Listen now (118 min) | Another two-parter: the first half with our new favorite lefty Lara Bazelon, professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, journalist, feminist, novelist, controversialist. After Lara leaves, probably to free someone from prison, the lads take the second half of the show to catch up on the stupid and depressing news of the week.
Matt’s argument at 1:05 about prohibitions drives me crazy...”If millions of people are doing something” Like theft? Rape? Child abuse? Slavery? If you view fetuses as human beings entitled to equal human rights this is not a comparable issue to marijuana prohibition. Abortion abolitionists are starting from the point of defining abortion as a violent act against a second party. Blowing right past that premise to compare abortion to drugs is sort of willfully ignoring the opponent’s primary issue. Claiming a broadly “anti-prohibition” stance simply communicates your personal opinions about fetal life - it completely dodges the actual debate.
Worldwide? Yes they are. But I’m responding to the logic not the number. Surely you would view a “prohibition” on rape as justified regardless of the number. Which is my point: the debate revolves around the rights of a distinct second party - not simply restricting or allowing a popular behavior. To bundle abortion in with drugs and immigration is dodging the primary point abolitionists are making. It’s a position that deliberately sneaks in a contested premise as if it wasn’t contested.
Listen, I'm not going to get in the way of you wanting to WIN THE DEBATE, but I'm truly not interested in the exercise, least not in a comments section (even one as great as this one). I may bring it up in a longer conversation.
Fair enough - although I think you misunderstand my intent here. I’m not trying to bait you into an argument. I’m pointing out that your stated position (as someone who’s writing and opinions I greatly admire) is talking right past the people who disagree. I would love to hear this addressed more thoroughly sometime. I really hope you guys have on a thoughtful and intelligent pro-lifer when you do.
Anti-prohibition cannot be one's overarching premise since government's main reason for existence is prohibition of some (mostly criminal) activities. A lot of libertarians, IMO, miss the boat on this (and, e.g., support some criminal justice reforms that may undermine the legitimate function of the criminal justice system).
So then the anti-prohibitionist must elaborate: "well, I am against prohibition of activities where there is no (intentional?) harm to third parties, including 'victimless' crimes." Better, but then we move on to a debate about what is "harm" (do externalities count or is "intent" required? Could a libertarian justify regulating some extreme pollution externalities?) I agree with Lewis that drug legalization is a much easier case to make in terms of being victimless than abortion, where there is intentional termination of a potential human life.
All that said, I am ALSO anti-prohibitionist because I do not think that a 6-week fetus is a human life, and I think that the burden is on the prohibitionist to demonstrate that it is. On the other hand, I would say that maybe the anti-prohibitionist has burden to justify termination of a viable 24-week fetus (perhaps on grounds of mother's health and safety). That sounds a lot like Roe framework! SCOTUS justices probably arrived there through similar moral reasoning--they certainly didn't arrive there through interpretation of the Constitution! This is messy and seems like moral philosophy. In fact, it is: criminal law is ultimately moral philosophy!
I mean was it incumbent on slavery abolitionists to prove that black people were fully equal human beings? Any claim about personhood is inherently non-scientific. I don’t know how I could possibly prove a fetus’ humanity. But I know that if you try to apply any sort of consistent principle based on how we handle babies, the disabled, the elderly, or any other unique human condition, you land at an abolitionist stance. In the abortion debate, a fetus’ personhood is called into question based on special rules that only seem to apply to fetuses.
In a way, we assign personhood, or moral status, to pets, such that you can't kill them for no reason. But their moral status is different from adult humans. This is similar to how many think of fetuses. They're not full persons, so other values may be overriding of the value of personhood. I think it's worth saying that the pro-life movement is relatively new and can be seen as progressive, just as veganism. Both are a form of "expanding the circle," to use Peter Singer's phrase. But neither, in their extreme form, recognize other value tradeoffs.
