On cue, Turley is bashing the Sotomayor pick

[Uzybone]

stupid fucking idiot

Even Tweety looks stunned. Turley is saying she lacks the intellectual chops.

[CBR]

1. He is SO ANNOYING. I am an academic and he is an idiot.

[jefferson_dem]

5. Ditto.

:)

[Kahuna]

2. Unbelievable. He reeks.

:puke:

[high density]

3. Does this guy like anything?

This guy doesn't ever seem to have a positive take.

[vaberella]

27. Nope...and especially if it relates to Obama. n/t

[stevenleser]

114. You can expand that to, if it relates to any Democrat

I dont understand the defense he gets by some here. Someone who agrees with you on one issue can still be a right wing hack and that is exactly the situation here. Turley is only interested in torture because the issue causes a problem for a Democratic President.

[Cha]

117. He "gets the defense here" exactly

because of his positions against President Obama.

Edit~ And, the corporatemedia has him "right on cue"(per the OP) for the same freakin' reason.

[Jennicut]

4. Can people now see what a jerk Turley is? I agree with him on torture but he is so smug

and so into himself. Sonia is down to earth, likable, and real.

[tishaLA]

6. I like Turley, but he's a fucking turd about this

Tweety was right: you'd have a hard time saying someone with her credentials doesn't have the intellectual heft to be on the court.

[babylonsister]

7. Get ready for the Turley apologists in 3..2...

I agree, he's more than annoying.

[vaberella]

42. You're on mark...they've hit the thread already. n/t

[Pirate Smile]

8. Well, I've been thinking he is a jackass for quite a while so he just keeps reinforcing that

view.

I'm listening to his arrogance make his pronouncements right now. gag.

[MADem]

9. Did he have his hand up, crying "Pick MEEE!!! Pick MEEEEE!!!" perhaps?

You know that's what he's thinking--that he's "better" and "more deserving."

Tweety should pull it together, say "HA!!!!!" Followed by "STFU!!!"

Perhaps the orchestra could play a few choruses of "Jealousy?"

[cali]

10. he's parroting the right wingnut line: She's stupid.

she went from the projects to princeton, graduating summa and was an editor at the Yale Law Review. She's been on the bench for 19 years. and for what it's worth, Greenwald thinks it's a good pick.

[Jennicut]

12. She is a lot smarter then most of us. She went to Princeton without a silver spoon to help her.

She reminds me of our Michelle in that way, rising above her circumstances to become a possible Justice on the Supreme Court.

[chimpymustgo]

23. I like Turley and Greenwald. I think the Turley bashing is over the top. He's expressing his - and

some others' opinions - that her written opinions are not as rigorously intellectual -so far - as they might have hoped - especially to go up against Scalia and Roberts.

Must we all read from exactly the same script, all the time?

I think she's a great pick, but I also appreciate what Turley has to say. As our President has pointed out, it takes more than a pointy head to make a good - great - Supreme Court justice.

[pnwmom]

69. Her opinions lack the cold and bloodless quality of Scalia's, because

they are written by an actual human being. A person with *empathy*.

But she graduated from Princeton summa cum laude, with the Pyne prize, the highest award given to an undergraduate at Princeton. Intellectually, she can hold her own with anyone.

[mkultra]

99. maybe you should read one of her opinions before you decide which script you read from.

Otherwise, you are just picking an oracle, and frankly, you did not choose wisely.

[fujiyama]

112. Your avatar is ironic

considering he is a "dim bulb" according to Turley...

Also, where is the evidence that Scalia's legal reasoning is so "brilliant"? This seems to be one of the biggest myths, propagated by conservatives (and sadly enough) liberals alike. Screw Scalia. He's basically a petty partisan thug and should have been kicked off the court long ago.

[global1]

43. Those Who Can - Do ---- Those Who Can't Are Talking Heads......nt

[Cha]

121. AKA MediaWhores. n/t

[Thrill]

11. No one is smarter than him. Didn't you know?

[asphalt.jungle]

13. Then cue his fans on DU joining in soon. He's a piece of work with a chip on his shoulder.

He tries too hard to show everyone how smart he is. He's gonna show those Ivy League lawyers like Obama and Sotemayor. Dude relax, Northwestern Law is an excellent school, not Harvard Law or Yale Law but excellent none the less. And GW Law is a very good law school to teach at, it may not be as highly regarded as UChicago where Obama taught Constitution Law but it is top 30. Lose that boulder off your shoulder and take pleasure in the fact that no one could possibly have the same grasp of Constitutional Law as you do Jonathan TURDLEY.


