Jon Turley elaborates and clarifies his opinion of Sotomayor w/ KO

[ProfessorPlum]

Run time: 05:54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuLJ8IPOs7Q   Posted on YouTube: May 27, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: May 28, 2009 By DU Member: ProfessorPlum Views on DU: 1961

 
I hope this finally ends the ridiculous Turley-bashing here. His view is slightly more complicated than "obama nominated her, so she's good", but listen closely and you will hear a solid, if not ringing, endorsement, plus hope that her vision flowers as her term on the court proceeds.

[atreides1]

1. It won't stop the bashing

Too many people dislike Turley because of his involvement with the Clinton impeachment.

[ProfessorPlum]

3. As far as I understand it, Turley's support of Clinton's impeachment

was based on the FACT that Clinton lied under oath, which he did. His lie was later ruled to be about a subject not material to the case, and so was not technically perjury.

It should also be pointed out that 1) Clinton was not some kind of progressive/liberal champion and that 2) that was 10 years ago, and meanwhile Turley has been one of the loudest and most outspoken critics of the actual, heinous criminality of the Cheney/bush misadministration, while 99% of the rest of the media has been silent.

Jeebus.

[hiley]

6. that is

exactly right

[Captain Hilts]

16. Yep. I didn't agree with it, but I understand where he came from on that. nt

[Captain Hilts]

11. Turley is a 'the law's the law' guy. He's consistent in that. nt

[bjobotts]

25. Even when I disagree with Turley I know I can trust his opinion is honest and without an agenda

[bjobotts]

26. He ALWAYS explains his rationale clearly to show how he reaches his opinion

[bjobotts]

27. and best of all, he does so without malice.I wish many more had this approach to reasoning

[Buzz Clik]

2. Turley has gotten a bit of a bad rap from this, but he's not totally undeserving.

It's nice the Keith gave him the opportunity to cover his mediaslut ass.

[slipslidingaway]

4. knr nt

[Dogmudgeon]

5. You're expecting most DUers to have a sense of detail in politics

To a too-large degree, most of us are little more than Freepers of the Left.

That's a shame, too, since "our hearts are in the right place", but actual dialog is nearly impossible. The problem stems from American politics becoming an adult outlet for infantile aggression, and the Internet being a kind of a Safe Zone. Some people realize that they really get off on rage, enjoy the artificial protection of the Internet, and give their hostility full license.

And what of those who are able to criticize our leaders fairly, rendering both appreciation and rebuke? You can't win in that situation. SOMEONE is going to damn you to hell and claim that their Conscience dictated that it be so.

You, me, Jonathan Turley, Bill Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor, and the whole pantheon of "TRAITORS! WHORES!" need not worry; it's almost entirely catharsis. But still, what a loss! The Internet could really revive civil life, but first it's going to have to deal with group political primal scream therapy. (My apologies to Arthur Janov -- a reliable leftist, I hear tell.)

--d!
Mother, you voted for me, but I never voted for you ...

[spiritual_gunfighter]

8. Great post and totally dead on

True many of us are the Freepers of the left and like the above post the whole Jonathan Turley hate stems from the fact that he took issue with Clinton lying under oath WHICH HE DID!!!! Turley was swinging in the wilderness on television speaking out against the Bush admin. And he is swinging in the wilderness once again speaking out on the Obama admin. and the torture issue. DUers hate that about him, but as for me I love that about him.

[Captain Hilts]

13. He's consistent and people are even angrier over his criticism of the Obama Admin over detention

etc.

He's consistent, so I'll continue to listen to him because I understand where he's coming from even if I do not agree.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Well said. nt

[ooglymoogly]

7. Being liberal, in part, is having a strong bias toward the truth

Being a progressive liberal, in part, is having a strong need to search for the truth. Turley is a progressive liberal. For those of you who think and carp here otherwise are not paying attention, don't really give a dam about the truth or are freepers which is of course the same thing. As for freepers on the left, that is a pug talking point. There is a huge difference between searching out the truth and looking for bullshit to promote your argument and drown out the truth because it is not convenient to your argument.

kr

[Spazito]

10. He is a libertarian/conservative by his OWN telling...

"I tend to have a fair dose of libertarian feeling so CATO has always held some interest for me. There are, however, a plethora of great groups that specialize on issues of church/state separation and privacy. I tend to be a mutt when it comes to my political views with some conservative, some libertarian, and some liberal elements. "

http://jonathanturley.org/about/

You will find this quote in his 5th response to his bio.