We are of course getting into moral philosophy territory here, not going to be resolved in comments! I would say that an unstated premise in my position is that there is no such thing as a "human soul" that attaches to a fetus, so no reason to think that a non-viable fetus is morally equivalent to a human being. They are something like a "potential human being." With every week that goes by a fetus becomes *closer* to an actual human being, but does not actually arrive there until post-viability (in common law, a human for purposes of homicide was defined as "born alive"). Early on in pregnancy, many (perhaps most) fetuses do not even make it due to chromosomal abnormalities. Anyone who has been through IVF (as I have) is aware of how fragile those early days are...
The point is that it is a spectrum, not all-or-nothing like the rights of actual humans. Exactly where to draw lines will be somewhat arbitrary, of course. But the common sense position is that there is a balance between the rights of the woman to bodily autonomy (greatest when the potential life is lowest, e.g. high miscarriage rate) and the rights of the potential human life (greatest when the potential is greatest, i.e., post-viability). This is how many European countries approach abortion: allowed early, regulated/prohibited later.
So the burden involves equating early potential life with an actual human being without invoking God, souls, etc. I have come across some secular arguments against abortion--but religion always seemed to be lurking. (Perhaps that is always true with "natural rights" discourse.)
All discussion of human rights is a discussion of faith. I don’t find it a meaningful difference whether it’s faith in an enlightenment philosophy or a religious dogma.
The only problem I see with your comment is that you are putting the responsibility to prove a fetus is human life in the pro life side when in fact your existence is proof a fetus is a human life well before even 6 weeks...
These are the grey areas the abortion debate goes off the rails
Thank you. I mentioned in a comment I just posted that I think the fetus has human rights. Why is the fetus not entitled to the same rights as a person on the 40th trimester(nine-ish right? Am I mathing correctly?)
Why is a child not entitled to the same rights as an adult, like drinking or voting? Because we assign moral status according to our values and they differ for different people.
I am staunchly anti-prohibition. It blows past nothing. It is a concession that the world is an extremely complicated place and actions have consequences. Outlawing things does not get rid of them and generally makes them less safe.
We should live in a world without prohibition, but where one is free to proselytize about the value of a fetus. We anti-prohibitionists just take issue with telling others how to live their lives. Its fundamentally value agnostic.
Outlawing things does make them much less common, though. Even alcohol prohibition in the US, one of the most misguided and poorly enforced policies out there, cut alcohol consumption per capita by a third.
A big part of the problem is that the conversation always revolves around generalizations about the situation on the ground: who is getting abortions, legally or not, for what reasons. The reality is that most statements you could make about abortion on either side are true - it’s not either or. Yes, people will get them illegally to some significant extent, and yes, sometimes the life of the mother is in danger. Simultaneously, abortion is not really comparable to drugs - it’s a different market with different drivers. And the majority of abortions are not rape/incest/survival edge cases. This just isn’t an issue that can be data-wonked. There really isn’t a clear scientific or sociological imperative.It’s a deep philosophical reckoning about where human rights begin and end. That’s why people are passionate about it, and that’s why I fear we are only getting started with this court opinion.
Why would you *fear* that "we are only getting started with this court opinion"? Aren't "deep philosophical reckoning[s] about where human rights begin and end" exactly the type of thing that *MUST* be discussed and debated among the citizenry if "democracy" is to be more than just mere mob-raising and nose-counting? Like, if public discussion about what our civilization regards as moral is something to *fear,* I don't know what we're even doing here and we should probably invite the Brits back to rule us or something.
Democracy is mob raising and nose counting. But that’s a side track. I don’t fear public discussion. I fear political violence which can result from dramatically different bold red lines being drawn state by state. That’s what happened with slavery.
One could argue, not saying I am, that if there were no laws against murder let's say, there would be retributive justice that would deter people from acting. But more importantly most people don't murder. I think the law is doing very little to actually prevent people from committing violent crime. Generally people are socialized out of those behaviors with or without the law.
