Advisory Opinions

I adore this show and find the intelligent analysis refreshing. But the idea that drug smuggling from undocumented migrants in Mexico could constitute an invasion would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. The “ultimate geographic source of the fentanyl crisis” has been declared as China, according to Congress’ Select Committee on the CCP. A vast majority of the trafficked drug comes through legal ports of entry (see Customs and Border Patrol Statistics for the proportion of seizures reported between Office of Field Operations [ports] and Border Patrol [border]). And fiscal year 2022, 84% of offenders were *American citizens* (United States Sentencing Commission). So the premise of “illegal migrants are the cause of fentanyl trafficking” is in itself flawed, and the implications of a resulting declaration of “invasion by undocumented migrants who are swimming across the river” is woefully misplaced, to potentially chilling consequences. I was shocked David could not convince Sarah of this. If drug smuggling is an invasion, then we should expect Greg Abbott to next declare war on China and American frat boys coming back from spring break.

I love this show, and everything you guys explain. But please, PLEASE, start saying case names and citations when discussing particular cases. It’s sometimes nearly impossible to find the cases you are discussing without even a case name. And links to news articles discussing the case in the show notes are not really all that helpful. Often those articles do not contain links to the case text or case names.

First, as an old, gray-haired, non-lawyer retiree, let me commend both Sarah and David for an outstanding podcast - it is by far my favorite. As a matter of background, I am a retired Air Force fighter pilot who has spent a significant portion of my professional career exploring non-kinetic effects in support of national security objectives. Given this, I would like to submit that the national security risks of a PRC-influenced TikTok go way beyond data harvesting and geo-location of troops and their families. Informational Power is one of the four elements of National Power (commonly known as DIME: diplomatic, informational, military, and economic power). Informational Power goes way beyond most people’s limited view of propaganda. If you can “outmaneuver” your adversary’s information decision loop at critical times (sorry, combining Sun Tzu and Boyd in one phrase), you can significantly impact an adversary response (known as D5: deny, delay, disrupt, deceive, destroy). By allowing the PRC complete control of TikTok content manipulation, the US would cede access to a popular information platform. The potential effects, in theory, could cause public sediment (important in democracies, not as much in autocracies) to yield delays, disruptions, and deceptions in order to interfere in US national responses. The Communications Act of 1934 limited foreign influence of broadcast media. I commend Congress for attempting to protect our 21st-century information systems from unfettered foreign influence.

While I’m really a Remnant fan just stopping by for occasional visits, this episode was like taking a brief online course. There’s nothing partisan or biased, in my opinion about how Yuval lays out one of our main problems (Congress’s failure to do its job) and the many unintended consequences of that failure on the judicial and executive branch. Everyone in American should listen to this episode.

After years of listening, I’m weighing in. When I first started listening, I could hardly tell which way Sarah and David leaned politically. Their well-reasoned arguments analyzed the merits of both sides of the cases before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, events preceding and following the 2024 presidential election proved too strong a siren’s call…and into the cesspool David dove. French argued that voting for Harris would somehow “save conservatism.” He lost most conservatives even before he presented his first ill-conceived argument. Then, CEO Steve Hayes launched an ad hominem attack against Sarah simply because she argued for one of President Trump’s nominees. That convinced me to never give one cent to The Dispatch. Hayes seems upset because people didn’t buy the tired argument that the angry rioters of Jan 6 should somehow disqualify Trump. French and Hayes might both want to consider how the left tried to bait the average American into voting against Trump through constant fear-mongering about threats to democracy. Well, democracy has firmly spoken. They would do well to listen. I’m disheartened. AO listeners have long enjoyed a serious legal podcast that has stayed above the mud-slinging filth of the political world. It’s not too late to return to merit-based legal analysis. I pray you do.