[ooglymoogly]

19. Does not matter, his actions speak louder than those statements if you have watched him as intently

as I have.

Libertarian is a fungible word. I too am a Libertarian and believe in many of its concepts...I too am a Liberal...I too am a progressive, but above all I am a person who honors the constitution and that is a progressive liberal document making truth vital to our very existence as a benevolent and honorable society of w/men.

[Spazito]

22. The point is Turley doesn't define himself as a liberal progressive...

and his actions are very much libertarian/conservative as opposed to liberal progressive. A liberal progressive believes in a social safety net including healthcare, social security, etc. I have not found anything from Turley that espouses those principals. Conservatives, separate from the neocon Bush/Cheney era, believe in the Constitution as well, just ask them about the 2nd amendment, lol.

[ooglymoogly]

24. You know, I just want to see these criminals brought to justice

so profoundly that Turley has become an Icon. Perhaps I have given him more skates than he actually has...I have not heard him speak on the safety net issues though my gut tells me he is behind them and supports them; But right now my gut needs an antacid over this lame nomination and on that issue Turley is right on the money, as he usually is.

[ooglymoogly]

20. I think most of us fall under that category of mutts

I didn't read your full post till after I posted.

[pleah]

9. K&R

[JDPriestly]

14. Sotomayor strikes me as a rational person who makes decisions

based on common sense.

Why? 1) She seems genuinely humble which suggests to me that she will not be driven by overconfidence in her opinions. In other words she will not make decisions based on some abstract set of "beliefs" but rather on facts to which she applies the law. I would guess that she will interpret the words and judicial history without too many preconceptions. Evidence of her humility: she does not spend too much time on her appearance. (I consider that to be a virtue today at a time when how a woman looks can make or break her. She must be really, really delightful and earn a lot of respect considering how far she has gotten.)

2) She is loving. Her "thank yous" to her family and friends were heartfelt. I cannot think of another member of the SC who exudes the kind of warmth that Sonio Sotomayor shows. (Kennedy seems like a fairly warm-hearted person, and Breyer is OK in this respect. But her loving temperament just shines through her. Can she explode at times -- quite possibly, but I doubt that she is cruelly vindictive or acts on grudges.)

3. Finally, I have not read her opinions, and I can't judge their "depth." I don't know quite what Turley means.

IMO, Scalia is "eloquent" enough for everyone -- but arrogant, conceited and bound in his thinking by a rigid ideology. From an academic point of view, his decisions may be more impressive, but from a human point of view, they are sometimes worthless. Scalia does not seem to think through what kind of impact his decisions will have on ordinary people. Sotomayor will be kind of an antidote to the poison that Scalia injects into the Court.

Sotomayor, however, does not strike me as particularly "liberal" especially when it comes to criminal law. She did complex litigation -- and that is a sign that she can handle a lot of evidence (boxes and boxes and shelves and shelves in some cases plus expert and percipient witnesses -- fun for a busy mind) and deal with many legal issues at once. She is, no doubt, brilliant. Her confirmation is a no-brainer as far as I am concerned, although I may disagree with her on a lot of issues.

[Captain Hilts]

15. She's not 'scholarly' for its own sake. My diss was writtenin clear English and

it confused the shit out of folks.

ER: That Sotomayor is such a dear. If I were alive and on the Judiciary committee, I'd vote 'for' her.

[jgraz]

17. And, of course, he was responding to a direct question about possible "genuine" objections to her

His only "concern" is that she isn't a clear liberal firebrand. I'm frankly surprised that more people don't voice that same concern -- it seems the only viable SCOTUS nominees are inscrutable moderates or borderline fascists.

[mr_liberal]

18. Why should we have to settle for someone

that were unsure of how she's going to vote on civil liberties?

I don't doubt she'll uphold Roe V Wade, I mean I have very little doubt, but theres alot more than just abortion rights. I don't see any evidence at all that she'll be good on other civil liberties like free speech, or on separation of church/state, etc.... And like Turley said, theres alot of judges that we could be sure of, like Diane Wood.

In fact, everything Ive read about her makes it seem like shes very deferential to government power. Police powers are ok, govt gagging Planned Parenthood ok, schools gagging students ok,.....

I dunno, after all the hell we've gone through with supreme court battles, now a democrat finally gets elected, has a chance to nominate a judge, and we have to worry thats shes going to be dependable? It sort of seems like a slap in the face.

[ooglymoogly]

21. I'll double down on that. nt

[digidigido]

23. "He" is a Moderate Centrist democrat, "He" got elected, What is this "we" bullshit?