Jonathan Turley is an EMBARRASSMENT!

[babylonsister]

Daily Kos
Jonathan Turley is an EMBARRASSMENT!
by mka193
Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:49:41 AM PDT


I watched with pride as President Obama introduced Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his supreme court nominee. Next came the inevitable parade of talking heads commenting on the pick. When Chris Matthews threw to Jonathan Turley, I knew that my morning was about to be dampened. Sure enough, he lived down to my expectations quipping: "We are not talking about appointing a house pet {correction based on commenter} here."

Turley went on to suggest that Sotomayor did not have the "brilliant" legal mind of Diane Wood or Harold Koh. He then told the viewers that many academics like himself would be disappointed in the pick but would be muffled in their criticism of Judge Sotomayor. Presumably, Mr. Turley was already getting ready to make the case that this was an "affirmative action" pick. Sickening but predictable.

I left academia a few years ago because of people like Turley. Those of us who went to graduate school to pursue doctorates and other professional degrees have often been doused with the cold water that is the "Ivory Tower." Those of us who came from NOTHING and sought to bring our experiences to the Ivory Tower have often been marginalized and silenced. We are never quite "good enough" or "brilliant" enough for the likes of Turley and the other WHITE MEN who rule those hallowed halls.

Graduating at the tops of our classes at places like Harvard and Princeton still do not afford us the respect that Turley and his like seek to bestow.


more...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/26/735541/-Jonathan-Turley-is-an-EMBARRASSMENT!

[Junkdrawer]

1. Long knives have been out for Turley for a while...

By speaking his mind about an otherwise non-assailable pick, he's exposed a gap in his amour.

[Cha]

5. turley has his long knives out from

his safe perch on the mediawhore circuit.

[Junkdrawer]

10. He's been a lead voice calling for the prosecution of Cheney et al...

and criticizing Obama, Reid and Pelosi for not doing that.

With enemies on both sides of the isle he disses the nice, Hispanic woman. Idiot move.

[Occam Bandage]

14. He was also the lead voice in calling for the impeachment of Clinton. It should be obvious by now,

especially after his disgusting hit job on Sotomayor, that his attacks are not based in any consistent legal principles, but rather are an ongoing attempt by Turley to prove that every single person in public life is worthy of his disdain. He bashes Clinton, Bush, Pelosi, Obama, and now Sotomayor, all for supposedly not having the depth of legal understanding he and his ivory-tower inner circle profess to possess. He's a one-trick pony, and DU admiration of him was misguided.

[asphalt.jungle]

20. His most egregious comment yesterday

was assailing the intellect of Justice Thurgood Marshall.

[Occam Bandage]

21. Turley apparently doesn't believe anyone is good enough. Well, anyone but Scalia.

His holding up of Scalia as an example of a justice with a mind he finds admirable was bizarre.

[redqueen]

37. And strangely, his admirers seem not to have noticed.

Still.

[redqueen]

36. Very well said. (nt)

[Cha]

22. turley has made himself into an embassassment..

it's all his own doing.

[Occam Bandage]

9. "Otherwise non-assailable?"

No. She's unassailable. "She's very smart but everything she's written is stupid" is not intelligible criticism; it is the incoherent attempt of a pretentious prick to bring his smug condescension to bear on a target immune from his nonsense.

[pnwmom]

15. He's mostly exposed his own narcissistic ego. n/t

[EFerrari]

48. Yep, this is basically a smear of Turley who only expressed

his own preference.

[Occam Bandage]

52. It isn't a smear. Turley exposed himself as a egomaniac, all by himself. nt

[floridablue]

2. I am sorry. I have not noticed Turley's brilliance yet.

[Chipper Chat]

3. Unfortunately, prejudiced against Hispanics is alive and well.

There is a prevalent opinion among older whites that brown people are not worth much and certainly do not have the ability to hold office or be an "American judge." This is very sad. When I lived in Texas and worked in the hotel business I frequently encountered northern white guests who were annoyed by "Mexican waiters and maids." I'll never forget a matronly lady (after a busboy cleaned off her table) saying "Why dont these people just GO HOME." It made me furious.
I dont know what the answer is.

