Who anointed Jonathan Turley the premier expert on constitutional law?

[Political Tiger]

What makes him a better expert on constitutional law than, say, Barack Obama, who also taught constitutional law?

And aren't there any other constitutional law experts out there that have opinions? Why is it we see Jonathan Turley on every cable news show lecturing us and nobody else? Jonathan Turley must have a really good agent because he's the only constitutional law expert we ever hear from.

Since it was written, the Constitution of the United States has always been open to interpretation, yet to hear Jonathan Turley speak one might think he is the last word on the Constitution.

Jonathan Turley advocated the impeachment of President Clinton. He believes the Founding Fathers felt that a duly elected President of the United States should be thrown out of office simply for telling a lie in a civil lawsuit. And this is the man we run to to lecture us and President Obama on the Constitution?

It's not that I hate Turley, it's just that I'm a little sick and tired of him and only him popping up every five minutes telling President Obama how he should do his job. How about letting some other constitutional law experts express their opinion every once in awhile?

:rant:

[redqueen]

1. He was well-received during the Bush administration...

though some did point to his behavior during the Clinton impeachment as a reason to take his statements with a grain of salt.

Perhaps his popularity during the Bush terms has gone to his head, just a bit.

[LakeSamish706]

2. Well the one thing that comes to mind is Jonathan Turley is not a Politician...

Obama is and obviously would be biased. Anything that I've heard come out of his mouth has always had to do with the rule of law, and that to me makes total sense.

[polichick]

63. That's how I see him - the law without consideration of political fallout.

[geek tragedy]

121. Turley is a media whore and self-promoter.

Tweety with a law degree.

[onenote]

3. he anointed himself

In the pantheon of constitutional scholars, Turley rates as number one in the self-promotion category. Beyond that, he's just one of the pack.

[Dragonfli]

4. I imagine Scalia is your hukellberry there son.

[Political Tiger]

30. I don't know what a "hukellberry" is so I guess it's best to leave it up to your imagination.

n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. When is he going to actually talk about Constitutional law?

The torture photo issue has nothing to do with Constitutional law.

I respect the Car Talk guys on this issue more than I trust Turley.

[depakid]

13. That's correct- it's administrative law

though unfortunately, with Obama's actions comes a risk of setting bad precedent regarding the Freedom of Information Act (something for all you "chess players" out there to consider).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Meh.

Obama's actions are also likely to set a very good precedent regarding the FOIA.

(something for all you "Obama doesn't have a valid American birth certificaters" out there to consider."

[depakid]

31. I woudn't count on it...

Courts tend to take the the exception for classified documents and certain records which "reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security" if disclosed" quite seriously.

This may well end up a lose/lose/lose situation for all involved- and if it does, the administration will have no one to blame but their own sorry selves.

[Wapsie B]

6. And what was Turley's position on removing * from office?

[Hamlette]

75. He lectured us nightly about how the world would end if we didn't remove Clinton

I didn't see him every night saying Bush should be impeached for lying us into a war but he preached nightly that if we did not impeach, convict, and remove Clinton from office it was the end of our constitutional system, our country, and western civilization because Bill lied about sex.

He's smug I'm sick of him. He's on MSNBC every night re: torture. I think the message would be stronger if they could get others to come on to talk about it. I turn off the Tv every time I see him (I'm still pissed about Clinton and he seems to be saying the same thing over and over now.) Dean's been good. Can't believe there are not others who might bring more credibility.

[eleny]

7. Turley doesn't have the pressure of running for office

I believe that he can be more objective.

[cali]

14. there are plenty of conlaw scholars that don't align with Turley

on many issues- liberal ones. Tribe, Sunstein, Karlan, etc.

[eleny]

18. I answered the question the OP asked about Obama vs Turley

I don't care who else disagrees with Turley.

[redqueen]

144. Yeah but they don't get on teevee every night.

Hmmmmmmmmm

:think:

[jefferson_dem]

16. He's purely subjective -- no responsibility nor accountability for legal "judgments" offered.

Being a cable news chatterbox, feeding heaps of red meat to the hungry wolves, without consequence, is not so hard.

[eleny]

64. Nothing you said makes Turley wrong

[jefferson_dem]

80. I made no effort to refute his points.

I was responding to your claim that he was more objective...and therefore more likely to be correct (I assume).

[baldguy]

8. He looks good on camera & make his arguments sound reasonable.

[Clio the Leo]

10. That's what I was about to say, "but he has great hair!"

... no offense baldguy. :)

[vaberella]

94. He has Blago hair...they must use the same HairNet hair spray. n/t

[LooseWilly]

165. I think you mean AquaNet.

That's what the punk rockers use to spike their mohawks... it sets like granite, and holds for days.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Turley represented Area 51 workers that were exposed to toxic chemicals

Turley RRRRAAAAWWWWKKKKSSSSSSSSSS as a nameless fellow DUer would say.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. LOL. That's the icing on the cake.

