"When the Colorado Supreme Court issued a ruling, in December, that
blocked Trump from the Republican primary ballot, [Sarah] Isgur and [David] French convened an 'emergency pod' to discuss the case. French argued that the court was probably correct to disqualify Trump, in light of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that former officeholders who have 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion' after taking an oath of office are ineligible to serve. Isgur, by contrast, was wary. 'The whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to strip the states of power, because they had, y’know, not behaved well,' she said—the Amendment was ratified three years after the end of the Civil War. 'So the idea that we then empowered each state to decide who’s qualified to be on the ballot seems insane to me.' But both were dismayed by the idea that Republicans might be able to retaliate by disqualifying Biden, perhaps by claiming that he had failed to protect the country from invading immigrants. 'Give me an effing break,' French said during a recent episode, coming about as close as he ever does to cursing. Isgur reacted as if she had just unwrapped a thoughtful birthday gift. 'Wow,' she said. 'I got an "effing" from David!'"
I have a tag already for David French. He's a NYT columnist. I'll make a tag for Sarah Isgur. I hadn't noticed her until this New Yorker profile came out, and now I've listened to a podcast and a half, and I intend to keep listening. Nice work! Listen to them
here.
२३ टिप्पण्या:
Describing David French as a "NY Times columnist" is a bit disingenuous, for anyone who has no familiarity with his writings over the past two decades.
It's so much easier to understand when you realize they really believe there should be special carveouts for their interpretation and execution of the law. Our current bifurcated legal system isn't some esoteric fiction discussed in coffee houses. It is real and it originates with these people.
David is on an effing list. Seizure inducing twitter trolls from 2016 are the least of his problems.
French is a leftist, which makes him a drooling idiot.
He is the king of the soy boys...
"But both were dismayed by the idea that Republicans might be able to retaliate by disqualifying Biden"
I thought David French was a conservative.
Sarah Isgur was Carly Fiornia's campaign spokesperson. I think Harvard Law.
Tag: Out, out damned spot.
Democrats entered the 3rd stage of grief--bargaining--regarding Trump, populism, and anti-globalism as their Jan 6 impeachment effort and show trial failed. They continue to struggle to resolve post-2016 cognitive dissonance, whereby at least half of the world has firmly (often violently) rejected their vision. The recent 14th Amendment stuff is a continued child-like misreading (willfully?) of all sorts of federal laws and rules when at odds with their prideful pre-Trump fantasies, wishes, and dreams.
Review the fall of the USSR a few years after Reagan's 1980s "Evil Empire" speech. Reports at the time indicated the crusty and stagnant Brezhnev-era Communists started to self-reflect and seriously ask "Are we evil?" among themselves. Gorbachev came to power and his glasnost / perestroika initiatives were born. Then they realized their system was indeed broken, and the USSR rapidly collapsed. They couldn't walk on air forever.
USSR Lifespan: 1918 to the early 1990s collapse
USA Globalism: 1945 to 2016 and Trump?
In your tag for "David French", you misspelled "Douchebag".
Ann, glad you discovered "Advisory Opinions." I started listening some months ago. Sara Isgur is phenomenal! Good that they're getting coverage in the New Yorker.
Tip for Ann: David French is dumber than Rex Tillerson (previously thought to be impossible).
I have yet to hear a valid argument why the states would not be entitled to remove Biden or a Democrat candidate from the ballot other than we are prohibited because they are a Democrat. Erasing the southern border of the United States sure sounds like insurrection to me...and to Texas.
Between Advisory Opinions and the Lawfare Podcast you can gather enough intelligence to trigonomerate virtually any American judicial issue, even the obscure procedural stuff. And if you’re a masochist there’s always Dahlia Lithwick’s Amicus Podcast — image Laurence Tribe and Sonia Sotomayor spawned a child whose life goal was to be a Democratic Party hack for Slate.
David French’s hatred is so great that he’s incapable of seeing the very basic originalist argument against considering Trump an officer of the United States or allowing individual states to engage in tit-for-tat warfare to determine who may appear on the presidential ballot. For someone who’s written a book about the dangers of a second Civil War, he’s amusingly tone-deaf to how civil wars actually begin.
I listened to a minute or two and I have to say, regardless of the validity of their arguments, those are two voices meant for the written word. They both stretched words out to an annoying degree. Not Valley girl or Deep South but more like whiny children.
This explains French to some degree.
"I have a tag already for David French. He's a NYT columnist."
Are you sure? I thought she was an underwear model.
Most of my links to him have been to his NYT column.
Anyway, here's how that New Yorker article describes him: "French, fifty-five, is a veteran, a Christian, and a former religious-liberty activist; he seems happy to play the straight man, a little bit older and a lot more punctilious than his co-host."
So, his role is secondary. He's the "straight man."
Isgur has a much more energetic style, and I think they make a good team.
I'm not sure what "a lot more punctilious" is supposed to refer to. Dirty words???
"I listened to a minute or two and I have to say, regardless of the validity of their arguments...."
I had that reaction in the first minute, but I adapted and it turned out fine.
Blogger Original Mike said...
"But both were dismayed by the idea that Republicans might be able to retaliate by disqualifying Biden"
I thought David French was a conservative.
Way back when I subscribed to Nat'l Review and the other one by Bill Kristol. They were all conservatives and advocated for conservative principles. They hate Donald Trump with a white hot hate. So when he became President all their supposed conservative principles disappeared. 5 minutes ago they were arguing for tax reform, lower taxes, and a secure border. Then Trump does all those things but they hate him so much now they argue for the opposite. It was bizarre. It's not that they hate Trump. It's that they seemed to be legitimately conservative and argued for conservative principles, and then Trump goes on and actually DOES the things they advocated for and all of a sudden their supposed conservative principles just evaporated and their new principles are consonant with NY Times and Huffington Post.
I feel betrayed. Their hate for one man destroyed them.
"more punctilious", eh? In the common parlance, a "twerp".
Sarah Isgur is very good. David French is one of those legal thinkers whose reasoning abilities and good sense become badly distorted when Trump is under discussion. If Isgur weren't there to disagree with French (even if tactfully) from time to time I would have trouble listening. French is worth listening to when his TDS is not doing the talking.
The Dims have never figured out that what goes on might come around--and bite them in the backside. Lots of unintended consequences might occur.
Surprised you have not discovered the podcast sooner. It is consistently good, like your blog.
One of my proudest moments was when I got a fuck* from Althouse.
*The interjection, not the recreational (and procreational) activity
I don't think the amendment uses the word "officeholder"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा