 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:14:45 |
David and Sarah talk coronavirus confusion, and Justice Clarence Thomas and confirmation battles with Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
| 2 | 7 |
Publish on Substack
Advisory Opinions is on Substack – the place for independent writing
Great, great pod! Respectfully, it seems odd that David either doesn’t know or doesn’t mention that the data-and-model-driven idea of possibly opening selectively in weeks after a period of isolation, increased testing, and tracking has been pointed out by doctors Birx and Fauci for a week now at daily briefings. David welcomes this possibility from the UK expert, but ignores that Trump and the team have pointed to this possibility for some time. Focusing on other things Trump said (awful joke about Romney, factual errors, etc.) David missed or ignored that, on the idea of opening,,and on using malaria drugs, Trump was mirroring what doctors and other smart people were saying. Whether Trump is wrong or right to push for an aspirational date such as Easter, he was not being anti-science, or outrageous, or pushing sacrificing the old for GDP in pushing these two themes. He does enough outrageous things without The Dispatch joining the Twitter swamp in reflexively rejecting everything Trump agrees with. A wit once said that everything Lillian Hellman wrote was a lie, including “and” and “the.” Don’t fall into this trap when Trump spins and bungles concepts Fauci and Birx generally support, stripping away the frumpiness...please.
I love David and Sarah ... and I am a moderate Conservative by nature, not a Democrat (not a Republican these days) ... but I have to say I feel this is the most partisan podcast I’ve heard from this team. It seemed that all blame was being put on Democrats for their partisan tactics in confirmation hearings. There was no mention of how offensive it was that Senator McConnell did not even allow a rightful confirmation hearing for an Obama appointment. And while saying Senators shouldn’t vote against a nominee who is otherwise qualified based purely on the nominee’s approach to jurisprudence, it was stated it’s OK to vote against a nominee who is not a Constitutional originalist. 🤷♀️ That argument makes no sense to me. And while Justice Thomas may be a very good juror, there was a bit of an “admiration society” discussion of him that did not even acknowledge the credible accusations of sexual harassment against him during his confirmation hearing and how that is a factor in his subsequent life on the court, for good or for ill. I guess there were a lot of things in this discussion which triggered my “Partisan Spidey Senses” more than usual in listening to any Dispatch podcasts. Just a danger of being a true Centrist, I guess. 😬. C’est la vie