Jonathon Turley and Area 51.

:rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

45. Hey, it is a real story. Or are you an ignoramus by choice?

Lawyer views high court appeal of Area 51 lawsuit a longshot

Fri, Aug 7, 1998 (11:38 a.m.)

Even the attorney representing workers at a top-secret Air Force base 100 miles north of Las Vegas says his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is a long shot.

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington environmental law professor, is trying to reverse a court order protecting information about the base. "The Supreme Court hears very few cases," he said.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year upheld the Air Force's claim 3-0 that giving out information about the base could endanger national security.

President Clinton invoked executive privilege in 1995 to suppress evidence.

Turley sued the government on behalf of plaintiff clients who remain nameless to protect their identities. The workers claimed they had been exposed to fumes from toxic waste burned at Area 51 in the 1980s. They want to know what they have been exposed to and get an apology from the government. They are not asking for money.

Two workers died as their case progressed through the judicial system. Their widows claimed their husbands died from exposure to fumes from toxic waste burned at the secret air base.

"What happened was an outrage, and we will remain active in pursuing justice," Turley said.

Turley filed the appeal July 27. He is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the decision from 1997 by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"The 9th Circuit's ruling seemed to create new law in national security as well as environmental law that contradicts past Supreme Court rulings," he said. "This case has many of the elements the court looks for. The question is whether a sufficient number of justices will be interested.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/1998/aug/07/lawyer-views-high-court-appeal-of-area-51-lawsuit-/

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Oh, sure. There's a lot of precedent.

People vs. Sasquatch.

Matlock vs. Mothman.

[IndianaGreen]

54. Try Kasza v Browner, U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

FindLaw link:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9615535

Read the goddamned thing before spewing more ignorance.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I know all about it.

[IndianaGreen]

59. Sure you do....

Take your shallow humor to The Lounge.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Take Jonathon Turley to the astrology forum.

[IndianaGreen]

52. Kasza v Browner, U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Here is the FindLaw link:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9615535

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occam Bandage]

11. Because the MSM loves attractive people who bash people in power.

Everyone likes to see their leaders taken down a few pegs, and Turley loves nothing more than doing that. He was the most vocal legal proponent for the absurd Republican impeachment of President Clinton, he was the most vocal legal proponent for impeaching President Bush, and he remains the most vocal legal critic of President Obama.

He's got one shtick, and it's a shtick the media loves.

[OwnedByFerrets]

12. Well, for one thing Turley hasnt taken millions in

campaign donations from corporations. You DID ask.

[Mass]

15. What did he do? Disagree with Obama?

Just asking because, when he was popping up against Bush, nobody complained.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. He's claimed Obama is "Bush 2.0"

In other words, Jonathon Turley has shit for brains.

[depakid]

126. Before talking about who has shit for brains you might want to look at what was said:

Sounds a awful lot like Bush to me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4JphqRbT0E

[Political Tiger]

23. When has he NOT disagreed with Obama? n/t

[jgraz]

158. Probably 99% of the time

But why would you have a Constitutional scholar on to talk about how much he loves Obama's policy on stem cell research. He has a specific, legitimate gripe with the administration and he' a good advocate for his position -- a position held by most progressives, I might add.

[rug]

17. If you have some time you can read his credentials.

http://www.law.gwu.edu/faculty/profile.aspx?id=1738#

[islandmkl]

24. credentials??...f***ing Ken Lay had ALL the 'credentials' to run an energy company...

every two-bit (OK, in Turley's case, two dollar) expert has 'CREDENTIALS'...and i'm not saying they aren't valid...i'm just saying 'SO WHAT?'...

there is an old saying out on the Kansas prairie: "Everybody 50 miles from where they were born is an expert."...

if you don't get that, you just don't get that...

[Mass]

29. You're right. Who needs experts?

Strange. I thought one of the reasons we are in this mess is that Bush only listened to those who agree with him against the ones who are experts. Is it not how we got Katrina and other disasters. (May be it is better to listen to the guy who is expert in the 50 miles the problem is, dont you think).

Some people always amaze me.

Sorry, whether I agree with Turley, I like to hear people knowing what they talk about set the arguments, then I decide what I think. Not the other way around, where I make my mind, then only listen to those I agree with.

[islandmkl]

34. you apparently can't follow the simple wisdom of the '50 miles'...

yeah, Turley knows more than me AND you...so he is the expert...has nothing to do with whose opinions he agrees with...he is the one 'constitutional expert' all over TV...i guess that makes him THE EXPERT...

i'm tired of his 'frantic cheerleader' approach to his view...he has become a TV shill, no different than any other, of any opinion...

he's a f***ing EXPERT, my ass...he might be the smartest lawyer in the room...but qualifying him as an EXPERT begs the question of who else might be an expert...and what is their take?

