wrong? (And why is Hungary opposing the NATO position on Ukraine? Not for the reasons you read in the American media. . .)

Finally, for our Article of the Week we take up the issue of climate change litigation, which John wrote about a few days ago for National Review, and which Steve is working separately on an article about European lawfare in this domain.

BUDAPEST, June 5: This Sunday the member states of the European Union will be going to the polls to elect their members of the European Parliament. I don't exactly know just what the European Parliament does either, and it has become boring viewing ever since Nigel Farage departed the European Parliament after Brexit. But there is intense campaigning underway. The streets of Budapest are lined with campaign posters, and there was a campaign march last Saturday with tens of thousands turning out.

Most of the polls suggest that right-of-center "populist" parties are likely to see the largest gains in this round of elections, though likely not large enough to command a coalition majority, but we'll have to see.

But wait! There's more! On July 4—an auspicuous day for Americans obviously—Britain heads to the polls for a general election, and all of the polls indicate the Conservative Party is heading for an epic wipeout at the hands of Labour. What explains the Tories' dismal prospects just five years after their largest landslide win in 70 years? To say they have underperformed the last five years under Boris Johnson and his successors is an understatement. From COVID lockdowns to Net-Zero energy madness, who needs the Tories when you can get real socialism from Labour? And just how will the Tories dust themselves off and recover?

I sat down a few days back with John O'Sullivan to sort it all out. John has had a long and distinguished career in journalism and politics, having served as editor of National Review in the late 1980s and 1990s, and as chief speechwriter for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for a time. Nowadays he is the president of the Danube Institute here in Budapest, where he overseas an active program of visiting journalists, academics, and political figures from all over the globe.