To close out the year the 3WHH barflies recorded a special Boxing Day edition, in which, following the obligatory McDonald’s news for John and a breaking story that indicates President Trump really does mean it about defending Western Christendom, we review our predictions for 2025 from a year ago (which, unlike the old McLaughlin Group predictions, turned out to be fairly good in most cases); then discuss what each of think is the most significant story of 2025, and offer predictions for 2026.

We couldn’t make the Substack livestream work, but we’re going to sort that out in the next week before our first show of the new season next weekend, which will be 2026!

Just how are you going to pass the time on Christmas Day after you’ve got the roast in the oven (at low temp, of course) and you’ve finished your obligatory annual screening of Die Hard? How about a special Christmas Day edition of the Three Whisky Happy Hour!

Lucretia took time out from the kitchen to host this ad-free episode which features a discussion of the law governing religious symbols on public property, and why they are NOT violations of the Estasblishment Clause of the First Amendment (the phrase “separation of church and state” is not even hiding in any of the emanantions an punumbras of the Constitution, so don’t even look). Discussion also turned to wondering why liberals are increasingly hostile to religion—especially Christianity—and Steve offers his theory that the decline of patriotism among liberals, which also shows up in opinion survey data, is connected to the decline of religion among liberals, too. (He gave the full analysis of the matter in this Substack post a few months ago. One sentence summary: politics, the substitute diety for the left, isn’t going well for them right now, which makes them angry.) And did you know that Christmas itself is now a”far right” plot? That’s what Politico thinks. (Yes, we know: “Politico thinks” is an oxymoron.)

Is the United States already at war with Venezuela—and if so, who authorized it? The Law Talk crew reconvenes for a wide-ranging debate over presidential war powers, congressional passivity, and how far modern practice has drifted from constitutional text. The conversation then pivots to Netflix’s attempt to buy Warner Bros antitrust and whether or not in these big mergers consumer welfare still matters at all. The episode closes with a sharp examination of the most feverish legal question of the moment: could a president really serve a third term—or is that pure constitutional fantasy?

It’s conspiracy theory week at the 3WHH, as host John Yoo guides us through the mysteries of the shootings at Brown University and MIT, the mystery of why an article about the corruption of the DEI world should suddenly go viral just now, what conspiracy theory could explain why White House chief of staff Susie Wiles would call VP Vance a “conspiracy theorist” (among other things), and last but not least, how Candace Owens stole Lucretia’s tin foil hat right out from under her nose! After all this, we expect Santa will be delivering fancy new tin foil hats to us next week.

It’s the usual brawl at the bar with the three barflies of the Three Whisky Happy Hour, where we take note of Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson sayiing the quiet (progressive) part out loud, likely flattered by the New York Review of Books recently saying of her: “Ketanji Brown Jackson is proving to be the sharpest justice on the Supreme Court.” (No, seriously—they really printed that sentence.) But did she really just give away the whole anti-democratic impulse of progressives? It looks like she did.

We actually agree that Humphrey’s Executor is going to get executed because Slaughter (the party to the case against Trump) ha set it up for the slaughter.

Lucretia hosts this week’s episode with the running theme that there’s too much pearl clutching going on among the hand-wringers in Washington and the media. We flop our pearls of wisdom on the Tennessee special election, the J6 bomber arrest, the double-tap bombings on Venezuelan “fishing boats,” the Minnesota welfare scandal, and the related immigration control issues it raises. We have some diversions into the latest Trumpian nomenclature, including his rehabilitation of “third world countries” and the “R-word,” as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz calls it, and how Sydney Sweeney might react to listening to an episode of the 3WHH (because it is the new Kantian Categorical Imperative that Sydney Sweeney must be kept in the news).

Exit music this week is “Clutchin’ Pearls,” by Ross Kleiner and the Thrill. Key lyric that does not apply to our hostess with the mostest: “She’s so mad/I left her clutchin’ pearls!”

Now we know what you’re thinking: if we have on as a special guest historian Richard Samuelson, one of the pre-eminent experts on John Adams, you’d think we find out what Adams thought about the Clean Air Act, but no! Instead, the show reaches its zenith with Samuelson drawing our attention to some of Adams’s handwritten marginalia that demonstrates why Adams would have completely understood the Sweeney Sensation.

Richard joined us for our intermittent series between now and next July 4 about the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and he helpfully arbitrated the debate we had last week about the probity of Gordon Wood’s treatment of the American creed. (Readers should also not miss Samuelson’s article “John Adams Versus Edmund Burke,” which helps clarify the extent to which Adams should be thought of (as Russell Kirk did) as “America’s first conservative.”