[rug]

32. This has as much to do with Ken Lay as torture does with the Constitution.

Here's a quote for you:

"The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be either good or evil."
-- Hannah Arendt

[islandmkl]

37. here's a quote from an old fire chief...

"The guy pointing his finger at the house on fire was doing nothing to put the fire out."

[rug]

44. Yogi Berra

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."

[islandmkl]

46. Satchel Paige:

"Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you."

[Forkboy]

49. John Madden:

"It doesn't matter if the horse is blind, just load the cart!"

:silly:

[islandmkl]

65. W.C. Fields:

"I didn't say my steak is tough...I just asked what happened to that horse that used to be tied up outside."

[islandmkl]

47. Satchel, part 2:

"Mother always told me, if you tell a lie, always rehearse it. If it don't sound good to you, it won't sound good to no one else."

[jehovas_waitress]

62. here's another..

"Nothing is so simple that it can't be done wrong"
--jehovas_waitress

[IndianaGreen]

21. Because Turley is a Constitutional Law expert and has been consistent, while Obama

seems to have forgotten his Oath of Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1

Torture is against US and international law. Obama's failure to prosecute those that broke the law is a violation of his oath of office, and makes him an enabler of crimes against humanity.

Appoint a special prosecutor!

[Dragonfli]

26. Around here they think the constitution is only to be used on the opposition.

Someone must have told them that people with a (D) get a pass.

They never studied in civics class I guess.

No one above the law is an attack if your guy breaks the law or some such drivel.

:shrug:

[Hamlette]

77. Consistent? Like when he said (every night) the world would end if we didn't convict Clinton?

Turley is a whore. Or an idiot.

[IndianaGreen]

117. Got news for you. Clinton perjured himself and was disbarred for it.

A lawyer is an officer of the court, and Clinton lied to a federal grand jury which would have gotten him an indictment were he not President. Clinton lied to us, the American people. Clinton was a sexual predator, and he embarrassed himself, the country, and his wife.

We should have impeached Bush and Cheney because, unlike Clinton's simple perjury, they are war criminals that launched a war of choice under false pretenses.

[Hamlette]

124. Sexual predator? Removed from office? Whatever.

If, after the last 8 years, you still think Clinton should have been removed from office for lying about sex in a right wing financed coup attempt, we disagree.

He embarrassed himself but not me and not my country. The GOP did that (according to everything I've read from around the world on the incident) by trying to impeach him for something every president except 2 or 3 have done. Our democracy would not be very stable if presidents were hounded out of office by stark raving mad partisans.

I'd be willing to bet good money that a very high percentage of witness lie in a more blatant way than he did.

[O is 44]

84. I disagree

President Obama has not broken his oath of office; he rightly stated he will leave this up to the justice department to make the call for prosecutions. What really pisses me off is that people tend to forget basic civics there are 3 branches of government. I know this has not been the case these past 8 years even the media is having a hard time understanding this. I just heard a host on CNBC say that the Dems in congress have no respect for the Pres and Pelosi needs to be reined in...what... congress is a co-equal branch of government.

By the way I am sure there are more expert constitutional law professors then Turley. I am currently in school and took con law last year, I have not really heard much of the law but more his opinion and his quickness to say Obama is now as guilty as Bush and Cheney. Once you make such extreme comments I tune you out.

[Spazito]

91. Well said!

Welcome to DU!

I, too, find it puzzling, to say the least, to find posters who were furious at Bush's contempt for Congress and his interference with the Independence of the DOJ are now furious with Obama because he isn't acting like Bush and overriding Congress and interfering with the DOJ but, instead, respecting the co-equal branches as written in the Constitution.

[IndianaGreen]

118. May I point out that the President is the chief executive of the nation

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Article II, Section 1.

Obama should appoint a special prosecutor.

[Vattel]

177. I'm glad someone around here realizes this. n/t

[redqueen]

145. Well hello there O is 44!

:yourock:

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[frylock]

22. lets try this again..

another two-minute hate on Turley because he won't kiss Obama's ass. all better now?

[O is 44]

85. No he does not need to kiss his ass

just have more rational arguments rather than jumping to the conclusion that Obama is just as guilty as Bush and Cheney. Last time I checked Obama was not in office when all that is in question now took place. The guy has been in office a little over 100 days with so much on his plate some of us are willing to give him time to sort through it all. If in 4 he has not met your expectations in regards to this issue then don't vote to reelect him. I think Turley's anger is directed to the wrong people here. Besides if he is such a great Con law professor why is he shouting at the executive branch and not the judicial branch?

[DU GrovelBot]

25. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[ejpoeta]

53. dude i already did.

[Spazito]

27. I can't help but wonder if Turley is the only one out there because...

the other Constitutional scholars put principle over political expediency and the media likes political expediency over principles. Turley likes soundbites, principled Constitutional scholars prefer discussions that allow time for growth in understanding, imo.

[Cha]

78. A lot of us can't help but

wonder that..and knowing the US corporatemedia like we do and you must from Canada..it's more based on experience than wild guessing.

[Spazito]

81. I would love to see an in-depth program with a panel of Constitutional scholars...

discussing the torture issue within the confines of the Constitution, the US code, International law and the role of Congress and the Administration in addressing the issue. I don't foresee, sadly, a program of that sort coming from the mainstream media any time soon and the American public are the worse for it, imo.

[Cha]

83. I don't see that with our current media..would

Peter Mansbridge and his team do something like that for Canada?

Might as well fly to the Moon as have something as scholarly as that in the corporatemedia.

[Spazito]

87. I think it is quite possible an in-depth analysis of this will be done....

but it probably won't occur until there is more clarity regarding any actions, or lack of, the US government may take to address this. I will be keeping an eye on The Fifth Estate on CBC to see if they do anything on it as their documentaries are excellent.

[Cha]

90. Thanks n/t

[Perky]

28. MSNBC and MSNBC alone

[blueclown]

33. Turley, come join Krugman under the bus.

How dare you ever criticize Obama?

Under the Hopemobile you go.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Turley... Krugman...

Gods among men.

:rofl:

[jefferson_dem]

40. TurleyKrug in 2012!

Courageous Cable News Warriors for Da People!

[vaberella]

123. I'd actually like to see them in Power.

Considering where they stand they would never make it to power. And if they did they would never get anything passed.

[jefferson_dem]

38. Personally, I heart me some Jonathan and Paul - 'specially when they get all protesty.

Trooof to Pow-a...

[ShortnFiery]

41. ...

"Under the Hopemobile you go." :spray:

I'm filing that one away. :hi:

[polichick]

74. LOL

[ShortnFiery]

39. He happens to be right and is FORCING us to face up to "an painful truth."

Turley is SPOT ON to everyone progressive save for IMO, hard-corps partisans and "cult of personality" lovers. :thumbsup:

[TeamJordan23]

42. Turley is not a politician. I'm sure Obama is different now than his con law days. nm

[Thrill]

48. He did. Didn't you know he was smarter than everyone else?

He certainly thinks so

[Boomerang Diddle]

51. Turley is as interesting as a broken record

which is what he is. Does ever say anything new? He says the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over. . . . .

[ShortnFiery]

55. Yeah, it's old. And when Military Tribunals extend to US citizens, REMEMBER we said, oh, it's all

been taken care of ... no need to "air our sins" ... when these EVIL LEADERS turn their "enhanced interrogation techniques" on their own Citizens,

REMEMBER, you remained silent and refused to listen to those with Moral Courage such as Professor Turley.

Welcome to the BIRTH of a new Police State. Brought to you by a lazy and complacent citizenry. :scared:

[Occam Bandage]

58. I'll keep that in mind, if you agree

to keep in mind how silly you were when Obama doesn't end up leading America into a police state.

[CarbonDate]

68. It's not about him leading us there.

It's about him failing to prevent the next guy from doing it.

Did we learn nothing these last eight years? Clinton wanted to look forward and not back. Look what we got. If we don't drown them in the bathtub, they'll come back worse than before. If we don't establish consequences for law-breaking, they'll continue to break the law with impunity.

Destroy the brain or remove the head and then burn the corpse or they will be back. It's like Night of the Living Dead with these people.

[Occam Bandage]

82. The problem with that line of reasoning

is that it does not acknowledge the possibility that Cheney and Bush did as good a job of covering their tracks and setting up fall guys for torture as they did for the Valerie Plame leak. Keep in mind that even Patrick Fitzgerald--who is so tenacious he has managed to accumulate over a million pages of evidence against Blagojevich--wasn't able to get enough evidence to successfully prosecute anyone for anything but Libby (the preordained fall guy/stonewall) for obstruction of justice. Given that the Plame leak was a one-off deal quickly engineered in response to a NY op-ed by Joseph Wilson, I would imagine that their who-said-what track-covering was in fact significantly more thorough when it came to something as deliberate as an ongoing policy of torture.

If Bush and Cheney have in fact covered all their tracks, to what benefit would it be for Obama to launch a high-profile prosecution that ends in a resounding "not guilty?"

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChiciB1]

133. Great Pics... I Wonder How Many Here Have Faced Off With These People

who come to police out citizens??? I've seen them several times and they ALWAYS make me shutter!!!

Look at ALL that gear?? Sure looks like we are "covered" well and won't have ANYTHING to worry about. We got THEM to protect us!! I hope they're sweltering and suffering under all that GEAR!!!

