I appeared this afternoon during the National Review post-election cruise on a panel with:

The panel topic was The State of American Justice.

Unfortunately, there is no audio or video I can link to. But take my word for it, it was a good discussion.

We started out with a discussion of whether the newly Republican Senate should reinstate the filibuster rule for non-Supreme Court nominees. You will recall that the Senate Democrats eliminated the filibuster in November 2013 (went “nuclear”) at the urging of Obama allowing Obama to pack the courts with virtually any nominee he wants.  The discussion centered around a prior presentation by former Senator Jon Kyl who (according to reports, I didn’t hear it) advocated a return to the longstanding filibuster tradition which serves the Senate and the people well.

The clear consensus on the panel, articulated at length by Whelan, was NO UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT.

Harry Reid and the Democrats need to be taught a lesson — and that lesson should not be that they get to change the rules when it suits them, only to regain the benefit when Republicans take over.  This will be a fight early next year, and we need to bring some backbone to Senate Republicans.  The rule change doesn’t so much matter now, but in the event a Republican wins the presidency in 2016, why should Republicans not get the free pass Obama gets?

Other topics included the use of prosecutorial power for political purposes.  I spoke at length about that topic, discussing primarily the Wisconsin John Doe case we have covered here extensively, as well as the indictment of Rick Perry and the continuing investigation of Chris Christie.

Andy McCarthy described at length how the Holder DOJ was the most politicized in memory, and how the warning signs were there based on Holder’s performance in the Clinton DOJ.

We also covered the problem of the legal education system.  John Yoo made the point of faculty being entrenched, with little hope that change can come internally.  He pointed out that one of the worst things anyone could do is contribute to the general fund of a university, as it simply funds the continuation of the current state of affairs.

I pointed out how the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization is a model of how we need to present alternative educational opportunities to students independent of faculty who will not give conservative ideas a fair shake.

On the issue of the Supreme Court taking up the Obamacare subsidy case, Yoo pointed out that this might be an opportunity for John Roberts to redeem himself after the disappointment of the Obamacare ruling when he (reportedly) switched sides after intense political pressure.  The political climate has changed, and while in theory the Justices should not take political pressure into account, in reality Justices read newspapers too.

The subsidy case revolves around specific language in Obamacare legislation that subsidies are only available on exchanges created by states. That would preclude subsidies on the federal exchange, which likely would collapse Obamacare.

I pointed out that the subsidy case was the perfect opportunity for the voting block against Obamacare plus Roberts to have some fun by starting their majority opinion denying the subsidies on the federal exchanges with a sentence like: “We hereby uphold Obamcare as written.”

All in all, a good time was had by all.

Related: Legal Insurrection profiled at Power Line