Turley To Speak at USC Law School on the Supreme Court

This afternoon I have the pleasure of joining a distinguished panel to speak on the Supreme Court at the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law. The event is part of the LACBA Business Law Section 2020 Virtual Institute for Corporate Counsel and will also include Michael J. Gerhardt of UNC School of Law and Pamela S. Karlan of Stanford Law School who testified with me during the Trump impeachment hearing.  It will also include Beth S. Brinkmann of Covington & Burling LLP.

Here is the description of the event which will occur around 4:45 pm ET

The Court’s last term resulted in groundbreaking decisions in far-flung areas – from immigration, employment and LGBTQ rights to administrative law and separation of powers. These decisions, as well as the Court’s upcoming docket, will be put into focus for businesses and their advisors by a preeminent panel of Supreme Court scholars and practitioners.

16 thoughts on “Turley To Speak at USC Law School on the Supreme Court”

  1. Lucky this will be a virtual event. Otherwise, in addition to discussing law, you would be traveling through a county with rising Covid cases, filed with homeless camps. USC is also in a notoriously dangerous neighborhood.

    1. They’ve cleaned USC up quite a bit, but with its location next to “bad” neighborhoods….issues do arise. Sad to say 😞 …had a friend’s car in high school crowbarred next to USC campus.

      Best wishes Prof JT, I am sure you’ll be excellent.

      There are rising CV 19 cases here, but most ppl are living life like the lockdown isn’t happening…tbh. and to some extent, folks are just worn out and worn down.

      To prove my point:

      Just ask LA County supervisor who told everyone to stay home and don’t go to restaurants and then…..get this….promptly went to a restaurant herself that night, after being on live TV. 🤣🤡

      You cannot expect the sheep to follow, if you do not abide by your own rules and guidelines.

      Talking to you, Mr. Gavin Newsom. 🤡

      I sure wish Mr. Newsome, (k)new-som(e) manners. That’s a zinger for ya…

      Anyway, okie dokie, ill go back to my prepping to 5150 a relative tomorrow.

      Take care everyone and stay safe!

    1. Comrade Friedbrain.

      Yet another addendum to the Communist Manifesto.

      “[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”

      – Ben Franklin, 1787

      “[We gave you] a republic, if you can [take it back.]”

      – Ben Franklin, [2020]

  2. The 2020 Presidential Election was a Crime which must be Adjudicated in Courts of Law.

    The Evidence and “Probable Cause” are Compelling and Overwhelming.

    The Attorney General and Governors must act in Support of Law.

  3. Politics shall be entirely wrung out of the judicial branch.

    A Justice is not an occult oracle or, otherwise, inscrutable deity.

    The Supreme Court shall consist of one, and not more than three, Justices constrained by the liberal employment of constitutional impeachment and conviction.

    The “manifest tenor” of the Constitution is clear and inarguable.

    The Justice, or Justices, of the Supreme Court shall be unassailably accurate or prosecuted under Article 2, Section 4.

  4. To me Jonathan, it is scary that you defended our judges in general. Why, if they are above board, is it impossible to find a lawyer willing to consider taking one on?
    I know a federal judge who was appointed to the bench through a corrupt process. His friends, lawyers, nominated him. He was approved through the influence of a lawyer’s father who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee and immediately ruled favorably on a multibillion dollar lawsuit brought by the son.

    1. rpc 8.2 silences lawyers from criticizing judges

      lawyers who are tasked with defending free speech, do not have it themselves!

      this system is rotten and in dire need of an overhaul

      billionaires are the enemy

      Saloth Sar

      1. If the people lose their faith in the integrity of the judiciary, in its fairness, in its ability to rule without undue influence, the very foundfation of our democracy will crack.

  5. Are you not speaking at the behest of the same academics who agree, for the most part, with that hair-brained concept of Kent Greenfeld who proffers that the current SCOTUS is incapable of interpreting the constitution? Why would a man of intellect waste time conferring with academics at this point? You display a little intellectual cowardice by refraining from distancing yourself from such a gaggle of wrong-headed thinkers.

    1. Surely you jest! Turley appears on Hannity’s and “Fox and Friend’s” propaganda programs. If he is shameless enough to stoop to that level of anti-intellectualism and misinformation, appearing with academics is a quite a step up. Turley will live to regret sacrificing his integrity by legitimating patent Fox liars. After Fox News, there is no going back to legitimate news outlets; there is only a downward trend to Newsmax like the once respected Alan Dershowitz.

    2. Why would a man of intellect waste time conferring with academics at this point?


      $uch a $illy question

Comments are closed.