Hi, this is LeWine Lowry. Every month, the paying subscribers of the Glenn Show get to

submit questions to Glenn and John McWarner, which they address in an hour and long bonus

episode. We decided to start sharing segments of this monthly feature with free subscribers

as well. Here is this month's preview. If you want to access the full Q&A and if you want

to submit questions of your own, please subscribe at glennlawry.substac.com. Thank you.

Here is a question, John. It's from Jake. It's from Jake.

Glenn and John, I can tell by your latest podcasts on the Supreme Court decision

ruling affirmative action unconstitutional that you both read the concurrences and

dissents for most, if not all, the justices. What do we make of a, the dissents being somewhat poorly

rendered concerning writing style, some of it is confusing, choice of words, and actual jurisprudence

content, or the lack thereof, and b, the fact that Justice Gorsuch points that out, points that

out in his opinion, the fact that Justice Gorsuch points that out in his opinion by implying that

Sotomayor's logic is self-contradictory, quoting, opens fire on its own position and quoting,

but if that's true, what are we even debating? Both Sotomayor and Brown Jackson's dissents

had a decidedly activist bent in my opinion. This is Jake. And we're lacking in the legal and

jurisprudential analysis that one might expect from a Supreme Court justice. I'd love to know if you

have an opinion on that. I'll go first, John. I do have an opinion on that. I did read the opinions.

I partly agree with Jake's tape, which is that I thought, whereas

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, who wrote the prime principal opinions for the majority

and concurrence, were systematic, comprehensive, clearly argued on the constitutional merits of

their position, even to some degree, I've used the word magisterial in reference to Thomas' sweeping

survey of the history of the 14th Amendment and defense of the position that the framers of

...