The Judge will be on "The Daily Show"!

[MJU1983]

I enjoyed the interview. Love Judge Nap.

[Cabal]

I don't think Judge did poorly, though his arguments could have been better, certainly. You have to remember it wasn't the most welcoming setting for his ideology; it was essentially an away game for the Judge. Stewart even had to intervene to keep the audience at bay.

I think the Judge did well in conveying the basics of natural law and the natural rights which follow without philosophizing over peoples heads. But his free market arguments could have been more compelling than they were. I think he probably lost people when he got into the role of judiciary in the government machine. All in all it wasn't a bad performance, but at the same time I doubt he really gave many liberals pause about their ideas on the role of government. Jon Stewart once again proves he's at least open to entertaining contrary dialog at the very least, and was respectable.

[Keith and stuff]

I thought the Judge would have done better. He was funny and did fine, don't get me wrong. Stewart is just so experienced at what he does.

Of course, Stewart is unfair. For example, in response to the IRS, Stewart brought up fire fighters. Most departments in the US are volunteer. There are private departments today. And most importantly, fire departments are fund through city/county taxes, not federal taxes. Stewart has the skills to bring up crazy points at just the right time and derail conversations

[thehungarian]

I wonder how Tom Woods would do on the Daily Show.

[Eric21ND]

Tom Woods would eat him for breakfast.

[crhoades]

For Woods to win all he would have to do is call him a zombie.

[PA27Pilot]

Stewart is a liberal, I'm not sure why a lot of people are upset. He is going to debate his guests with different ideologies and he is quite good at it. Despite this, I thought the judge did pretty well. Jon Stewart is always fair and very respectful, despite our different viewpoints.

[MJU1983]

I wonder how Tom Woods would do on the Daily Show.

Extremely well.

[Cabal]

Yeah, Tom Woods would be no contest, tbh. Honestly, I can't really think of anyone who could pose much of a contest for Tom Woods. He's as studied as Ron Paul, and he is an excellent orator as well. If you've ever watched any of his speeches, they all seem to be largely off the cuff; and he doesn't ever really stumble. His debate prowess would be tough to match, even for one such as Stewart.

[ZanZibar]

Aired interview:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...rew-napolitano

Extended interview:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...nterview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...nterview-pt--2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...nterview-pt--3

Note: The aired interview and Part 1 of the extended interview are the exact same thing.

WOW!!!!!

The Judge was wound up there! It's hilarious, when he gets lot of energy he really gets going!


Great interview I think, too bad all of it wasn't on TV.

[milo10]

Jon Stewart kind of owned him... why would you argue against having the fire department, saying insurance companies would do a better job? I wish he talked more about the FEDERAL government and about the federal reserve, oh well.

Man, that one was so easy, too. Try this:

"So many communities across the United States are served by extremely effective and very dedicated volunteer fire departments. While it is true that this is not adequate for some major metropolitan areas like NYC, you could have some very basic user-fee approaches to firefighting that would never leave anyone out. You could pay a small fee each year to the local fire company, or get hit with a large bill when they save your home or business from fire. They would always put out the fire and of course rescue people and property to the very best of their ability, but in the latter case you would be hit with a significant bill after the fact. Plus there is fund raising and other ideas. These approaches are all more efficient and cost-effective than when the govt gets involved. Just as important, you aren't socializing the costs across society as you would through general taxation, but putting it on property-owners, who are in a better position to bear costs that would generally be very small for them, but might be more significant for non-property-owners of modest means."