More year-end awards today! Jim and Greg embark on the second half of their six-episode saga known as the 2020 Three Martini Lunch Awards. Today, they offer up their selections for the best political idea, worst political idea, and boldest political tactics for the year.
We hope you had a wonderful Christmas and we’re glad to have you back as we return to our prestigious Three Martini Lunch Awards. Today, Jim and Greg discuss the worst scandals of 2020, which Jim choosing an international mess and Greg opting for a domestic one. Next, we sift through a ton of possibilities for the best and worst political theater of 2020.
Join Jim and Greg as they offer the second installment of their prestigious year-end awards. Today they remark on the people they’re most sorry to see pass away in 2020. They also share their choices for rising political stars and the political figures who appear to be fading into oblivion – rarely to be heard from again.
Join Jim and Greg for a very lively Friday podcast! First, they cheer the Supreme Court for telling the 9th Circuit to reconsider a case where churches face tighter restrictions than non-religious gatherings. They also hammer Los Angeles and California as their COVID restrictions even forbid “unnecessary walking” and effectively make people prisoners in their own homes. And they react to Joe Biden’s confusing comments about what would happen if he and Kamala Harris ever have a major disagreement over principle, and somehow that leads to a really fun pop culture tangent.
Join Jim and Greg as they reveal what they’re politically thankful for in 2020. From the fight against COVID to domestic politics to major events on the world stage, they each find three things they’re thankful for from this difficult, unpredictable year.
Happy Thanksgiving to all 3 Martini Lunch listeners and your families! There will be no podcast on Thursday. Please join us Friday for our special Black Friday edition, as Jim and Greg pick out gifts for various political figures.
Join Jim and Greg as they cheer much lower death rates from COVID-19 compared to the early days of the pandemic. They also sound the alarm that Democrats plan to kill right to work laws nationwide and crush the gig economy if they take full control in Washington. And they marvel at how activist Democrats have decided that Sen. Dianne Feinstein isn’t far left enough to lead the party on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Join Jim and Greg as they reflect on the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as well as President Trump’s reaction to the news. They also wade into the battle over whether Trump and Senate Republicans ought to press forward with a confirmation process before Election Day and counter Democrats’ insistence that doing so would somehow be unconstitutional. And they respond to the absurd overreactions of people like Barack Obama and Reza Aslan to the prospect of a new justice this year.
Join Jim and Greg for three crazy martinis today! First, they wade into the battle over how schools should open, with President Trump and teacher unions unsurprisingly on opposite sides of the debate. Jim offers a highly entertaining theory on how a recent head injury may explain some of his troubling decisions. And they have a lot of fun dissecting the new presidential campaign of Kanye West.
Greg and Jim are both here! Today, they welcome a Supreme Court decision extolling the importance of honoring the verdict of the people in each state during presidential elections. They also shudder as China reports at least one case of the bubonic plague. And they have fun with the NBA allowing “personalized” messages on players’ jerseys that must come from a pre-approved list of messages.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration did not give a sufficient explanation for wanting to end the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals program.
Also known as DACA, the program was created through an executive order from President Obama in 2012 to give legal status to people in the country illegally after coming here as children.
Supporters of the Trump policy were stunned at the court rejecting the president’s ability to terminate one executive order with one of his own.
So how should the court’s decision be interpreted? Why did the majority rule against the administration? And is the court deliberately deferring decisions on hot-button issues?