Yep, we "needs" some mo of dis!!!

[leftofthedial]

56. Yeah! We should just keep looking until we find one you like.

Maybe someone like Alberto Gonzales. He had the "right" understanding of the Constitution.

[jgraz]

66. Hmm... which one of them is currently supporting the Constitution?

I'm gonna go with Turley.

And, btw, Obama has yet to make a constitutional argument (or any legal argument whatsoever) supporting his pro-torture-amnesty position. All of his arguments have been political in nature. And they've been disappointingly craven, cowardly arguments at that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. I'll go with Obama.

Turley wiped his ass with the Constitution now and I think he cares as much about the constitution as Dick Cheney cares about the nation's security.

[IndianaGreen]

69. You must be speaking of the Khmer Rouge constitution

because that's the one Obama is following now: L'etat, c'est moi.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Why not just say Obama is as bad as Hitler?

I mean, it's just as silly and as dumb.

But it's less pretentious and pseudointellectual.

[IndianaGreen]

71. Pseudointellectual?

Kinda a big word for ya, isn't it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. Khmer Rouge sounds so foreign and exotic, doesn't it?

It's the Godwin's Law for the jet setting community college crowd.

[IndianaGreen]

73. Sort of French sounding....

:eyes:

[rockymountaindem]

152. So you're saying Obama is acting like a dictator?

It's one thing to say that Obama is following business as usual, at least as it existed before 2000. Calling Obama a dictator is ludicrous.

[jgraz]

76. "Turley wiped his ass with the Constitution" Care to explain how?

Please don't let your only reason for saying this be that he didn't agree with one of your idols. That would just be too sad.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. His support for the political witch hunt of Clinton during the impeachment.

He wiped his ass with the Constitution, particularly the part about separation of powers.

[jgraz]

95. Yep, he went after one of your idols. And yes, it is pretty fucking sad.

Tell the truth: have you ever used the phrase "wiped his ass with the Constitution" when talking about a member of the Bush Crime Family?

All Jonathan Turley did was to advocate for his viewpoint. He didn't torture anyone (or aid and abet torture after the fact), he didn't lie under oath. He simply expressed his own First Amendment rights.

But, since you didn't like what he said, he "wiped his ass with the Constitution". Unbelievable.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

139. Defending the impeachment of Clinton?

Well it's good to know who's on what side.

[redqueen]

146. No shit.

:wtf:

[jgraz]

153. wtf, wtf?

You can't possibly be buying these McCarthyite tactics, can you?

[redqueen]

154. McCarthyite?

Are you talking about the witch hunt against Clinton?

Or people being pissed at Turley for saying Obama is just like Bush?

[jgraz]

156. I'm talking *specifically* about saying that Turley is somehow violating the Constitution

Hell, I'd be fine if people just called him an asshole. My objection to saying he's "wiping his ass with the Constitution" is that it's more of an attack on the ideals of the Constitution than it is on Turley.

And yes, accusing someone on this board of "defending the impeachment of Clinton" is a McCarthyite tactic. There are better ways to make a point.

[redqueen]

157. I see.

Well it did seem that that was what you were doing. Is that not what you were intending to do? Apologies if I misread you... but it seemed an apt description.

As for Turley... as I've said elsewhere... he says Obama is just like Bush? He can get fucked. I've no use for anyone that fucking stupid.


And I should clarify... I don't see what Turley did during the impeachment as simply exercising his rights... that IMO is oversimplification. Yes, he was doing that... but more than that, he was acting as a tool for the extreme right. To state that the president should be removed from office... for that? Really?

And fair disclosure... I have no big love for Clinton. He is FAR from my idol. But he is better than the extreme right... and as such I'd rather he had not been removed from office... and I'd expect realistic reasonable people not to say such things.

[jgraz]

159. Turley never said Obama is just like Bush.

He criticized a specific policy as a continuation of the Bush policies. I challenge anyone to prove him wrong.

Maybe I'm just used to it living in Berkeley. The only people here who don't say Obama is just like Bush are the ones who say he's *worse* than Bush. I seem to have settled in the only place in the country where I'm considered a right-winger.

[redqueen]

160. He's careful to state it as someone else's characterization.

As I mentioned last night on Rachel Maddow, the Obama Administration has become the greatest bait and switch in history. No torture prosecution. No abuse photos. No citizen lawsuit on privacy. Absolute executive privilege claims. It is not surprising that civil libertarians feel that we have succeeded in merely upgrading to Bush 1.2 (with the added ability to pronounce multisyllabic terms).

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/14/obama-considering-continuing-bush-policy-of-indefinite-detentions-without-trial/

I'm disappointed with some of these things too... but enough to call him the greatest bait and switch in history?

To say it's reasonable to consider him Bush 1.2?