Also, there are some that argue, also not necessarily me, it is a business' right to not allow patrons of their choosing. Its generally bad business, but it is also their business. As far as the southern states go, those are government institutions with the power of coercion, so equal treatment should be a starting point.
Really it comes down to the fact that things don't get better when we outlaw things. It is pushing on a string. But I'm just some nut job on the internet so what do I know.
I take exception to your comments about Joe Biden lying about inflation. Is he also lying when he refers to Kamala Harris as the President? Or when he thinks his daughter is actually his wife? We called that something else in medical school.
It kinda sounds like Louie CK is going to be the guest (he’s a Masshole, but lives in NY). If that’s the case, I will disown my 3 month old son for not allowing me to attend. Dead to me.
It’s great to hear from sensible people with whom you likely disagree on 90 percent of policy prescriptions. Great episode - see you guys on Wednesday night!
David French turns beet red if Sarah so much as obliquely references the act of having sex. You could generate enough energy to offset Russian gas exports with the squirming David would do talking to the guys, and this absolutely must happen.
As always stellar work. What great commentary on Roe v. Wade in this sode guys.
Two things..... 1) “Progressive Mad Libs” is my new favorite phrase. Thank you Matt Welch.
2) Moynihan, when you were talking about gas prices tied to inflation...you were pondering the last time prices were this high. The national average hit an **all time** high this week when it hit $4.37 per gallon for regular unleaded.
Luckily for the Biden Administration, they can just keep saying Putin over and over again as journalists nod like trained seals.
Can we talk about how Matt doesn’t even make enough to make him ineligible for the child tax credit? $300/year isn’t enough people! Pony up and help this man.
I’m one of the hated pro-life libertarians, but I would be fine with legal abortion up until the point that the brain is formed to a degree that the fetus feels pain(whether it really understands pain is unknown). Anyways, I understand Matt’s rebranding of “pro-choice” to “anti-restrictionist”, but at what point should there be any restrictions? Can a mother inject heroin or smoke fentanyl at 38 weeks and not be held responsible for what happens to the fetus/child within her? When does my body/my choice end and fetal rights(what I actually consider as human rights. A fetus is just a less-developed human.) begin?
But who is to tell who? And in what situation? You argument is the same argument people make about schooling: "what if parents teach their kids the wrong things"
Making something illegal will not end this type of behavior and making it legal likely didn't increase it. The mom and others around her have the best incentive alignment with the child. The world is not perfect, but humans won't be made perfect by fiat.
Oh man, please have her back on to defend Chesa Boudin! As a San Franciscan, I’d love to hear that! I have been hard pressed to find people defending Chesa Boudin and his policies on their merits. It’s almost invariably disparaging the type of people who are pro-recall, or saying that crime isn’t as bad ‘If yOu LoOK At tHE dAtA’, or a vague nod towards his views on justice. 0 details on the merits of his ‘diversion problems’, or anything else…other than maybe his Innocence Commission, which does look great. She claims she can take M, M, and K, on 1v3 on this topic, so I would loved to have heard that. The open minded citizens of SF need it!
Also in general, I think public defenders play an important role in society, but have a natural bias. For any guilty clients, they meet them after the harm they have caused. The clients’ every incentive is to be nice and appear innocent to this person who is their lifeline out of a prison sentence, and that process presents a version of the person wildly different than the version who committed harm on somebody’s body or property.
Lara Bazelon was an interesting conversation, yes. Wrote her an email, thanking her for her forthrightness.
I think giving her time to make her points, re: ACLU hypocrisy was admirable and consistent with TFC.
I suspect the deeper you scratch a reoccurring theme well articulated and faithfully defended will arise.
Would enjoy a prolonged conversation between a previous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clerk, former LA County Federal Public Defender, currently teaching law professor in SF, with multiple long form published opinions, essays etc. and TFC.