[Cha]

4. Ye-ah..an "embarrassment"

to himself if he weren't so narcissistic or is it egomanical? Or both?

[rvablue]

6. Did you catch him on KO last night. He seemed to be singing a different tune by then

KO looked exasperated by him.

And he pulled back a bit, saying something to the effect that he thought Sotomayor was well-qualified and smart, but not the kind of smart for the court. (paraphrased)

At which point, Keith sighed and said, "but you did say, she's well-qualified?"

And Turley, looking a bit sheepish, said "yes" or "of course."

Turley probably got more than one email yesterday -- never saw him with a deer in the headlights look like that before -- and is probably afraid that one of his meal-tickets appearing on KO's show is in danger of going bye-bye.

[babylonsister]

11. Yes, I saw him. I think he needs to not be invited

so he can reflect on why so many people disagree with him. And that would include me, though I've felt that way for awhile, and gotten reamed out for my opinion.

[vaberella]

33. I would have put him on Worst People list.

I personally think he's worn out his welcome on KO's show. Maybe not on RM's show yet.

[Born_A_Truman]

70. Vision

He kept saying she hasn't shown any "vision".

[babylonsister]

7. Here's another opinion...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/26/735579/-To-Jonathan-Turley.-(rant)

To Jonathan Turley. (rant)
by brooklynbadboy
Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:49:58 AM PDT


Let me begin by making a straightforward assertion:

You are a douchebag.

I read your rather insulting, asinine tripe you call a blog.. I've been seeing you run your smug, snobbish mouth on MSNBC with the typical self-righteous prick attitude you usually bring to the table.

Well, I've had it up to hear with you and now I want to explain to you and everyone else in the world why I think you fuckin suck.

First of all, I think youre a fuckin pathologically disgusting sexist when you advocated for the the legalization of polygamy. You obviously have no idea of the oppression women and girls go through in polygamous communities and considering your asshole, nose in the air attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't give a shit.

much more...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/26/735579/-To-Jonathan-Turley.-(rant)

[firedupdem]

13. Ha! Serious smackdown! n/t

[Cha]

24. WHAT? turley thinks

"polygamy" should be legalized"!

Hadn't heard that one. Isn't this blog a wealth of information?

turley's resume..
"Now, lets look at what YOU have been doing

U. Chicago
Northwestern Law School
little litigation experience of note
Tulane University Professor
George Washington University Professor
Blogger and Pundit"

I might add "mediawhore extraordinaire".

[vaberella]

34. My turn for arrogance. If some didn't know better, they'd think it was me writing this blog.

:rofl: Hah, but I'm not from Brooklyn (Uptown Baby) and I'm not a badboy...more like a bad girl.

[redqueen]

38. OMG Turley advocated the legalization of polygamy?

:wtf:

[jefferson_dem]

8. Turley is being used now to prop up hideous smears of Sotomayor.

Hope he's proud of himself.

--> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x317340

[babylonsister]

12. Yep. I heard the r/w nut this a.m. using him as a source

for his opinion. "If Turley thinks that, it must be true." I don't think so, but he has damaged a credible woman with his tasteless comments.

[cascadiance]

16. I think Marjorie Cohn made better comments on Democracy Now...

As a woman and president of the National Lawyer's Guild, Ms. Cohn is well-versed on legal issues and I think has a good perspective on weighing in on how Ms. Sotomayor will work for us on the court. She doesn't criticize her heavily, except on a few cases, but she does say that she will be a good person to keep the balance of the court the way it is, just not a big potential difference maker that we need to counteract the right wingers that are on there now that a Thurgood Marshall or an Earl Warren have been in the past. So she's a little disappointed too when someone like Erwin Chemerinsky wasn't named (who I also favored as well here earlier)...

From:

http://i2.democracynow.org/2009/5/27/obama_nominee_sonia_sotomayor_would_become

...

