![The Realignment [Premium Podcast]](https://supercast-storage-assets.b-cdn.net/landingpage/1716/logo/large-39789fd20d7ed65eaeb8aa3dfaa64482.png){kind=logo}
Roberts/RBG Question
Hi gents, I’ve heard you say that if RBG had retired pre-2016 election, the Dobbs court ruling would have set the national standard for abortion 16 weeks under Roe v Wade. Can you explain that a bit? I understand Justice Roberts wasn’t in favor of axing all of Roe, but if RBG had been replaced by a liberal justice, wouldn’t it have been a 5-4 decision in favor of Dobbs over Roe? Why would that not lead to the same place we are now? Thanks for reading, please excuse my ignorance! Really enjoy the show! It’s a breath of fresh air and I am learning a ton! - Pippa E.
Clarance Thomas's take on Loving vs Virginia
Just finished listening to your episode on the Roe v Wade decision. You mentioned how Clarance Thomas's concurrence that also raised rolling back other privacy-based decisions on gay marriage and contraception. Notably absent from his concurrence was any mention of Loving Vs Virginia, the only one of these cases that could impact him personally. On the face of it, it seems like "rules for thee, not for me" hypocrisy, but I'm wondering if you've heard anything about his take on the supreme court ruling on inter-racial marriage? Thanks
Have you guys watched For All Mankind?
I’m 100% in alignment with the Realignments view on dynamism. So is Ron Moore (Star Trek TNG and Battlestar Galactica remake). For All Mankind is about an alternate history where the Soviets beat us to the moon. This made America go all out on Nasa which leads to significant technological breakthroughs, better race relations, less culture wars, and a golden age of scientific advancement.
Does Zeihan exonerate the Blob?
After your show with Zeihan, I got his book and he predicts some pretty serious change, much of it harmful and especially to poorer countries, if the U.S. stops underwriting globalization and trade returns to more regional blocs. If that's reasonably likely, doesn't it end up justifying the foreign policy establishment's fixation on preserving the "global order" even if one disagrees with their strategy and overreach? This was the first time I encountered an argument I could accept for why we need to preserve the post-WWII settlement and from an unexpected place, so I'm curious for your take.
Efficiency on Sanctions
Marshall I've listened to your interview with nate Shibley on the early days of war where Nick said sanctions were a medium to long term play and how the export controls were the most important part. Having taiwan and Japan have strict export controls on chips and having usa tell China at beginning of war not to help Russia were important. I don't understand why Marshall never pushes back. What in the world is Russia going do with all that money they have ? Their airline industry has 10 months to live, auto industry is going belly up, they can't make their advanced tanks due to lack of chips so WTF is the point of the money?! Seems like what nick said would happen exactly happened and now you guys did a 180.