Naturally the 3WHH bartenders can’t agree on the best way to cook a Thanksgiving turkey as well as the side dishes at the outset of this special Thanksgiving Day edition, but after that we get down to discussing what to make of prosecutions being dropped left and right—literally left and right in the case of the misbegotten Big Fani Willis case against Trump being dismissed in Georgia, and the Trump DoJ case against James Comey and Letitia James being dismissed in federal court. At least we still have trial by jury to be thankful for in America, as we hear Britain may abolish trial by jury for many crimes. Maybe the Labour Party is just trying to get out ahead of what’s coming for them.

We’ll be back over the weekend with a regular episode, just as soon as our tryptohpan-induced comas wear off.

Another week of last minute schedule changes, flight delays, lost iPads, misplaced laptops, and other mishaps delayed the recording of this week’s episode, but finally on Saturday night we were able to sit down for an especially fast-paced episode to close out the week that comes with competing Star Trek metaphors, reflectioning and debating briefly about which was the weirdest news story of the week—the latest Epstein file revelations, MTG departing the House, the Mamdani-Trump Oval Office Summit—the greatest clash since Yalta, or the most bizarre meeting of Capitalist and Communist since Franklin Roosevelt dined alone—before we finally settle down to out main topic of the week: the launch of what will be a regular feature here on the 3WHH between now and the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence next July 4.

For this first installment, we ponder the strange case of historian Gordon Wood, considered the pre-eminent historian of the American Founding, who was in the news last week for a speech he delivered in Washington DC for the American Enterprise Institute. Steve was present to hear the speech; John took in the published version, and Lucretia let out a mighty harumph. Wood’s main thesis at the beginning of his illustrious career was that the American Founding should be understood as part of the “civic republican” tradition, rather than a Lockean-Jeffersonian natural rights revolution. It made him the left’s favorite historian for a time, a point Steve made in a critical article about Wood 20 years ago, “The Liberal Republicanism of Gordon Wood.”

The long-awaited originalism debate is finally here! Charles C.W. Cooke, Richard Epstein and John Yoo argue the meaning and limits of originalism, how constitutional text should be interpreted, whether long-standing practices can override original meaning, and where modern doctrines—from Article I courts to immigration policy—fit within the founding framework. It’s a spirited, clear, and tightly argued conversation about how the Constitution should function today.

Rob Long and John Yoo are reunited with their pal James Lileks to serve up some laughs as they sift through some unpleasant truths that many of us would prefer to ignore. The trio yawns at the conclusion of the record-long government shutdown but sees plenty to worry about in its resuming business as usual; considers some elementary underpinnings of the affordability problem; John Yoo takes a barrage of questions on the SCOTUS term and presidential war powers; and Brother Rob takes us out with some thoughts on walking one’s path even in tough times.

 

While it was sorely tempting to devote the entire show to celebrating the return of Sydney Sweeney to the public eye last week, we decided to turn our attention to the serious matter of antisemitism on the right, and just what the heck “groypers” (groyperism??) is all about. Rod Dreher passed along estimates that up to 40 percent of young conservatives in Washington are closet Nick Fuentes fans or groyper-adjacent, though this estimate has received strong challenges. We review a few of the counter-arguments that seem to be left unsaid at the moment.

Then we turn to a brief recap and critique from Lucretia on our brief segment last week with Akhil Amar about his new book Born Equal. We didn’t have time to get very far with the subject, but the amazing thing is that Lucretia and John were together on their end of this episode, and Lucretia didn’t hit John once (though she may have spiked his whisky).

You might want to think of this totally gonzo episode as the 3WHH-Squared, as it was taped live during happy hour Friday night in a very noisy Washington Hilton Hotel at the annual conference of the Federalist Society, where John and I are present and making a general nuisance of ourselves. Lucretia was supposed to be in Hawaii this week on some kind of junket or super-secret mission, but the government shutdown interposed itself.)

As we did last year, we simply invited a handful of legal luminaries to drop by our not-so-quiet corner, with cocktails in hand, to kick around whatever is on our mind. We were delighted to have Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals drop by briefly before having to run off to host a dinner for his clerks; Roger Pilon, long-time director of constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, hung around to heckle everyone; Ilan Wurman, one of the rising young stars of the conservative legal academy, fell into our snare as well, and Hadley Arkes, who needs no introduction here. (Would any such gathering be complete without Hadley dropping by? To ask the question is to answer it, of course, as any disquisition on necessary truths from Aristotle to Kant would know.)

