Advisory Opinions

While a largely agreed with Steve’s critique of Sarah’s intricate ‘bullish on Gaetz’ argument…go easy on the spice, brother. It seems to this average Joe that the main problem with Sarah’s argument was framing it as ‘bullish’ and then hedging it more than a county fair corn maze. Perhaps is better framed as a potential silver lining in the event that any light escapes from the black hole that Matt Gaetz threw his soul into. I’m truly thankful for the work you do. Play nice, and keep it real!

After years of listening, I’m weighing in. When I first started listening, I could hardly tell which way Sarah and David leaned politically. Their well-reasoned arguments analyzed the merits of both sides of the cases before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, events preceding and following the 2024 presidential election proved too strong a siren’s call…and into the cesspool David dove. French argued that voting for Harris would somehow “save conservatism.” He lost most conservatives even before he presented his first ill-conceived argument. Then, CEO Steve Hayes launched an ad hominem attack against Sarah simply because she argued for one of President Trump’s nominees. That convinced me to never give one cent to The Dispatch. Hayes seems upset because people didn’t buy the tired argument that the angry rioters of Jan 6 should somehow disqualify Trump. French and Hayes might both want to consider how the left tried to bait the average American into voting against Trump through constant fear-mongering about threats to democracy. Well, democracy has firmly spoken. They would do well to listen. I’m disheartened. AO listeners have long enjoyed a serious legal podcast that has stayed above the mud-slinging filth of the political world. It’s not too late to return to merit-based legal analysis. I pray you do.

I enjoy the show. Maybe get James Rosen on to talk about his book on Scalia.

I have been an avid listener to your podcast with David French. I have learned about conservative approaches to the law and the Supreme Court. While I’ve seldom agreed with you and David, I’ve felt respected. Sarah’s interview with James Ho was so worrisome. Her fawning introduction of a controversial judge and lack of bringing up his critics sometimes serious questioning of his rulings and his often outspoken criticism of those before him in personal rather than professional manner. I’d have appreciated a more serious discussion of Ho’s whole career with serious objectives to his rulings. This was a pure hagiography.