I lament that conservatives do not present themselves like George Will.

George is an interesting guy. He is worthwhile things to listen to.

Awesome! Can’t wait to read the book.

SOUND PROBLEMS A recent presentation by George Will at GWU was similarly plagued by poor sound. In that case it was from a fixed mic.....in this case it is from a mic clipped to a tie, (who does that to a nice tie), and therefore not correctly picking up the conversation as effectively as it should. Straining to hear the wisdom and intellectual rigour of George Will should be against the law....! Although having said that, his assessment of Trump, (such as it is in the brief moment of history that Trump so far represents), will turn out to be worthy of further analysis. James Hennighan Yorkshire, England

this book is so giant lol. i have to read it for english and I think its pretty good

Unlike the current "Republican" president, Will speaks in complete sentences, knows and understands the judicial history and implications of his positions, and has the education of government processes and effects to be able to present coherent analysis of each governmental philosophy he espouses. Will is a practicing Republican. Trump is a practicing selfish ego who knows nothing about Republican or any other philosphy other than personal greed and power. There is no comparison.

31:56 Yeah, about that...

I wrote this in another comment section: 1:05 min ... "331 million." ... population number ... wow. Lost for words ... 25 million people x 12, or 26 million people x 13 .... it's like the amount of the population of multiple countries put together ... I'm completely prejudice and biased, because I quite like Australia, and for the most part, how things are managed in Australia, and the scale. It is possible to see how an argument, viewed from the perspective of representation per overall population, could seem like an intuitively sensible basis for increasing the number of those serving on the Supreme Court. It could be easy, for example, to slip into thinking that, with seven, on the High Court of Australia, the amount proportional, roughly, for the population and representative, as if, for each state and a territory, or perhaps, a Justice for each day of the week, or a justice per 4 million people. Using that logic though, the Supreme Court would need 50 justices or 82 justices, and I suppose, instead, of using each day of the week, use each day of the year. When it comes to function, to functioning, actual group dynamics, of an organisation or in an organisation, though, there is an optimal range number of members for a cohesive group, a unit, before dynamics of a group change and are no longer a unit, and things fall apart. It is one thing to increase a group from three to five, or five to seven, and it justified, to account for increase in population and representation, but, it seeme like the Supreme Court, with nine, at a threshold, as is. It sort of seems like the concept of the situation is not dissimilar to the two legal principles simultaneously considered in parallel, the proportionality principle and the totality principle, only, the inverse? It also seems like, perhaps, the solution, structurally, isn't at the Supreme Court level and perhaps, cautious in the use of the term, shouldn't? There are currently 13 circuit courts? For arguments sake, assuming, the Supreme Court, as if a unitless constant, C, in an equation, not unlike like gravity of 9(.8) only without a vector, how would the other elements in the equation be defined, to maintain balance of power and the doctrine of separation of powers? Separation of powers, are horizontal and vertical? Division and distribution? If the circuit courts thought of as electrical circuits, in parallel and in series? The number of Circuit courts inversely proportional to the constant Supreme Court? ... ? If there were 27 or 28 circuit courts? C ∝1/circuit courts, where parallel circuit courts = series courts 1 + series courts 2 + series courts 3 ... + series court n . With how many court levels in a series, three or four, and, how many on a court one, three or five? .........? I don't know. Who knows?

Stop moving the camera so much and fix the sound next time!

Anybody remember when George Will was an actual fighting conservative? That's right. I can't either.

So instead of protecting us from 'majorityism'... we're slammed by minority rule... Why is tyranny only applied to the majority, when we are currently ruled by an overwhelming tyrannical minority ??????

Will must be talking about obama

Why did this so-called conservative publicly support and even cheerlead the invasion of Iraq in 2002-2003?

Will is not a conservative.

The poor man longs for the phony establishment, whom really deep down hates the man/woman that works to the point of exhaustion every day! he really loves the elitists who turn up their noses at smelly wal mart people and enjoy abusing them for personal gain. SICK MAN!

Trump has taken the USA down a path of no return. The end of the USA as we knew it two years ago will never be back. If Trump ever leaves the White House under his own free will the nation will be broke beyond repair.