AMY GOODMAN: Marjorie Cohn, you’re president of the National Lawyers Guild. Your response to the nomination of the first Latina justice, of Judge Sotomayor, to the Supreme Court?

MARJORIE COHN: Well, Amy, I think it’s very significant that she would be the first Latino on the Supreme Court, and she certainly would bring the number of women on the Supreme Court to two, and that’s also very significant. She will not appreciably change the political balance on the court. She will probably be a reliable liberal, very much in the vein of David Souter.

Cases about executive privilege will invariably come before her, such as interrogation policies, preventive detention, state secrets, and her views are largely unknown on issues of executive privilege.

She is a mixed bag. I would not call her a left liberal. She will not be a William Brennan or a Thurgood Marshall or an Earl Warren. Yes, she has ruled in the ways that Tom said on the firefighters case, on the environmental case, but she is a career prosecutor. She was a career prosecutor. And I’m hoping that she has empathy for criminal defendants and their constitutional rights. She ruled in two significant cases to uphold searches where the search warrants were unlawful. She ruled—she upheld the Bush global gag rule that made it harder for women to get abortions. She ruled against plaintiff correctional officers who were retaliated against for making complaints. And she also has a significant background as a corporate lawyer. She dissented in a 2-to-1 decision, ruling against the families of victims of the TWA plane crash in New York. So I think she will be a mixed bag. She will probably be more on the liberal side, but I would not call her an unabashed liberal.

Now, I think that it’s important for us to respond to this whole issue of activist judges and judicial activism, because this is what the right wing is bringing up all over the media waves and throwing at her, that she’ll be a judicial activist. All judges are judicial activists. I mean, the quintessential judicial activism was Bush v. Gore, where a conservative majority of the Supreme Court handed the election to George W. Bush. That was judicial activism. On the other hand, if it weren’t for judicial activism, the civil rights movement would not have achieved the gains that it achieves—that it achieved. So judicial activism is a red herring. Certainly, when a Justice Scalia interprets the Second Amendment or Justice Roberts rules in an abortion case, they are being judicial activists. And although nominated justices come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate and swear that their views on abortion and the death penalty and gun rights will not affect how they rule, they don’t rule in an ivory tower, and judges do make policy, and, yes, they interpret the law, but they interpret it through their own political lenses. So I think that’s important.

...

AMY GOODMAN: And also significant that she grew up right in the shadow of Yankee Stadium. She grew up in the public housing project. I just want to also mention her parents came from Puerto Rico to New York, but her father died at the age of nine, so she was raised by her mother, something that she brought up yesterday, honoring her mother in the White House when she was nominated.

Marjorie Cohn, the New York Times quotes a lecture she gave in 2001 called “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” where she said, “My hope is I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”

Can you wrap up for us?

MARJORIE COHN: Yes. Judges certainly make decisions through the lens of their experience and of their background. And the fact that she is a woman, the fact that she is a Latina, is going to invariably figure into her decision making and make her, I think, perhaps more sensitive than she might have been otherwise.

AMY GOODMAN: And in terms of the composition of the court, you sound somewhat disappointed.

MARJORIE COHN: Well, I’m thrilled that there will be the first Latina on the Supreme Court and that there will be another woman. But I really would have liked to have seen a real progressive counterweight to radical rightists on the court, such as Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and—Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and—why am I blanking? Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, four of them, yes.

I would have liked to have seen an Erwin Chemerinsky, for example, or a Harold Koh, even though they’re not women—Erwin Chemerinsky is a white male—but real giants in the area of constitutional rights, civil rights, human rights. I am very supportive of her nomination, and she should be defended, and she should be confirmed, but she is not going to be another Thurgood Marshall. She will not leave an indelible mark on the court, ultimately, the way Earl Warren did or Oliver Wendell Holmes. I could be wrong about that. I think that perhaps Obama missed an opportunity here, aside from all of the incredible qualities that she brings with her, but hopefully—or, hopefully, I guess one would say—he will have more opportunities to appoint justices.

...