Bring back up boys!
Moynihan makes a reference to Bari Weiss and a podcast with Akhil Reed Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University.
To paraphrase him...
Some are not burden with weight and responsibility of a law degree.
Forgot to write this part Patrick, agreeing with you and not.
Yes, Boudin is a blatantly incompetent, etc. DA. You and I could bring forth volumes of things to say about that.
Defending him is a fools errand and waste of air IMO.
The legal system Jessa and Lara inhabit is the place, were energy and thought should be focused. It has that common metastasizing rancor of illiberalism that is happening within our nation.
Red Laura is 🔥🔥🔥. Please have her back again soon!
Yes! She was a great guest! Also bring on her sister Emily Bazelon and have them hash out their views on free speech! https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/925755387/unfettered-free-speech-is-a-threat-to-democracy-journalist-says
In that case, Moynihan would have to introduce them by singing Steely Dan at the top of the podcast: "Bazelon Sisters... shake it!"
https://youtu.be/syvCvltX8mI
This is a great idea. I second this!
The live show where the guys interview Milo Yiannopoulos sounds amazing!
The Woody Allen connection is their mutual love of underaged people.
Matt’s argument at 1:05 about prohibitions drives me crazy...”If millions of people are doing something” Like theft? Rape? Child abuse? Slavery? If you view fetuses as human beings entitled to equal human rights this is not a comparable issue to marijuana prohibition. Abortion abolitionists are starting from the point of defining abortion as a violent act against a second party. Blowing right past that premise to compare abortion to drugs is sort of willfully ignoring the opponent’s primary issue. Claiming a broadly “anti-prohibition” stance simply communicates your personal opinions about fetal life - it completely dodges the actual debate.
Millions of people are not doing rape and child abuse and slavery!
Worldwide? Yes they are. But I’m responding to the logic not the number. Surely you would view a “prohibition” on rape as justified regardless of the number. Which is my point: the debate revolves around the rights of a distinct second party - not simply restricting or allowing a popular behavior. To bundle abortion in with drugs and immigration is dodging the primary point abolitionists are making. It’s a position that deliberately sneaks in a contested premise as if it wasn’t contested.
Listen, I'm not going to get in the way of you wanting to WIN THE DEBATE, but I'm truly not interested in the exercise, least not in a comments section (even one as great as this one). I may bring it up in a longer conversation.
Not everyone who pushes back in the comments is a petulant “reply guy.” I love the pod and just thought I’d pick at a perceived inconsistency.
Fair enough - although I think you misunderstand my intent here. I’m not trying to bait you into an argument. I’m pointing out that your stated position (as someone who’s writing and opinions I greatly admire) is talking right past the people who disagree. I would love to hear this addressed more thoroughly sometime. I really hope you guys have on a thoughtful and intelligent pro-lifer when you do.
Might I suggest, as I have in other comments in this thread, David French and Sarah Isgur?
Also, I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to explain my position.
How dare you, sir?! How. Dare. You!
I had same reaction!
Anti-prohibition cannot be one's overarching premise since government's main reason for existence is prohibition of some (mostly criminal) activities. A lot of libertarians, IMO, miss the boat on this (and, e.g., support some criminal justice reforms that may undermine the legitimate function of the criminal justice system).
So then the anti-prohibitionist must elaborate: "well, I am against prohibition of activities where there is no (intentional?) harm to third parties, including 'victimless' crimes." Better, but then we move on to a debate about what is "harm" (do externalities count or is "intent" required? Could a libertarian justify regulating some extreme pollution externalities?) I agree with Lewis that drug legalization is a much easier case to make in terms of being victimless than abortion, where there is intentional termination of a potential human life.