Sorry, no. Doesn't work for me, anyway. Pisses me right off, in fact.

[jgraz]

162. Yeah, I thought that was a little over-the-top myself.

Especially with the unfortunate callbacks to the racist "con-artist" accusations of the primary.

But it still doesn't invalidate his basic point. Obama is failing us in his support for the rule of law.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

164. I'm afraid he did.

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/15/bush-2-0-obama-to-continue-military-tribunals/

[jgraz]

168. Maybe my browser search is broken. The phrase "just like Bush" does not show up in that article.

And yes, the literal words are important in this case. As long as Turley compares a particular Obama policy to a policy from the Bush regime, he is making a specific, targeted criticism of the president's decisions. By twisting his words into a blanket generalization, you're dishonestly trying to paint a legitimate complaint as some rabid personal attack on Obama.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

169. And you claim that I care very little for the truth.

What a joke.

[jgraz]

172. Yes, and you continue to prove it on every post.

Thank you, once again, for so decidedly making my point for me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

174. Jgraz, Puhleese.

You defended the impeachment.

Why on God's green earth should anybody take you seriously?

:rofl:

[jgraz]

175. Now you twist my words. Seriously, my posts are, like, right up there ^^^

Go back and read them. I refuse to play your McCarthyite game and even argue the point -- because even if I DID defend the impeachment, it has nothing to do with the current conversation.

The term is argumentum ad hominem. Please review basic logic and get back to me.

[jgraz]

150. "I hold in my hand, a list of 57 DU members who are not sufficiently obeisant

... to whatever I decide The Party™ stands for."

Unca Joe, is that you?


Oh, and I can't help but notice you never answered the question: when have you gone after the Republicans with the same scatological rhetoric? Ever?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

163. LOL

"when have you gone after the Republicans with the same scatological rhetoric? Ever?"

As far as I care- I just did.

[jgraz]

167. Then apparently you care very little for the truth

In many ways, you're far worse than Turley. At least he's going over-the-top for a noble principle. What's your excuse, besides mindless fanboy worship of a political personality?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

170. There's nothing noble about the impeachment of Clinton, or Jonathon Turley.

"What's your excuse, besides mindless fanboy worship of a political personality?"

What's your excuse for the mindless fanboy worship of this cable media hack on par with Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh?

[jgraz]

171. Reading comprehension is such a valuable skill. Have you considered Sylvan Learning Center?

I hear they can work wonders on even the most recalcitrant cases.

The fact is, you told a flat-out falsehood about someone you disagree with and you got caught. Act like a grown-up, admit it and move on.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

173. Jonathon Turley says that Obama is Bush 2.0.

Fuck him and his little apologist fanboys.

[jgraz]

176. "Bush 2.0: Obama To Continue Military Tribunals"

You know, ADHD is a serious condition. If you can't focus on a phrase long enough to read more than two words, you really should consider seeking professional help.

[ChiciB1]

131. I'm With You... I Worked For Obama, But He's Making Some Calls That

are not making my socks go up and down. Sure, he got up there and found things don't turn on a dime, but some of the BIG things do need more SPINE! I remember the word "CHANGE" being chanted at EVERY rally I went to (it was 3) and I remember "CHANGE" was his mantra over and over!

There has been some "little change" but not so much on the BIG STUFF!

Sorry, I know I'm in the minority here, but to me... Democrat or Repuke, let's think TRUTH a little and maybe a little John Adams too!! Adams fought tooth and nail for what HE BELIEVED in, and yes it was a very different time. I still admire both J. Adams and T. Jefferson, and they didn't agree all that much!

[Old Hank]

86. Glen Greenwald is also a constitutional lawyer

Or a retired constitutional lawyer.

And his do not differ much from Turley's.

[IndianaGreen]

88. Turley and John Dean are right, we are a nation of laws, not men

We are a country of laws, not men.

A Nation of Laws, Not Men
Posted December 7, 2007 | 11:54 AM (EST)

Senator Edward M. Kennedy

I'm headed to the Senate floor right now to speak about startling news from today's newspapers:

The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency's custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.

The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terrorism suspects -- including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody -- to severe interrogation techniques. The tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said.

The news that these CIA tapes were destroyed came the very same week that we learned that as many as ten million White House emails were not preserved, despite a law that requires that they be kept, and at the same time as the president continued to insist that we grant the phone companies immunity for their role in the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

I've already introduced the Torture Prevention and Effective Interrogation Act, legislation that requires the Army Field Manual standards to apply to all government interrogations, not only those conducted by the Department of Defense. Today's news is just another reminder that Congress needs to take action immediately to prevent this administration from continuing to make a mockery of our anti-torture laws.