At this point he's just a media whore.

[Uzybone]

14. lol.....great post

[redqueen]

16. LOL

Nice. :D

[RoyGBiv]

97. You know what's awesome ...

Today you can actually say that.

I said something similar to that several months ago, but at the time he was rambling off the "correct" things on a single issue, and so, of course, he was a golden boy champion of all that is good and holy about the law.

What's even more fun is I see someone in this thread who said I sounded like a right-winger for my criticism of Turley, but here that person is bashing Turley.

It's a fun world.

[Cha]

120. And, we all know the "media" loves

their whores.."right on cue".

[ClarkUSA]

15. He also dissed Thurgood Marshall as an overrated dim bulb which was a revealing follow-up statement.

[ecstatic]

17. Revealing indeed nt

[firedupdem]

32. Oh really? Well, he can go screw himself. n/t

[vaberella]

36. The man thinks he's God. He has a God complex. n/t

[polmaven]

63. NO!

OMG....Thurgood Marshall wasn't good enough for him? OMG!!! I knew he was an over-rated narcissist, but Thurgood Marshall???? Wow!

[gkhouston]

127. Yeah. That one's gonna sink him, IMO. n/t

[Sparkly]

18. That stunned me, too.

I often agree with Turley's arguments, but there wasn't even an argument on this -- just a flat insult without any rationale. Inferior intellect? I don't believe that for a second.

[vaberella]

24. Why? I never agree with him b/c at this point he's biased. He's been biased.

If you pay attention to anything O does even when it is reveered by others...he will bash it. It's common place. You should sit and see if you can watch everything he's ever said. The man just doesn't like O and that's how he roles. Keep in mind what you see here and listen to him in the future. You'll notice his personality.

[Sparkly]

41. I consider each argument, rather than psychoanalyzing the guy

I often do agree with his analyses, but there didn't seem to be any analysis here -- just a flat judgment with nothing supporting it.

[vaberella]

48. I've considered his arguments and have just come to see

his bias doesn't provide for a sound argument. He will find something to discredit those he may have a problem with. It's rather tiresome to watch. There's some give and take and there is none with this guy.

And then to basically state she's stupid and unqualified. Well he's not worth any grain of salt considering that he's basically psychoanalyzed Sotomayer as a failure.

[Cha]

122. And, that's why the "media"

insists on having only his opinion on at times just like this.

[ShortnFiery]

19. The man's intellectually honest. Hate his opinion but he's not lining his pockets ONLY

calling em' as he sees um.

She's qualified but NOT as brilliant as some, to me (not Turley) that's a plus. :shrug:

[cali]

22. this woman went from the projects to graduating from Princeton

summa cum laude to serving as an editor on the Yale law review to the bench on the recommendation, largely, of Daniel Patrick Moynihan. She's said to be highly versed in the intricacies of the law. Sorry, I don't take Turley's word as sacrosant. Who is he or you to declare that she's "not as brilliant as some"?

[asphalt.jungle]

31. You have to understand that in the minds of people like him

their education background means nothing because the Obamas and Sotemayors are intellectually inferior minorities and all they did was take his place at Harvard or Yale and force him to settle for another great law school. It can't possibly be because they were more impressive.

[Uzybone]

26. He didn't just say she was not as brillant as some

he insinuated he she was not brilliant at all. Then he said Thurgood Marshall was a dim bulb.

[ShortnFiery]

37. That's not the impression I received ... well, not quite that.

I'm a person (I believe) with slightly above average intelligence. I tested into a PhD level Experimental Design course as a graduate student and completed the course THIRD in my class of 15 students.

When I received my grade, I was miffed to have been awarded an A - (minus! :wtf:).

I scheduled an appointment with the professor where he informed me, POINT BLANK, "You have a talent for statistics and received THE HIGHEST A- in the class. That should make you happy? That's excellent for a master's level student." This program would not award a masters level graduate student a solid "A" because it did not meet their preconceived concept of our capabilities. We only served to fill out the class of esteemed PhD level candidates. :(

My point: Turley is A SNOB. I don't know what criteria he uses to judge brilliance, perhaps it was that one of her hairs were out of place.

