Nick Gillespie has a good interview with Eugene Volokh of the famed law blog The Volokh Conspiracy.
Among the most interesting highlights are his discussion of the cake baker and anti-discrimination laws. Volokh makes the important distinction between whether a law is right by libertarian, that is, pro-freedom, standards and whether a law is constitutional. He points out that the constitutional screen for laws has wider holes in it that the libertarian screen. (These are my words for his thoughts.) I need to keep reminding myself that. Of course, as a legal scholar who teaches, I assume, constitutional law, his instinct is always to go to whether the law is constitutional, not whether the law is right.
I wish Nick Gillespie or whoever wrote up the brief intro had kept that in mind. The writeup says:
In a wide-ranging interview about The Volokh Conspiracy, Volokh discussed the site's aims, why he thinks the government is sometimes right to force business owners to serve customers they don't like
But Volokh didn't even address the issue of whether it's right. His argument was solely about whether the constitution allows such laws, not about whether the government is right in having such laws.
The other most interesting parts, near the end, are on what he sees as Trump's largely first-rate picks for federal judges and his point that the Supreme Court does not have as much effect on policy as many people think.