I'm headed to the floor to demand answers. I hope you will demand them as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-edward-m-kennedy-/a-nation-of-laws-not-men_b_75809.html

[ChiciB1]

129. Since My Last Three Number Here End In 666 I Need To Post Something

if for no other reason than it's Friday and I don't want to be stuck with those numbers.

First I'm aware that I go against the grain here, but FWIW Jonathan Turley isn't the "traitor" many of you are making him out to be. I think he really believes that we as a country seriously need to get back to a Nation that "says what it means, and means what it says" and many can damn him for it, because we ARE supposed to be a Nation of Laws.

I'm glad he speaks out, whether it's Clinton, Bush or Obama. It don't think his agenda is political. While I always knew Clinton was more to the right than me, I have yet to figure out WHY such a supremely intelligent man would have let himself "get caught" by the likes of Lewinski & Tripp. Do I think there was collusion between the two women, I think so... still he played a little too fast and loose in the WH. Especially when he had overcome so much "women problems" before he got elected.

And let me go one step further... I'm one who doesn't really think a "blow job" is real sex in a manner of speaking. I did defend him on this, but that's just the "liberal" in me! I KNOW most people don't agree with me.

But I don't really think Turley has an "agenda" when it comes to ANY POTUS in particular. Again, that's the liberal in me too. I wish MOST of our Senators or Representatives would stand up for "we the people" as they are supposed to do. I BLAME them much more!!!! Even too many of "our" own Democrats have thrown US under the bus!

JMHO!

[Phx_Dem]

89. I think he did. He thinks he's the only one who knows anything about con law.

And I don't hate him either, just sick him too.

[MasonJar]

92. Turley is speaking as a patriot; what he says makes sense legally

and Constitutionally. I applaud his courage in stepping up for what is right. Of course even laymen can see that not investigating and prosecuting massive crimes is not acceptable. Obama may be a former Constitutional law professor, but he is not acting like one. Torture is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. A country is required to investigate and prosecute torture and other war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. We signed the Conventions. There is no looking forward. It is illegal to do so. We are required by the Treaty to punish those guilty of war crimes.

[vaberella]

93. I can't stand the guy. Sustein advises O and I like the guy. n/t

[bicentennial_baby]

96. Oh you poor babies...

Truth hurts bad, no? I bet it stings. Ouchies!

[Occam Bandage]

97. Often it does.

I would wonder what, if anything, that aphorism has to do with Mr. Turley.

[AlCzervik]

101. the enemies list is getting longer every week.

gdp is beginning to look a lot like Nixon.

[TexasObserver]

98. Jonathan Turley is right on torture. He isn't always right.

But he has con law credentials the President doesn't. Comparing their teaching careers is like comparing Obama's success as a high school baller to an NBA star's.

[O is 44]

102. Con law credentials....

then he should know prosecutions are handled by the judicial branch. Why continue to bash Obama?

[TexasObserver]

107. Yes, con law credentials.

He has them. You don't.

[O is 44]

108. I'm not referring to myself

please re-read my original comments, he is attacking the wrong branch of government. At least I know that much.

[TexasObserver]

109. Prosecution is the job of the EXECUTIVE, not the JUDICIAL.

Yes, it is the President's realm, the executive.

Now you know something that is correct.

[redqueen]

147. .

.

[pmorlan1]

99. Blame the messenger?

Sounds like a lot of Obama fans don't like the message so they are attacking the messenger.

[O is 44]

104. The messenger...

needs to attack the proper branch of government,that is my main issue with this guy.

[Cali_Democrat]

100. Anyone who advocated for the impeachment of Bill Clinton has no credibility in my book

Turley is dead to me.

Fuck him.

[TheKentuckian]

103. The point is not about Turley being right

He is used to turn people away from his viewpoint. He's consistently smug and vibes as untrustworthy. The corporate media knows this and that's why he gets airplay.

Preaching to the choir just ain't as big shit as some want to make out. If you agree with his message then accept that it needs more and different messengers. He's not selling this to anyone that is not onboard and has some onboard tuning out. Ignore it and call wahambulances all you want but you won't win.

[RetroLounge]

106. What a pathetic excuse for progressives...

The messiah is attacked, we must attack the messenger!

Quick, circle the wagons!

Hypocritcal asshats are not just found on FR...

RL

[O is 44]

110. I find the messiah theme

not only offensive but blasphemes. Turley is right to want prosecutions for torture but don't attack the executive branch the judicial branch prosecutes he should know this as a Con law professor.

[RetroLounge]

111. not only offensive but blasphemes?

tough shit.

RL

[AlCzervik]

112. Shun the non believers!

[RetroLounge]

113. Ha!

:rofl:

RL

[O is 44]

114. Ok....

you choose to be rude instead of focusing on my main issue with Turley.

[Starry Messenger]

115. Uh, the OP uses the word "anointed".

Pretty much introduces the biblical mood.