Who knows?

The FACT that Turley says that she's NOT brilliant enough makes me LIKE HER MORE.

Some professors and intellectuals are so arrogant as to be unreachable ... can we say, lack empathy? :evilgrin:

[EquallyExhausted]

62. well i'd love to be as intellectually unremarkable as sotomayor & thurgood marshall. n/t

[Born_A_Truman]

107. Agree!

And welcome to DU!

[chimpymustgo]

29. Thank you for saying that (I noted something upthread). Turley calls 'em like he sees 'em.

"She's qualified but NOT as brilliant as some."

And she may well be a GREAT SCOTUS justice.

[vaberella]

33. Your apologizing for this guy? Who is he to say whom is brilliant?! The man has a lot of nerve.

I'm not defending that jerk. There's telling it like it is or just straight bash. This guy has NEVER given O praise on anything he's done. NEVER. Sotomayer is actually a good pick and he's rather bashing her instead.

[Cha]

124. turley also said the poster's avatar was a "dim bulb"..

how does one defend that?

[Sparkly]

35. I believe he said she was NOT qualified.

He said reading a few of her opinions, they don't rise to the level of a Supreme Court justice.

[ShortnFiery]

44. No, I missed that. He was upset because she was not Boffo Brilliant and Sparkling.

Yes, the folks in the faculty lounge will be much more receptive. :eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

64. Brilliance is measured only in sterile academia. Other areas of intelligence are not

so easily measured. As much as I admire Turley's academic intelligence, I believe that it takes MORE than abstraction and eloquence to make a SCOTUS who serves "the people" vice "the corporations" in the USA. Perhaps she has ... EMPATHY through life experiences? ;)

[pnwmom]

71. She graduated with the top award in her class at Princeton, the Pyne prize.

Along with summa cum laude.

I think he's intellectually jealous.

[ecstatic]

72. No, he sounds like a racist and sexist to me nt

[mkultra]

101. Is this the same guy that voted FOR impeachment of clinton?

The thing about intellect is that its less like a democracy and more like a horse race. The winner usually gets to the finish line alone. people that rank lower on the intellect scale are in no real position to rank those above them.

[Cha]

123. I read turley was FOR Impeachment of Clinton but

not sure "he voted".

[mkultra]

137. your right, mistated.

[HamdenRice]

20. Has he called for her impeachment yet? What's taking him so long? nt

[vaberella]

21. This guy hates all things about Obama. But the Turley pariahs will be after you.

He is a jerk and will NEVER agree with O's choices. I've come to terms with that. He's a jackass.

[Jennicut]

25. I am starting to think that he immensely dislikes Obama for whatever reason

At least Krugman praises Obama now and then, and when he disagrees with him it seems legitimate.

[vaberella]

30. Yup. Turley on the other hand is just anti-Obama.

I have been saying this from the beginning when I started my first anti-Turley thread. The guy is a jerk who really doesn't like the guy or any of his decisions. It could be a feeling of inadequacy due to the fact that O was the youngest head of the Harvard Law Review. Or maybe the guy just hates him period.

[asphalt.jungle]

34. Obama graduated from Harvard Law, but he didn't teach there.

He taught at UChicago Law.

[vaberella]

38. No I know. I meant to say he was head of the Harvard Law Review.

I'll correct it. I had stupid Turley as a professor in my head at the time I was writing.

[polmaven]

91. I think Turley

is anti ANYONE with even the hint of a (D) attached.

[vaberella]

110. I think you're right. n/t

[Cha]

125. And, really, why does anyone actually

care what he thinks?

[Clio the Leo]

28. Turley can suck it!

I may make that my new sig line. :)

[jenmito]

39. My conclusion is that he's a racist. n/t

[vaberella]

40. I need more before I say that. He was anti-Clinton too and apparently Thurgood Marshall.

See post up the thread. I say he just thinks he's God.

[jenmito]

46. Hmmm...

all I can go on is that he's consistently "disappointed" in everything Obama does, including his pick of the first Latina for the SC. For him to say she's not as intellectually superior as Obama's other choices, which I haven't heard anyone else say (rather than pointing out any of her positive traits) tells me he may just be a racist.