All that said, I am ALSO anti-prohibitionist because I do not think that a 6-week fetus is a human life, and I think that the burden is on the prohibitionist to demonstrate that it is. On the other hand, I would say that maybe the anti-prohibitionist has burden to justify termination of a viable 24-week fetus (perhaps on grounds of mother's health and safety). That sounds a lot like Roe framework! SCOTUS justices probably arrived there through similar moral reasoning--they certainly didn't arrive there through interpretation of the Constitution! This is messy and seems like moral philosophy. In fact, it is: criminal law is ultimately moral philosophy!
I mean was it incumbent on slavery abolitionists to prove that black people were fully equal human beings? Any claim about personhood is inherently non-scientific. I don’t know how I could possibly prove a fetus’ humanity. But I know that if you try to apply any sort of consistent principle based on how we handle babies, the disabled, the elderly, or any other unique human condition, you land at an abolitionist stance. In the abortion debate, a fetus’ personhood is called into question based on special rules that only seem to apply to fetuses.
In a way, we assign personhood, or moral status, to pets, such that you can't kill them for no reason. But their moral status is different from adult humans. This is similar to how many think of fetuses. They're not full persons, so other values may be overriding of the value of personhood. I think it's worth saying that the pro-life movement is relatively new and can be seen as progressive, just as veganism. Both are a form of "expanding the circle," to use Peter Singer's phrase. But neither, in their extreme form, recognize other value tradeoffs.
We are of course getting into moral philosophy territory here, not going to be resolved in comments! I would say that an unstated premise in my position is that there is no such thing as a "human soul" that attaches to a fetus, so no reason to think that a non-viable fetus is morally equivalent to a human being. They are something like a "potential human being." With every week that goes by a fetus becomes *closer* to an actual human being, but does not actually arrive there until post-viability (in common law, a human for purposes of homicide was defined as "born alive"). Early on in pregnancy, many (perhaps most) fetuses do not even make it due to chromosomal abnormalities. Anyone who has been through IVF (as I have) is aware of how fragile those early days are...
The point is that it is a spectrum, not all-or-nothing like the rights of actual humans. Exactly where to draw lines will be somewhat arbitrary, of course. But the common sense position is that there is a balance between the rights of the woman to bodily autonomy (greatest when the potential life is lowest, e.g. high miscarriage rate) and the rights of the potential human life (greatest when the potential is greatest, i.e., post-viability). This is how many European countries approach abortion: allowed early, regulated/prohibited later.
So the burden involves equating early potential life with an actual human being without invoking God, souls, etc. I have come across some secular arguments against abortion--but religion always seemed to be lurking. (Perhaps that is always true with "natural rights" discourse.)
All discussion of human rights is a discussion of faith. I don’t find it a meaningful difference whether it’s faith in an enlightenment philosophy or a religious dogma.
And so it has arrived, that inevitable impasse: "faith"
The only problem I see with your comment is that you are putting the responsibility to prove a fetus is human life in the pro life side when in fact your existence is proof a fetus is a human life well before even 6 weeks...
These are the grey areas the abortion debate goes off the rails
Thank you. I mentioned in a comment I just posted that I think the fetus has human rights. Why is the fetus not entitled to the same rights as a person on the 40th trimester(nine-ish right? Am I mathing correctly?)
Why is a child not entitled to the same rights as an adult, like drinking or voting? Because we assign moral status according to our values and they differ for different people.
I’m with Lewis. Matt’s argument is violence.
I am staunchly anti-prohibition. It blows past nothing. It is a concession that the world is an extremely complicated place and actions have consequences. Outlawing things does not get rid of them and generally makes them less safe.
We should live in a world without prohibition, but where one is free to proselytize about the value of a fetus. We anti-prohibitionists just take issue with telling others how to live their lives. Its fundamentally value agnostic.
Outlawing things does make them much less common, though. Even alcohol prohibition in the US, one of the most misguided and poorly enforced policies out there, cut alcohol consumption per capita by a third.