[Cali_Democrat]

122. That's funny.....my right-wing co-workers also call Obama the messiah

nt

[RetroLounge]

127. They are Observant...

RL

[Cali_Democrat]

135. No

They're douchebags

[RetroLounge]

136. So says a true follower...

RL

[Cali_Democrat]

138. Um....

I don't think you know my co-workers very well.

They crack jokes on Mexicans and Muslims. They keep saying that all blacks are on welfare.

They refer to me as an effeminate liberal because I support gay marriage and they constantly refer to Obama as the messiah.

They are DOUCHEBAGS.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

137. You do understand the "messiah" meme

was invented by rightwing Republicans, right?

[redqueen]

148. The same rightwingers that complain how Bush was too liberal?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

143. I can't respect any self-identified progressive who'd take Turley seriously.

I'm sorry if you find that sacrilegious.

[snowdays]

116. Rove was good at attaching the messenger. You learn well.

[jeanpalmer]

119. Why get upset about Turley

What has he said that's wrong? I don't understand the "lecture" allegation either. He just has an opinion, one that I frequently find myself agreeing with. I agree with him for example on prosecuting the torturers. Obama made the wrong decision there. Turley is right. Do you disagree with him?

[TheKentuckian]

120. Turley comes off as Mitt Romney's snotty, douchebag, old money cousin

and people are disappointed and outraged that people notice and more densely, regard that notice as a desire to silence the message. What is his stellar message, anyway? That torture is illegal, immoral, stupid, ineffective, and flat out wrong? Well, anyone that doesn't get that pretty much on instinct and 8th grade civics isn't going to be sold by him, if at all.

The point is message agnostic. I don't want to listen to the fucker talking about how fiery Kentucky Basketball is and you can't go wrong there.

[opihimoimoi]

125. Ya nailed it.....:o)

[ShortnFiery]

128. The cruel truth hurts, aye? Besides this lowly Professor criticized Saint Clinton. How gauche! nt

[Hamlette]

134. it wasn't that he criticized Clinton it was that he said he should be removed from office

that would have been a disaster. A group of high power republican lawyers met in November 1992 to figure out a way to impeach Clinton. Think about that date. Within a couple of weeks of Clinton being elected, before he was even sworn into office, they started. They (and the taxpayers) spent tens of millions of dollars, started a newspaper, were funded by a crazy right wing nut case and one of them became US solicitor under W.

And Turley, in his smug, self absorbed, whine went on TV every night to tell us that if we did not remove Clinton from office it would be the end of western civilization as we know it.

Not many legal scholars agreed with his legal analysis.

I was furious at Clinton, still am. I did not object to people expressing that view, even on TV every night. But he gave his legal opinion, as a legal scholar, and his legal opinion was wrong.

[AngryAmish]

130. His publicist

[cadmium]

132. He is treated like a diety because

#1 he gives access -- so he is rewarded in kind. #2 There is a perverse tendency for progressive media to give more credence to a sanctimonious Republican than to liberal democrats. I personally get sick of most of these fashionable icons very easily.

[centristgrandpa]

140. JT vs BO

I actually agree with JT on many issues. I feel he is more objective while Mr. Obama is subjective. His hands could be tie with many major issues that we are not privy too. I sure hope so.

[quiller4]

141. Why do we always hear from Turley and never from Tribe or Balkin

or any number of other constitutional law experts from Harvard, Yales or Stanford.

[pmorlan1]

142. Politics

Why don't you hear from some other Constitutional scholars? I'd say it's because they all want to be appointed to the Supreme Court and they don't want to be seen on TV criticizing the man that can nominate them. It's called SELF-INTEREST

[redqueen]

149. Good question.

[Boomerang Diddle]

151. Exactly! The MSM seems only interested in self-proclaimed "experts"

who bash the president.

[LittleBlue]

155. Because Jonathan Turley makes sense when he speaks, and Obama is frequently contradictory

when he speaks.

Just a thought. Professor Yu both legitimized torture and teaches at Cal, that doesn't make him more expert than a first-year lawyer on this issue.

[TheWraith]

161. Well, aren't we so glad now to bash complex thinking.

It's sort of demoralizing to see the proof that liberals too can fall for black and white absolutist thinking. :eyes:

[LittleBlue]

178. Sure, I'm bashing the complex thinking of "looking forward"

while contradictorily saying "we are a nation of laws".

If I break a law, do I get the right for the prosecutors to "look forward", and therefore ignore the fact that a crime was committed?

This is what you called "complex thinking".

[LooseWilly]

166. George Washington University Law School?

[Vattel]

179. I agree that Maddow et al. need to get other experts

What's wrong with experts debating eachother? Besides, even though he makes some good points, Turley tends to be very heavy on rhetoric and light on serious legal analysis.