We the People

This is the podcast we need in these times. We absolutely need scholars and debate like this and commentary that brings us closer to the heart of the Constitution. Well worth a listen!

Thank you for the discussions. I particularly enjoyed the discussion with Alison LaCroix and William B. Allen. As an immigrant I understood the constitution better than most, but still don’t know enough. In recent years, it seems to me there are forces seeking to destroy this country. Keep in mind that we have a Supreme Court justice who does not know what a Woman is. If you can redefine Woman, you can redefine freedom, patriotism, honesty, integrity, or any other word. With regard to succession, we had better hope that is an option. Do not look to the constitution or the civil war to decide this issue, but rather the Declaration of Independence. With the insanity of the authoritarian left, a total collapse of America is a very real possibility.

As an undergraduate pre-law student, I’ve turned to this show many times to hear liberal and conservative perspectives. The commentary has always been insightful, although I’ve repeatedly noticed a Left-wing and anti-Trump bias (see episodes on Donald Trump’s criminal trial and the merits of the indictments). No surprise there: Mr. Rosen wrote an anti-Trump piece for the left-wing Washington Post calling Trump a “demagogue.” Still, he facilitates great dialogue in each episode of this podcast and deserves credit. Criticisms of this podcast from the Left are insane. They range from smearing conservatives who appear on this show as “right-wing hacks”, such as Sarah Isgur, an accomplished, Harvard-educated attorney and former spokesperson for Trump’s DOJ; to accusing Mr. Rosen himself of spreading disinformation (whatever that means). They seem to prefer no conservative perspective at all. Good on Mr. Rosen and TCC for resisting the ugly Left-wing mob, and for championing the essential democratic principle of free speech from opposing viewpoints.

Many non-partisan media shows suffer from this issue, but you can’t platform right wing hacks and pretend you are unbiased. Putting them on as if they speak in good faith is in itself a form of bias. Sarah Isgur is a right wing hack and has no credibility on the law or in any legitimate legal circle. On almost any issue Sarah debates and equivocates in bad faith. As per usual, her conservative method of analysis is to accept what the court says as fact, despite the obvious holes, and then say “look, it must be right, they wouldn’t spin or lie and they have no agenda.” People understand that it is very difficult to get a reasonably mature or “normal” conservative to speak outside their bubble, but that shouldn’t mean you lower the bar for them. Don’t platform people who are fail to critically assess legal opinions and instead only see them through their political bias. Sarah Isgur cannot remove her conservative colored glasses. Amplifying that viewpoint injured the show’s nonpartisan stance.