[democracy1st]

18. thanks i'll check it out

[Uzybone]

30. "but she is not going to be another Thurgood Marshall. "

If all appointees were Thurgood Marshalls we wouldn,t be talking about Thurgood Marshall. Not every SC justice appointed by a liberal democratic president will be a liberal giant. I hope Ms. Cohn is wrong about her assesment, but this was a very fair critique.

[vaberella]

45. And she didn't bash Thurgood Marshall, unlike Turley, who did.

[Karenina]

32. HOW does anyone know with such certainty?

"She will not leave an indelible mark on the court, ultimately, the way Earl Warren did or Oliver Wendell Holmes. I could be wrong about that." :crazy:

[redqueen]

42. This is how the media conducts itself for the most part - talking out of their asses.

Mostly a bunch of self-important, overpaid fuckwads, IMO.

[vaberella]

46. They can't. One of the issues I had with Turley.

He seemed to be able to make complete character assessments and knows how Sotomayor would be in court. Yet, he says that he would side with her on every case he read. So then I had to pause and wonder what he was talking about. She'd do nothing amazing, but you'd side with her...which means you would do the same. Oy.

[cascadiance]

54. And if they did know with certainty, think of how bad a Supreme Court we'd have now...

With so many of even of our liberal justices appointed by Republicans.

I think she like me is saying that she's not prejudging Ms. Sotomayor and doesn't have anything *against* her. But she's concerned that Obama doesn't pick someone with more of a known track record for being someone that could do some landmark work for our side. That's not a bad way to look at it. It's kind of like the way I feel about Obama now too. I'm still reserving judgement, but I've not seen anything where I've seen him go out on a limit and take some real risks to do something that we'd all feel good about just yet. But I believe he still has the capacity of doing that sometime down the road. Will he? Only time will tell, but he'll probably need a lot of prodding to do so. I'll keep doing so, and hopefully many people won't accuse me of being "anti-Obama" while I continue to do the prodding when I think he could do things better.

I think she's basically challenging him to reach deeper next time and that we won't be satisfied with a nominee solely based on their gender and race, and need some real strategic traits that person has to get the court back to a court that won't be a toadie for the corporate world, and still will do a great job interpreting the Constitution properly.

[suzie]

88. Amy Goodman acts as if its a terrible thing to have a background

as a career prosecutor.

And yet, how many threads are there on DU every single day demanding that the Obama Administration prosecute people from the Bush Administration?

It would seem that lawyers who want to become prosecutors assume some kind of second-class legal citizenship. Good liberal/progressives want them to prosecute whatever they feel should be prosecuted, but how dare they get above themselves and want to be on the Supreme Court?

No way, we don't want a PROSECUTOR on the Supreme Court.

It would seem that Amy Goodman has never sat in many courtrooms or listened to prosecutors complain about the judges who were former prosecutors. They're usually the least lenient judges because they know the police, they dealt with them when they were prosecutors themselves.

[cascadiance]

90. I didn't take that away from it. I think I took that as her response to...

... Marjorie Cohn's general demeanor when answering the questions... Perhaps you might wonder if Ms. Cohn herself had that sort of attitude for bringing up that issue in her response. But I think Marjorie Cohn was saying that overall this pick was a good one, but wasn't one she felt could have made as big of a difference as it could have had Obama dug deeper amongst his candidate list.

I, like Marjorie Cohn, had similar feelings about someone like Erwin Chemerinsky, who taking away someone's gender and race, had a great set of qualifications for the court from our perspective. He's had many cases to point to where he'd be on our side, including the Nike case where he authored an opinion against corporate "free speech", which I think is a critical opinion along with the notion of "corporate personhood" that ultimately I want SCOTUS to strike down later, to get rid of the corporate power we have in government so many places now. I think there are likely other candidates that could have been like Mr. Chemerinsky in terms of where they would go on cases like these, including women of color too. I think she was saying that it would be hard to predict how Ms. Sotomayor would rule on these sorts of cases. Also, how would she rule in cases of executive privilege, which still needs to be struck down now too. Jane Hamsher of firedoglake also said that was her biggest question for Ms. Sotomayor when asked on GRITtv yesterday. Laura Flanders also yesterday asked her guests including Ms. Hamsher how they felt Ms. Sotomayor would be with corporate issues, and noted that these issues are likely even more important in the coming future than in the past. We need to make sure that Ms. Sotomayor will work for people and not necessarily for corporations (like she may have at one point as a corporate lawyer) when on the SCOTUS bench.

