Justin and William are joined by Kirk Wilcox to witness the CDC and masks, the 1776 Commission, and the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts


  • Many people say voting doesn’t matter or that if you vote then you are giving some credence to that system. I’d like to pose the idea here that even if you do not vote, for any number of reasons, you should still register to vote. The point I’m floating is that some states only pull jurors from the voter roll. While even the most staunch anarchist may not want to condone a monopoly court system they may be skipping a chance to free their fellow man with a simple jury nullification act. It could be a big case or a small one. Either way it is an opportunity to make an example, educate fellow jurors, thumb your nose at the system that forces itself upon you or all of the above. Worse case, your boss has to let you off work for a day or you miss some time fishing if you do not work. In the best case you might help a person accused of a victim-less crime who otherwise will loose many days of their life, suffer economically and face the stigma of a court record for years. At the same time it will impact the effort your own local court has put into prosecuting such a non-crime. Pipe dreamers might even say that the more frequent jury nullification is in action that it will result in less prosecution of non-violent people since prosecutors will not want to waste their time. I hear you, “What if I get a case on a violent offense and then I don’t want to participate?” At the first opportunity you can openly ask the judge or public attorney about jury nullification. Think they won’t quickly dismiss you? You would be back to work before lunch and you might have caused a curious fellow juror to look up nullification. Chime in, I’d love to hear your take on the pros/cons of serving on a jury.

    Jump to Discussion Post 4 replies
  • After the death of Antonin Scalia here has been a lot of talk about appointments to the supreme court and whether it ought to be put off.  These miss the point because regardless of who ends up taking his place, SCOTUS has a built in conflict of interest.  It is an agency of the United States government and yet is supposed to act on the constitutionality of laws of the US.  I call for a constitutional amendment that would make supreme court justices nominated, appointed, and paid by the state governments in rotation (the mechanics to be worked out).  Thus the various states, who contracted with each other to found the US, would have final say over whether the US was overstepping its bounds.

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies
  • I was pleasantly surprised this morning to wake up to news that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, currently the only SCOTUS justice who has ever presided over a jury trial, spoke favorably yesterday about jury nullification and about jurors being informed of this option. Details here: SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor Favors Jury Nullification

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • Should Supreme Court Justices be appointed by the president, or by the States on a rotating basis?

    Jump to Discussion Post 5 replies
  • Looking for a Web developer to make a demo page for a crowd funded project. Need a focus on security and bitcoin.

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies