ast: The 3WHH at The Day After at The Supreme Court // (Steven Hayward).

It took five hours to finish the Supreme Court’s oral arguments yesterday. The argument lasted twice as long as it was originally scheduled to. And the worse it got for the defenders for race-based admissions to higher education, the longer it went on. Chief Justice Roberts was perhaps sarcastic in his mockery of what he previously called the “sordid” business of sorting by race.

This is just one of many aspects that John Yoo, Lucretia and I discuss in this special midweek (and sadly, whisky-less!) episode. The Three Whisky Happy Hour is back! We will be treating the oral arguments in the same way that a drama critic would approach a five-act stage play. We will examine how the arguments landed and why Chief Justice Roberts’s attack on the “oboe player” analogy Harvard’s lawyer used to explain how contradictory and inconsistent the case for keeping race-based admissions.

It is a mistake to predict the outcome of a case based on oral arguments alone. I recommend waiting until the draft opinion is published next spring before making predictions. But we all agree that it is difficult to resist concluding the Court’s deference towards race-consciousness is over.

We conclude on the happy note John’s beloved Philadelphia sports teams are having a moment right here, so we have two exit songs to reflect on his love for McRibb as well as the Eagles + Phillies.

We’ll be back for the regular episode this weekend, with a final look at next week’s midterm elections and predictions.

You know what you should do now: listen here or move to hear from our judicious hosts at Ricachet.