[vaberella]

50. No, I understand your point and I thought so as well.

Then I found about his past and I've just come to the conclusion he has a God complex and there was nothing else. Or he wanted the spot, or he wants to be Pres.

[jenmito]

55. So...

the bottom line may be he's jealous? That's possible. The way he takes things out of context to make Obama look bad (ala Rachel Maddow for a while now), makes him less credible than he SHOULD be.

[blogslut]

45. I only got to hear the good professor via audio today

Do tell, was his face a wee bit green?

[MarjorieG]

47. Difficult to be all things to all people. Does he like Scalia, who is bright, writes well, but also

politically corrupted and no purist? Turley has very strict approach ot the Constitution with more appeal to Conservatives, really, yet we like him because he also doesn't like Bush and, now, Obama.

Easier to be that kind of high-minded, simplistic, and never having to make tough choices.

sp.

[specialed]

49. Wood would have been the optimal choice....

Turley is dead on here.

[vaberella]

52. Sustein would have been---he was my fave.

But then I like all the people on O' s list. So Sotomayer is a fine choice and I'm not disappointed.

[cali]

54. That's twice I've seen you refer to Sustein.

Do you mean Cass Sunstein?

[vaberella]

58. My spelling was never in top form. ^_^ Thanks for the correction.

Oh and yeah, I meant him.

[cali]

53. Sotomayor is the choice most opposed by the repukes

I don't know if Wood would have been a better choice. How did you decide that? Do you read a sampling of both women's written opinions? What in Wood's background makes her a better choice? Oh, and do you also agree with Turley about Marshall?

[ecstatic]

73. Wouldn't that have smelled like cronyism?

Fellow Chicagoan and Lecturer at the University of Chicago School of Law. :shrug:

[Spazito]

51. "stupid fucking idiot" Yep, and a media hog as well...

One only has to read his submission to the House re the Clinton impeachment to KNOW who lacks the "intellectual chops" and it is NOT Judge Sotomayor. Turley will never be anything other than a libertarian/conservative talking head regardless of any judicial ambitions he might have and I hope that eats him alive.

[onenote]

56. typical Turley--he is an attention whore. Always has been. Always will be.

The reason that Turley gets so much air time is that he can be counted on to say something controversial. Its a symbiotic relationship. The media wants someone to stir things up and Turley loves getting attention -- it helps him sell books (and he gets paid for some of his appearances).

He has no credibility. Zero. Nada.

[Cha]

126. "Symbiotic" is an excellent descriptive word

for turley and the corporatemedia.

[polmaven]

57. Why is that?

Princeton and then Yale Law School......Takes a little intellect to get into either of those schools....What is it she lacks, Professor Turley? A penis? Is THAT the "chop she is missing? :mad:

[vaberella]

60. Obama had a penis and he's not too fond of him. Turley's got a God complex. n/t

[jenmito]

59. Stephen Carter, Yale professor & author of "Jericho's Fall," just disagreed with Turley's assessment

that she lacks intellectually brilliance or is as "intellectually persuasive" as some of the other potential picks. And he knows her. Thank you.

[vaberella]

61. I hope someone is taping this. I need to see it. n/t

[jenmito]

66. He was interviewed by phone. n/t

[CTyankee]

65. And Carter, by DU standards, certainly ain't no progressive on other things,

such as abortion and church-state separation. But he's no crazy,that's for sure.

[Cha]

128. And, thank you for reporting that

from tvcableland, jenmito!

[bertman]

67. Has anyone started boiling the tar yet??

:popcorn:

[gkhouston]

130. We're going to heat it with our collective outrage. Film at 11. n/t

[Dinger]

68. Neither Turley Nor Sotomayor Are "Stupid Fucking Idiots," And Neither

lacks "intellectual chops."

[ShortnFiery]

70. It's INANE on the surface to accuse someone who graduated summa cum laude from Princeton as

NOT having adequate BRILLIANCE.

Turley is out of line, perhaps jealous? :thumbsdown:

[chimpymustgo]

79. That's not what he said. He said he's read 30 of her opinions, and they don't show the intellectual

rigor he - and some others - had hoped the would, as far as displaying an ability to shape the direction of the court. He said she might well come into her own, once she gets on the court - and she might be a great justice.

The Turley bashing is knee-jerk and predictable. Has Krugman weighed in, God forbid?

[vaberella]

81. Ahhh...an apologist. Understood.n/t

[chimpymustgo]

86. Ahhh...a childish namecaller. Understood. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

84. What criteria? Turley rules? He's an intellectual snob - I've met many as a grad student. NT

[Cha]

129. Oh, you mean like SOME around here Knee Jerk Bash

the president? Is that what you mean, chimpymustgo? Hmmmm.

[Jennicut]

74. No, Turley is merely a jerk.

[ClarkUSA]

75. Turley was just on MSNBC again. What he said -->

He says Sotomayor has a "lack of intellectual depth" and she won't be "the equal of Scalia". He continues and says "Thurgood Marshall's decisions did not have massive intellectual impact on the Court" but he "understands liberals' joy at her being a woman and an Hispanic." What patronizing arrogance. He might as well as said it's an affirmative action pick by President Obama.

[jenmito]

76. He also said this:

"Questions about empathy and temperament are less important than whether this person is going to have a profound impact-to help shape the court-and this nominee really doesn't have a history to suggest that."

Now we know where he stands.

[ClarkUSA]

77. Yup. I stopped listening to his blowhard subjective crap long ago. This nails it.

[jenmito]

78. He just made it clear that he would never be on an Obama SC. He doesn't feel

empathy is important. What a snob.

[ClarkUSA]

80. Not that they'd ever consider someone who's got such a lightweight legal background.

[jenmito]

82. Right.

[ClarkUSA]

83. He must be really fun at parties, though. Such a charmer. And humble.

[jenmito]

85. He's probably never been invited to a party.

[ClarkUSA]

88. !!!

:rofl:

[jenmito]

92. ...

:D :toast:

[rvablue]

100. Wow! Did he really self-reference re: being picked for the SC????

That is very, very telling.

Turley thinks it should be him. Uh, Turley your ego and self-absorption are showing!!

[jenmito]

102. No. Sorry, I guess my wording wasn't right...

I meant that by his comment it's obvious he'd never make it as a SC justice under an Obama presidency.

[Cha]

136. And, what of turley's "history" to suggest

he would become the mediawhore extraordinare? This is about him, too, since he's giving his opinions so much..we need to know just who is making these pronouncements.

[redqueen]

89. This guy is a real jerk...

he just gets worse and worse.

[ClarkUSA]

90. Yup... Turley thinks Justice Scalia is da bomb!

[HamdenRice]

118. Yeah, Marshall's legal strategizing over decades that led to Brown v. Board wasn't a big deal ...

compared to Turley's towering intellectual accomplishments.

[uponit7771]

133. Yeap, Turleys on my list now...very asshole-ish of him

[Cha]

134. Oh yeah, a snide little prick.

The mediawhores' mediawhore.

[CreekDog]

87. How does he keep up with his scholarly work when he's on 3 different cable shows every night?

wonder how his intellectual chops are...especially when you consider that half his blog complaint was about the politics of her appointment and provided no detail about what he felt was lacking in her opinions.

[vaberella]

109. He considers himself God...that's how. n/t

[WeDidIt]

93. I have to rethink all of his criticisms about "war crimes" now

I seriously have to rethink any opinion I've built with input from this arrogant prick.

[LittleBlue]

94. Turley's probably right, but it's still a great pick

We've known that Sotomayor has not distinguished herself like other candidates.

However, she is Hispanic and female, which (IMO) is a great political move!

Great pick, Obama!

[ClarkUSA]

95. "We've known that Sotomayor has not distinguished herself like other candidates." Really? How so?

[LittleBlue]

138. For instance, Pamela Karlan

has authored the authoritative sources on constitutional law, and teaches at Stanford. Kagan and Sullivan were deans of Harvard and Stanford, respectively.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, though. Some lawyers choose to go this route, while others choose private practice and the judiciary. Those candidates are more academically distinguished than Sotomayor, but that doesn't mean they are better jurists necessarily, or will perform better as a justice. David Souter definitely did not have the credentials that Sotomayor has, and he turned out to be an excellent justice.

[mkultra]

144. so lets look

Karlan:
Yale University, where she earned a bachelor's degree in 1980 and a law degree and master of arts in 1984
Article & Book Reviews editor of the Yale Law Journal
worked as a law clerk
assistant counsel at the NAACP
professor of law at Virginia
on the faculty of Stanford Law School.
I don't see anything about her writing "the authoritative sources" on constitutional law, whatever that means.