A big part of the problem is that the conversation always revolves around generalizations about the situation on the ground: who is getting abortions, legally or not, for what reasons. The reality is that most statements you could make about abortion on either side are true - it’s not either or. Yes, people will get them illegally to some significant extent, and yes, sometimes the life of the mother is in danger. Simultaneously, abortion is not really comparable to drugs - it’s a different market with different drivers. And the majority of abortions are not rape/incest/survival edge cases. This just isn’t an issue that can be data-wonked. There really isn’t a clear scientific or sociological imperative.It’s a deep philosophical reckoning about where human rights begin and end. That’s why people are passionate about it, and that’s why I fear we are only getting started with this court opinion.
Why would you *fear* that "we are only getting started with this court opinion"? Aren't "deep philosophical reckoning[s] about where human rights begin and end" exactly the type of thing that *MUST* be discussed and debated among the citizenry if "democracy" is to be more than just mere mob-raising and nose-counting? Like, if public discussion about what our civilization regards as moral is something to *fear,* I don't know what we're even doing here and we should probably invite the Brits back to rule us or something.
Democracy is mob raising and nose counting. But that’s a side track. I don’t fear public discussion. I fear political violence which can result from dramatically different bold red lines being drawn state by state. That’s what happened with slavery.
So then should any violent act be outlawed? Should the Southern states have been allowed to just “live their lives”?
One could argue, not saying I am, that if there were no laws against murder let's say, there would be retributive justice that would deter people from acting. But more importantly most people don't murder. I think the law is doing very little to actually prevent people from committing violent crime. Generally people are socialized out of those behaviors with or without the law.
Also, there are some that argue, also not necessarily me, it is a business' right to not allow patrons of their choosing. Its generally bad business, but it is also their business. As far as the southern states go, those are government institutions with the power of coercion, so equal treatment should be a starting point.
Really it comes down to the fact that things don't get better when we outlaw things. It is pushing on a string. But I'm just some nut job on the internet so what do I know.
So you’re a full-blown anarchist?
I take exception to your comments about Joe Biden lying about inflation. Is he also lying when he refers to Kamala Harris as the President? Or when he thinks his daughter is actually his wife? We called that something else in medical school.
It kinda sounds like Louie CK is going to be the guest (he’s a Masshole, but lives in NY). If that’s the case, I will disown my 3 month old son for not allowing me to attend. Dead to me.
I thought the same thing
It’s great to hear from sensible people with whom you likely disagree on 90 percent of policy prescriptions. Great episode - see you guys on Wednesday night!
You guys really gotta get David French and Sarah Isgur on to talk the Roe stuff. They always have the best Supreme Court analysis on anywhere.
David French turns beet red if Sarah so much as obliquely references the act of having sex. You could generate enough energy to offset Russian gas exports with the squirming David would do talking to the guys, and this absolutely must happen.
He's been on the pod! Check out 325.
But Sarah hasn’t.
Sarah would be a great Fifth Column guest.
Have you listened to the emergency pod post leak? They geeked out as hard as Matt and Michael after that endless Beatles doc!
Yes, but it has been too long!
Agreed
I HAVE FOUND MY PEOPLE! AO/TFC crossover peeps should be fun!
Having Sarah on would be a blast!
As always stellar work. What great commentary on Roe v. Wade in this sode guys.
Two things..... 1) “Progressive Mad Libs” is my new favorite phrase. Thank you Matt Welch.
2) Moynihan, when you were talking about gas prices tied to inflation...you were pondering the last time prices were this high. The national average hit an **all time** high this week when it hit $4.37 per gallon for regular unleaded.
Luckily for the Biden Administration, they can just keep saying Putin over and over again as journalists nod like trained seals.
Adjusted for inflation tho?
#Bidenflation
Kmele 2024 vibes around the 1:49 mark
Can we talk about how Matt doesn’t even make enough to make him ineligible for the child tax credit? $300/year isn’t enough people! Pony up and help this man.