But Ms. Cohn, and I feel that with what I've seen so far, I don't see any big negatives for Ms. Sotomayor, and in many cases, SCOTUS picks can surprise you to be better than expected later too. Hopefully that will be the case here, as Ms. Cohn also seems to say at the end of her interview. With Barack though, there are so many issues that we have to "hope" that he will do well for us later, and many that now we've seen some setbacks on, so hoping that hope in this candidate will yield good results in this case.

[Thrill]

17. He managed to insult Thurgood Marshall as well

[depakid]

19. Turley's entitled to his opinion

just as mka193 is entitled to whine and moan on Kos.

Frankly, I'm not sure which of the two sounds more pathetic here.

[Cha]

25. turley's entitled to be a fucking mediawhore

and whine, piss, and moan all he wants on tv.

[depakid]

27. One suspects that would be the response

to most anyone who criticizes Obama, his administration or one of his a nominees.

[Cha]

28. Strawman..turley's a mediawhore..

plain and simple.

[babylonsister]

29. I can't believe even you are defending this pos and his 'opinions',

which have now been hijacked by the r/w.

Nah, I guess I can believe it.

[asphalt.jungle]

31. he is their champion for one issue

so he must be defended at all costs (funny how they level that accusation at people that don't get outraged with each obama decision). that's one issue people for you.

[vaberella]

35. Ahh, understood. Best explanation why he has defenders. n/t

[depakid]

40. That's almost an amusing comment

considering the nature of the sycophant brigade around here.

[depakid]

39. Did I defend him in this instance? Must have missed that

Seems to me I said that it was hard to figure out which of them- he or the blogger was more pathetic.

(The blogger sounds like more than a few that I've known over the years in academia).

[Zodiak]

91. The one who uses curse words and pseudo-psychoanalysis

Generally, if you cannot get through a rant without dozens of curse words and casting aspersions on a person's intent in the absence of any proof whatsoever, then you are not high on my reading list.

I welcome intellectually honest discussion from both sides, but all of this speculation (much of which is on this thread) and name-calling is just chaff without any wheat.

[libodem]

23. How did he get it so wrong?

I thoroughly disagree with him about this. He got it WRONG!

[Political Tiger]

26. Turdley's ego is right up there with Limpballs

and apparently so is his view on those who skin is darker than his is.

[jillan]

41. Looks like Turley lost credibility with the majority of the left everywhere, not just at DU.

Wonder if Keith and Rachel got the memo.

[redqueen]

43. He only ever had it because not many looked at him too closely.

Now that they have... well... yeah.

[Karenina]

59. Memo? E-mail?

Rachel Maddow [e-mail]
Keith Olberman [e-mail]

[Gregorian]

44. I think I understood what he meant. Look at Scalia.

I immediately thought he was referencing how Scalia was absolutely the top student, yet not such a (not sure what word to put here) judge.

Scalia helped select a piece of shit for president, when we should have focused on the vote counts. Where is the judicial brilliance in a man who graduated with highest honors? Scalia is an idiot in my book.

[vaberella]

49. That's not hwo I understand it.

He was referencing how "brilliant" Scalia is as a judge. Not as a top student. Hence the reason he said, "look at Scalia." To being a good judge in his opinion.

[Gregorian]

76. Oh no. If that really is the case, then I'm through with Turley.

I can't believe it. But thank you for prompting me to open my perception to that side of Turley.

[vaberella]

84. It's true.

One of the many reasons, besides his belief in Sotomayor "lacking intellectual depth" at the same time saying Thurgood Marshall "lacked intellectual depth" was to hold up Scalia as a great judge who has shown great depth. People couldn't believe it. But it's true.