Kagan:
summa cum laude at Princeton University in 1981, an M. Phil. from Worcester College, Oxford University, in 1983, and a J.D.
magna cum laude at Harvard Law
supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review.
was a law clerk
tenured professor of law at Chicago Law
served as President Bill Clinton's Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council.
first female dean of Harvard Law School in 2003


Sullivan:
Harvard Law School in 1981
law clerk
professor of law at Harvard Law
Dean of Stanford Law
author of a leading text in the field of Constitutional Law with the late Professor Gerald Gunther.
appellate litigator

Sotomayor:
summa cum laude at Princeton
Yale Law School
editor of the Yale Law Journal
Assistant District Attorney in New York County
private practice specialized in intellectual property litigation
became the youngest judge in the Southern District
first Hispanic federal judge anywhere in New York State
Court of Appeals Judge
honorary degrees from Lehman College, Princeton University, Brooklyn Law School, Pace University School of Law, Hofstra University, and Northeastern University
Other activities
lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School
member of the Board of Trustees of Princeton University





So, she is more of a jurist and less of an academic. This does not lessen her qualifications in the least.

[cali]

96. how has she not distinguished herself?

many, many experts disagree with Mr. Turley.

[LittleBlue]

141. see above and below

[Spazito]

98. Nice, damning with faint praise....

You have provided nothing to back up why "Turley is probably right" but you have made a very disingenuous attempt, imo, to say she is merely an 'affirmative action' pick.

[LittleBlue]

139. See above- that's not what I'm saying.

I am not calling a woman who was

1) Editor of the Princeton Law Review
2) Attaiend summa cum laude status

an affirmative action hire.

I am merely pointing out that she does MUCH to split the GOP from Hispanic voters, something that is very important.

She was my first choice.

[Spazito]

142. Given Turley did NOT state "she does MUCH to split the GOP...

from Hispanic voters" but did state 'Judge Sotomayor lacks intellectual depth as did Supreme Court Justice Marshall', I am not sure why you made a point of saying "Turley is probably right" in your original post as opposed to stating straight out your point about splitting the GOP?

[mkultra]

105. I challenge your remark with no expectation that you will respond

because your full of shit.

[LittleBlue]

140. see above

[SpartanDem]

103. Just more reasons for to me ignore

this smug jackass and the comments about Thurgood Marshall are particularly disgusting

[mkultra]

104. Turley called this obamas "highest risk option" nomination

If he truly believes this, he is is a dimwit.

[jillan]

106. RW radio is playing his clip from msnbc, as a reason not to confirm Sotomayor....

"And he is from MSNBC"

SHUT this guy up!

[redqueen]

108. Of course they are... just like the WSJ gleefully shared Maddow's comments.

They love our cirucular firing squad... even though Turley isn't a Dem, he's on MSNBC, which is close enough for their clueless and credulous audience.

[jillan]

113. What were Maddow's comments? I'm afraid to ask.

I stopped watching her show when I realized that all she does is focus on the shiny objects of the day.

She does have great guests on, and I just figure I can catch those interviews here without having to sit thru the rest.

[redqueen]

115. Didn't quote her...

but this appeared days after she showed a clip from a speech in 2007 and tried to claim that he'd done a 180 on tribunals... which IMO he did not.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124242595415225131.html

[jillan]

119. Interesting -

that was the show that was the deciding factor to turn her off for awhile.


Of course the rw is going to pick up our talking heads when they criticize Obama....we do the same thing to them.

[DireStrike]

111. Wow, somebody is jealous and a sore loser.

Maybe you were next in line, Turley... not anymore.

[Cha]

116. Good..he proves the point

that he's a vulture, from a safe perch, taking pot shots with no gravitas.

[MasonJar]

131. I usually agree with Turley and I have not seen what he said, but apparently

despite growing up in a ghetto, Sotomayor graduated magna cum laude from Princeton and graduated from Yale Law School. That is an amazing accomplishment for one growing up in her circumstances, which definitely all too often preclude even college, much less Princeton University and Yale Law.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

132. Summa Cum Laude.

[Occam Bandage]

135. Maybe this will be what opens the Left's eyes to what a one-note hack Turley is. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

143. Tuck Furley. nt