I’m one of the hated pro-life libertarians, but I would be fine with legal abortion up until the point that the brain is formed to a degree that the fetus feels pain(whether it really understands pain is unknown). Anyways, I understand Matt’s rebranding of “pro-choice” to “anti-restrictionist”, but at what point should there be any restrictions? Can a mother inject heroin or smoke fentanyl at 38 weeks and not be held responsible for what happens to the fetus/child within her? When does my body/my choice end and fetal rights(what I actually consider as human rights. A fetus is just a less-developed human.) begin?
Also, should a mother be held responsible for fetal alcohol syndrome? Or fetal cannabis syndrome? There’s got to be some limit, right?
But who is to tell who? And in what situation? You argument is the same argument people make about schooling: "what if parents teach their kids the wrong things"
Making something illegal will not end this type of behavior and making it legal likely didn't increase it. The mom and others around her have the best incentive alignment with the child. The world is not perfect, but humans won't be made perfect by fiat.
I would be very enthusiastic about a trade episode! (Even more stuff if you invite Scott Lincicome to the conversation)
Has anyone noticed a particularly long lag time from the podcast posting on Substack and delivery to podcast apps (e.g. Overcast)?
It’s better than the lag time from Patreon which was hours!
Yup! I usually start listening in Substack and then like 20 minutes later switch to Pocket Cast. Guessing it’s the individual feeds that lag behind?
That's what the lag from Patreon was like, but today was > 4 hours.
Yup!
"Controversial chap"— Sullivan and/or Murray come to mind.
Douglas Murray's appearance on Sullivan's podcast was particularly good
That was an excellent conversation
Thinkin Louis CK
Or is it a controversial Chap-pelle?
OMG that would break my brain.
With FOMO, to be clear.
Also fits the "Woody Allen connection" Moynihan referenced
What is everyone using as a mixer in their cocktails that require baby formula?
Reminds me of the scene in TBL where he mixes his White Russian with Cremora.
Oh man, please have her back on to defend Chesa Boudin! As a San Franciscan, I’d love to hear that! I have been hard pressed to find people defending Chesa Boudin and his policies on their merits. It’s almost invariably disparaging the type of people who are pro-recall, or saying that crime isn’t as bad ‘If yOu LoOK At tHE dAtA’, or a vague nod towards his views on justice. 0 details on the merits of his ‘diversion problems’, or anything else…other than maybe his Innocence Commission, which does look great. She claims she can take M, M, and K, on 1v3 on this topic, so I would loved to have heard that. The open minded citizens of SF need it!
Also in general, I think public defenders play an important role in society, but have a natural bias. For any guilty clients, they meet them after the harm they have caused. The clients’ every incentive is to be nice and appear innocent to this person who is their lifeline out of a prison sentence, and that process presents a version of the person wildly different than the version who committed harm on somebody’s body or property.
As a NorCal counties resident too.
Lara Bazelon was an interesting conversation, yes. Wrote her an email, thanking her for her forthrightness.
I think giving her time to make her points, re: ACLU hypocrisy was admirable and consistent with TFC.
I suspect the deeper you scratch a reoccurring theme well articulated and faithfully defended will arise.
Would enjoy a prolonged conversation between a previous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clerk, former LA County Federal Public Defender, currently teaching law professor in SF, with multiple long form published opinions, essays etc. and TFC.
Bring back up boys!
Moynihan makes a reference to Bari Weiss and a podcast with Akhil Reed Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University.
To paraphrase him...
Some are not burden with weight and responsibility of a law degree.
Forgot to write this part Patrick, agreeing with you and not.
Yes, Boudin is a blatantly incompetent, etc. DA. You and I could bring forth volumes of things to say about that.
Defending him is a fools errand and waste of air IMO.
The legal system Jessa and Lara inhabit is the place, were energy and thought should be focused. It has that common metastasizing rancor of illiberalism that is happening within our nation.
... don't hate the player...