[Gregorian]

92. This is why I appreciate the forum here.

I would have never known. Sometimes it takes a holding hand to get me to see the truth.

One thing I now see about politics, and people in general, is that they cross over in their views and values. Turley sounded so eager to do things I want to see done. Yet he apparently believes in the inequality being levied by people like Scalia. For lack of a better way of putting it.

[dorkulon]

47. I'll say it again: Unless you've read her opinions, none of you have any standing

to criticize Turley's assessment. That's not to say he's right--but none of us are familiar with the material he's critiquing, so all of this outrage is just hot air.

[vaberella]

50. Uh...did you hear his statement.

He stated he agreed with her position on the cases. That her understanding of the rule of law was correct. What he did say was that she didn't show any brilliance or maybe original way of interpreting the rule of law----as he stated on KO's show. So basically her rulings were correct, however for him showed no gravitas. The man is an egotistical jackass. It's his opinion of course, but when you put it out there as though---you and those you believe to be good are the best, well it doesn't work and expect to be criticized. If he said he agreed with her rulings, which he did, then that means even his views had no depth either.

I don't get the man.

[dorkulon]

53. I'm not defending Turley; just saying it seems a bit ridiculous to blast him for an opinion about

something which which we are all entirely unfamiliar. It's like saying "How dare you give this book a bad review" when you've never read the book. I think there's a lot of emotional reaction just because Sotomayor's a woman, as if she can't handle criticism as easily as a man. I did see Turley make such comments on KO last night, and I kind of thought what you did, that he couldn't find anything wrong with her judgments, so it was a bit weird to criticize the "depth" of them. But I have to acknowledge that until I've read them, I am simply not qualified to assess his assessment, let alone call him a sexist turd or whatever.

[vaberella]

56. Yeah, he's not a sexist in my eyes. He's just an ass-

As for the rest I understand your point. I've read articles talking about her cases and I have to say...I think my problem with Turley is understanding what he means by "depth." What exactly signifies the judge has depth for him. He uses Wood as an example, but he doesn't contrast her in any way to Sotomayor, however he does continue to criticize her. The whole situation is weird which makes him appear more of an arse.

[Occam Bandage]

62. I think the claim of sexism comes in large part because his argument was incoherent.

She's clearly quite intelligent, given that she graduated Princeton with the highest possible honor. It's not a matter of differing philosophy, or of poor legal analysis either, given that Turley couldn't find anything he disagreed with in her decisions. He didn't fully explain what he meant; he simply talked a bit about "depth" and "impact," while avoiding any explanation of what made her inadequately deep or impactful.

Many women are quite familiar with white men claiming they're somehow just not good enough, despite their great accomplishments in their fields, and despite those same men (when pressured to defend themselves) admitting they can't find anything in particular wrong with anything they've done. Many minorities are familiar with that experience as well. It's hardly surprising that people would see that again in Turley's comments, especially given the outright sexist and outright racist comments that others are throwing at Sotomayor (and especially given that those outright bigots are now using Turley's words on their shows and on their websites).

Personally, I don't think he's racist or sexist. I think he's an ivory-tower elitist who has long since realized that he can pull in a steady income smugly dismissing/criticizing the actions of people in power from a pseudolegal perspective. I think he tried to pull the same "oh, those idiots just don't see things as well as I do" game with Sotomayor, and it backfired horrendously, for the reasons above.

[Karenina]

71. Good post, OB!

[bettyellen]

83. i think he may not realise himself the root of his unease with her.. she annoys him and

that leads me to belive that it;s because she;s a woman who has made more of herslef than he. that's plenty enough to bothe rmany men.she is tough and yet can;t take criticism because she;s emotional? WTF?

[louis-t]

51. I suppose he thinks Berto Gonzales was

brilliant. Repugs said he had a "brilliant legal mind."