Helen Andrews’ Compact article on “The Great Feminization” is causing a stir, provoking responses from left, right, and in-between. And I just know that everyone wants to hear David French’s take on it, because how can we form a judgment about anything without hearing from the Conscience of the World. (Actually, just go with the normally mild-mannered Charles Murray’s take: “I’m still waiting to read something by David French that doesn’t irritate me. Even when I agree with the substance, the sanctimony drives me nuts. In this case, I wholly disagree with his take on Helen Andrews.”)

John Yoo files a dissent of his own that Steve and Lucretia find worthy of certain members of the Supreme Court just now, but keep your eyes out on this one; Steve, naturally, has an analogy on offer.

With John Yoo hosting this week’s episode in a vain attempt to deflect attacks, we devote most of the episode to foreign policy questions, ranging from Gaza, Ukraine, Venezuela, China, and . . . Africa? Yes, Africa. And why does it suddenly seem like Trump can be considered a neocon?

And not to worry: Lucretia still gets in her licks on her favorite Supreme Court justice (you all know which one it is) for another exemplary performance (/sarc) in this week’s oral argument about the Voting Rights Act case.

The Supreme Court’s new term is loaded with big questions and Law Talk is on the cases: transgender athletes and Title IX, presidential power to fire officials (even at the Fed), race-based redistricting, free speech and “conversion therapy,” and Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs. From constitutional originalism to modern political realities, the trio debate what’s at stake for the Court — and for the country.

We were finally able to schedule a taping with enough lead time to get a special guest we’ve been wanting to have on for a long time—the great Hadley Arkes, emertus professor of jurisprudence from Amherst College and founder of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding, and co-host of his own very fine podcast, the Natural Law Moment. We’ve abused Hadley in absentia in some of our podcasts over the last few months, so now he got his chance especially to attempt to sort out the very stubborn John Yoo.

John was delayed a bit joining us, so since this podcast is partly anchored not only in the truths of natural law, but also in libations of a scotch variety, we decided to take advantage of Hadley’s advanced expertise in gin martinis. Plus some “origin story” of how he came to political philosophy and in particular natural law as the primary focus of his mature work.  And once John showed up, it was ON!

Steve reached 2 million lifetime miles on United Airlines this week, which meant party hats and free drinks on his flight to Washington (yet still no invitation to join Global Services), but despite all that he botched the YouTube livestream of this episode, such that the 12 subscribers who tried to tune in live saw only Steve, could neither see nor hear John Yoo (this week’s hosts) or Lucretia. So we’ll try to get it fixed, hopefully before Steve reaches the 3 million mile mark in a month or two.

You can guess the topics: The Comey indictment (two-and-a-half thumbs up), the prospects for the upcoming government shutdown where, for once, Republicans have all the high cards, and then some extended discussion of Steve’s article on how to apply Max Weber’s famously dense lecture “Politics as a Vocation” to the deteriorating political atmosphere that contributed to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. More to come on that, including how Steve’s threat to grind up some Thomas Aquinas to put in John’s tea to see if it has any effect on him.

We open today’s ad-free episode with a whimsical look at the global sensation over the Number One Netflix show, “K-Pop Demon Hunters,” and despite his Korean heritage, John Yoo can’t explain it either. But near as we can tell, this anime cartoon show is somewhat classic melodrama, where the demons deserve defeat. And though it may seem a frivolous leap, we wonder about the demonic aspects of the larger story about Charlie Kirk’s murder, with Steve recalling Max Weber’s line—meant especially for young people—that “he who lets himself in for politics, that is, for power and force as means, contracts with diabolical powers…”

After reviewing the week’s controversies over free speech and the mercy-killing of Jimmy Kimmel’s pathetic late night show, we get down to one root of the larger problem—the inability of so-called progressives to brook any dissent from their party line, the lack of any introspection about any possible defects of their worldview, which was the primary object of Charlie Kirk’s campus interrogatories. We’ll come back to this subject in the coming weeks, because we sense a full-scale, China-syndrome level progressive meltdown is under way.

You’ll want to listen all the way to the end of this episode, for our extended exit bumper music, from Harrison Tinsley: “Charlie Kirk (Remember Your Name).”

Richard Epstein, John Yoo, and host Charles C.W. Cook dive into Trump’s decision to blow up a Venezuelan drug boat (was it legal? was it war?), the Supreme Court’s green light for immigration profiling in Los Angeles, and the growing showdown between lower courts and SCOTUS. They finish with Trump trying to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook and ponder whether or not the president can take control of the Federal Reserve.