[doodadem]

55. I must have missed the memo as well.

I've always liked Turley. I thought his assessment of Sotomayor on KO last night was very appreciative. I mean, the big joke was that she graduated second in her class and was highly intelligent--Keith wouldn't say where he graduated in his class, and Turley challenged a number of righties, such as Karl Rove, to divulge their class rankings. I didn't hear anything that sounded racist either.

Sorry.

[ErinBerin84]

57. I think the OP is referring to Turley earlier in the day

He gave reaction to Chris Matthews during the day on MSNBC, and was on Keith that night. I didn't see either. But, wtf is a "house pet"??? I don't get it.

[vaberella]

60. Did Turley say "house pet?" B/c that is sexist. n/t

[ErinBerin84]

61. I don't know

I couldn't believe that he would be THAT careless, but it is referred to in the op. Maybe it was paraphrased or something, and the OP author from Daily Kos just put "house pet" because that was the impression they were getting from Turley.

edit: Hmmm. I've seen other references to Turley apparently saying "house pet" (though I haven't seen the video, so someone feel free to correct me). What an unfortunate choice of words. I mean, I probably would have preferred Dianna Wood too, but the "house pet" thing makes it sound as if she was purely an affirmative action pick, when she has tons of experience and qualifications. Not good.

[Karenina]

68. Here's the quote:

JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, I think that is a fairly standard line. You really have to do that. You’re not going to have a nominee stand up and say "The first thing I do is get rid of the Founding Fathers." But I do think that there is a problem here when we talk about temperament and empathy. You know, we are not selecting a house pet. We’re selecting a Supreme Court justice and as an academic I have a certain bias. And that is does she have the intellectual throw weight to make a difference on the court? And I have to tell you the optics are better than the opinions in this case. I’ve read a couple of dozen of her opinions. They don’t speak well to her being a nominee on the Supreme Court. She will be historic in many ways like Thurgood Marshall but I ‘ll remind you Thurgood Marshall was not a lasting intellectual force on the court. He was historic because he was first. And I think that a lot of academics are a little bit disappointed. I am in the sense that Diane Wood, Harold Coe, were not the ultimate people to prevail. These are people that are blazingly brilliant. They would have brought to the court intellects that would frame in the conceptual way.

[Occam Bandage]

63. Yes, but I don't think it was particularly sexist.

"One of the concerns from many is that Sotomayor, who is given bad marks on temperament, will be replaced one of the most easy going and civil justices on the Court. As I have mentioned on air, I am less concerned with this criticism. She is being selected as a justice, not a close friend or house pet. It is the weight of her opinions and writings that dictate the focus of our review. Even after this criticism, advocates have struggled to cite a single opinion that could be viewed as a brilliant or extraordinary treatment of the law."

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/26/white-house-to-announce-court-pick-at-10-am/

I'm more annoyed with his ongoing yet vague complaints about a lack of "brilliance." He can't find anything wrong with her; he just doesn't think she's good enough.

[ErinBerin84]

64. ok, good.

Turley can get annoying, but I was hoping that the house pet thing was misquoted. It seems like he was just using that to dispell criticism of the "temperment" issue, which I'm fine with. Didn't Turley say that he agreed with most of her rulings? Just that her opinions did not show brilliance....like Scalia. LOL.

[vaberella]

65. Oh then it was taken out of context. In context that makes sense.

I agree with the rest of what you're saying. None of the cases he read were things to take issue with as you stated. He's a fool.

[vaberella]

58. You see that wasn't the situation we had aproblem with.

By the time he got to KO he was actually backtracking. You need to hear his earlier comments on Tweety's show. That's when shit hit the fan.

Here is a piece of him on Shuster---he gets worse by Tweety's show.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x317102

[Joe Chi Minh]

66. The most ostensibly brilliant minds can have a poor hinterland of assumptions,

rendering them liable to make the most imbecilic decisions. Character counts in relation to intelligence, as well as morality.

[LittleBlue]

67. Garbage. There's nothing to suggest that Turley's a racist

If that's his honest opinion of her, then so be it.

[girl gone mad]

69. There's been a real overreaction to his comments.

Likely because many have been looking for reasons to tear him down since he has been so staunch in defendeding the constitutional rights of detainees, even against this administration's tacit tyranny.

[geek tragedy]

73. Obama=tyrant?

As I said, Turley's fanclub are the dumbest and looniest children on the planet.

Another addition to my Ignore list.

[Cha]

75. WTF! "even against this administration's tacit tyranny."

"Tyranny"?

turley was dissing Thurgood Marshall yesterday on tv and his mouth is the thing that got him into trouble. No one else did it for him.

[Occam Bandage]

77. Yes, speaking of overreaction: "This administration's tacit tyranny." nt

[Kajsa]

72. He is a pompous ass.

I wish they would can him.

[Senator]

74. If anything, it's the critical post that is the "embarrassment."

First, the "house pet" comment was a defense of Judge Sotomayor from the Rosen/RW "temperament" smear.

Then, the poster finds it "sickening" that:

Presumably, Mr. Turley was already getting ready to make the case that this was an "affirmative action" pick.

While that might be sickening if he did make that case (he hasn't), were he really "getting ready" to do so he'd be rather foolish to cite the alternative nominees he did -- Wood and Koh -- who would also qualify for such a "pick."

When the poster then makes it clear that this a personal issue, born of real or imagined slights from "the likes of Turley and the other WHITE MEN," one's reflex is to just stop reading (in hindsight, a good reflex).

Turley may well be guilty of whinging that one of his cocktail party guests was not selected -- or that he'd rather have someone who's more easily pigeon-holed -- or a "liberal-visionary" to counter the "neocon-self-delusionary" that is No-Know Nino -- but if anyone's wrapped up in "identity politics" here it is the poster not the professor.

---

[depakid]

79. Yep- the blogger's post was indeed embarrassing

and also embarrassing are those who've jumped on the post with equal vigor, often lifting quotes out of context.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Reterr]

87. But surely the ALL CAPS "EMBARASSMENT" should convince every one of their case

I have usually found nothing as convincing to any argument than when the person does the internet equivalent of shouting.

Turley has his bad days/bad ideas..but this blog post is just stupid. "Affirmative action pick"? "Turley and other white men"...what?

[Clio the Leo]

78. kick.........

..... am too tired to say more than this, but had to get in on this one! :)

[TheKentuckian]

81. kick it!

:kick:

[tomp]

82. sotomayor appears to be a centrist.

is anyone surprised?

i mean, this is what turley was on about, right? i'm no fan of turley, but killing the messenger? come on.

[vaberella]

85. Huh? No.

If he was on about her being a centrist then his last lines were enough. Stating that she had no "intellectual depth" and finding that Scalia did...is something else. Turley is no liberal I'll have you know. He was basically stating she was stupid and vapid but Scalia was not. It's not about shooting the messenger it's the fact the man had no real reasoning behind his argument. It made no sense and he was basically spouting out nonsense to the audience who think he's credible. You need to see the video of him speaking on Sotomayor on Tweety's show.

If you think Scalia's a great judge like he says, then so be it.

[tomp]

89. fair enough.

however, judging by some of her decisions as posted above, he may be right on her intellectual depth, though your mileage may vary.

AND, one can believe that NEITHER sotomayor nor scalia have intellectual depth, and that both may in fact be merely servants of power. on the other hand, a justice can have incredible intellectual depth and be an utter asshole.

also, i don't claim to have much insight into turley's place in the political spectrum (his position vis a vis clinton's impeachment was shameful), but suffice it to say there are many liberals i disagree with, so it doesn't much matter to me. many liberals masquerade as leftists when if fact they are centrists, which in my book translates as rightist enablers.

in summary, turley may actually be wrong--sotomayor may actually have intellectual depth--but that doesn't mean she'll make a justice who serves the interests of the nation at this crucial moment in our history.

[Political Heretic]

86. I've never read / watched / seen enough of Turley to get into this debate really

I'm not ready to stand by some guy just because I agree with him about the prosecution of criminals in government. For all I know he is a self-absorbed ass with a private agenda. :shrug: