Hostile Takeover: Democrats To Introduce Bill To Pack The Supreme Court

We recently discussed the controversial commission created by President Joe Biden to discuss calls to pack the Supreme Court as well as a number of truly looney ideas for circumventing or reducing the authority of the Court’s conservative majority. Some members however decided not to wait even for a commission that is itself packed with liberal members.  House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-NY, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and others will be announcing their plan to immediately add four new justices to the Court. The number is calculated purely to give liberals a 7-6 majority on the Court. It is about a subtle as a B-52 run.

Many of us have discussed the expansion of the Supreme Court through the years. Over 20 years ago, I recommended the expansion of the Court to 17 or 19 members. However, that recommendation would occur over many years and would not give advocates the short-term majority that they are seeking. That is the difference between reforming and packing the Court.

The bill today strips away any pretense of principle. It is pure unadulterated court packing. It is the very proposal denounced by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before she died. Recently, Justice Stephen Breyer wanted against the move. One would think he would be immune from the mob as one of the most consistently liberal justices in our history. However, this week, Breyer warned against any move to expand the Supreme Court. He also rejected the characterization of the current Court as “conservative” or ideologically rigid. Breyer was swiftly denounced by figures like cable news host Mehdi Hasan who called him “naive” and called for his retirement. Demand Justice, a liberal group calling for court packing, had a billboard truck in Washington the next day in the streets of Washington warning “Breyer, retire. Don’t risk your legacy.” (Demand Justice once employed White House press secretary Jen Psaki as a communications consultant, and Psaki was on the advisory board of one of its voting projects.)

With the opposition of justices like Ginsburg and Breyer (and presumably the majority if not the unanimous Court), this is nothing short of a hostile takeover. It would reduce the Court to a glorified FCC with life tenure.

The chances of succeeding in this ignoble goal are low. However, the real question is how many Democratic senators and House members will step forward today to denounce such raw court packing. These politicians often decry what they view as attacks on the rule of law.  Well, this is not just an attack but a virtual declaration of war on the rule of law.  If Democrats just add members to give them a controlling majority, the Supreme Court will have little authority or integrity. It will become the manufactured majority of a party with a razor thin control of Congress of two seats in the House and a 50-50 split in the Senate.

I am particularly disappointed to see Nadler in this group. I never imagined that I would see the day that the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee would step forward to call for raw court packing. It is a sign of our current political environment where rage overwhelms reason.

424 thoughts on “Hostile Takeover: Democrats To Introduce Bill To Pack The Supreme Court”

  1. @Jeff Silberman

    Tucker Carlson is one of the most reasoned and honest voices. He condemned Democrats’ dangerous Russiagate coup attempt ,
    and he condemns their dangerous and unjustified aggression against Russia, their attempted regime change in Syria, and their warmongering, more generally.
    Carlson is correct about illegal immigration: it harms working class African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, and Whites. It only helps the “professional-managerial” class.
    There is a large literature documenting the negative effect of undocumented immigration on wages and workers’ power. Carlson regularly hosts Glenn Greenwald and other
    top-flight journalists. Glenn Greenwald is an investigative journalist of the highest caliber. Democrats hate Tucker Carlson because he very incisively calls out their mendaciousness,
    their corruption, their warmongering, and their attempt to use undocumented immigration as a “demographic strategy” to win elections rather than promote policies that actually
    help voters.

    1. @spthspth,

      I know there is nothing I can say to make you change your mind about Carlson. All I can do is pity you.

      1. Jeff, I don’t watch him as much as you apparently do, but I see clips etc. He seems to be quite reasonable even when I don’t agree with him. Only a person with tunnel vision would say what you say. Perhaps you and I could tape a few Tucker shows and I will watch the same ones so that you can tell me what in each show you find so objectionable. That way we can get a random sample instead of a spliced small sample that leftist outlets use to prove something that doesn’t exist.

        1. Except for his politics and that he is more intelligent and more reasonable than the hordes of dimwitts in the left wing nut media, Carlson is a fairly typical media Pundit.

          He is no more “sinful” than even the best of the left wing nut media.

          I have several disagreements with him – Like Andrew Yang he is a luddite – and he is intelligent enough to know better – as is Yang.

          But for his faults he is still head and shoulder above those on the left.

          1. John, from what I have seen of Tucker Carlson, he is far ahead of all the left wing pundits and adds a unique set of values. You don’t like his politics, but he doesn’t like yours.

            There is one thing in politics you seem to miss completely. You speak as if the politics of a nation are cyclical so that bad things happening today will inevitably be reversed. That is historically inaccurate, something Tucker recognizes and you don’t. Your predictions can be right most of the time but on the central questions all you have to be is wrong once and the Constitutional Republic we have can disappear and not reappear in our or our children’s lifetimes. That makes one more circumspect about what is happening today. That is what you miss and Tucker seemingly understands.

            Look at your history and see how many times government turned over creating a Constitutional Republic that centered its dictates on keeping power from a central government and increasing individual liberty.

            1. I do not actually follow him – but I do periodically listen to clips from him.
              If we are measuring Carlson against most talking heads – he is stelar.

              Next, I do not claim that all politics is cyclic.

              I have claimed that bad policies fail, and the worse those policies are the worse the failure is and that USUALLY puts an end to those policies.

              That is also how the free market works – with a few differences.

              Failure in government can be propped up by force for a time.

              Government is the one institution that we really do not want to fail – ever.
              That is ONE of the reasons for limited government – to limit the possibility of government failure.

              Government failures TEND to be bad – harmful to large numbers of people.
              Sometimes deadly

              But we do survive.

              We are past the point of being able to prevent the left from failing.
              We can prepare to deal with that failure after the fact.

              Political parties are not about ideology but power
              We see constant shifting of the positions of the left and right as each seeks to build a reliable base without aleinating too many people.

              The Republican party of today is much different from 40 years ago as is the democratic party.
              In many instances they have traded places.

              Most recently Trump took a blatant stab at moving blue collar workers to the republican party.
              That radically changed the political dynamic. Trump was fairly successful at that – and that has changed both the democratic and republican party.

              Any analysis of the 2020 election must note how fragile the democratic victory is.
              less than 100K votes would have flipped the entire federal government,

              That alone should be enough to want the election secure.

              While many elements of the democratic victory are the result of strategy, tactics, luck even – just as with every single election.
              A few are dubious. The election lawlessness and possible fraud.

              Regardless, it is inarguable that Democrats “shot the moon” – that victory required a very long list of things to go right.
              Some of those they were able to FORCE – such as the bad court decisions driven by fear of the pandemic.

              Many many factors were “on time only” factors.

              Republicans may be on the wrong side of power right now.
              But they are in a far stronger position with respect to reaching a majority or having a stable coalition than democrats.

              What happens when liberals like Turley are unwilling to vote democrat ?

              The far left mostly controls the democratic party and that destabalizes it.

              That is not a cycle it is a fact.

              BUT that said – whatever disaster befalls either party that party will ALWAYS adapt and always inevitable change as necescary to return to power.

              That is not a “cycle” it is a natural ying/yang that is intrinsic in 2 party politics.

              1. “That is not a “cycle” it is a natural ying/yang that is intrinsic in 2 party politics.”

                John, you are observing various spikes of power when one should be looking at the trend line.

                1. One of the reasons that the current situation is extremely dangerous is that enormous amounts of effort have been used to push against a natural trend.

                  There is a very interesting Salena Zito peice that demonstrates that Trump’s followers are not followers or Trump.
                  They came first. Trump found them, he did not create them. They will still be there is Trump is gone.

                  There was a natural swing to the right as the Obama administration wound down.
                  There was also a natural reorientation of parties as the jockey for power and bases fade and new ones emerge.

                  Trumpists picked Trump. If there was no Trump they would have picked someone else.

                  Anyway the left, the media and big tech have expended enormous amounts of energy trying to stop and reverse a natural pendulum swing.

                  That is incredibly dangerous.

                  Either force will win and that will be very bad – or there could be a sudden shift right – possibly far right as the dam breaks.

                  Regardless it is not good.

                  Change is always slow – except when it is not.

            2. I maybe wrong but I think that history is moving faster, not slower.

              Many pundits have noted the resemblance between the woke left and the chinese cultural revolution.
              The analogy is not perfect – but it is remarkably good.
              The cultural revolution was a bloody mess.

              We are int he midst of a bloody mess

              But I do not think as you – that we are facing decades of repression.

              Change comes very slowly – except when it comes very quickly.

              I think we are in the midst of the latter – not the former.

              I think a great deal of what Terrifies the left about Jan 6. is how close it came to succeeding.

              Jan. 6 was NOT the planned insurection the left has painted.

              If it had been – it would have succeeded.

              We have had barbed wire fences and the national guard at the capital – because the left fears the next time will succeed.

              The left has actively sought to destroy all the norms that restrain society.

              But this is problematic – when you destroy norms to your own advantage – nothing precludes others from disregarding those norms to its own advantage.

              One of the reasons the left fears Jan 6 – is because THEY would have had no problem holding government hostage.
              The left fears that the right will do what the left would in the same situation.

              And there is reason for that fear.

              The left has removed many norms only to see the right take advantage shortly after.

              The left went lawless with the 2020 election.
              They are now afraid – and SHOULD BE very afraid the right will do the same.

              I have posted repeatedly about how easy it is to sabatoge mailin elections.
              I have no intention of doing so.
              But likely someone will
              Regardless, democrats should live in fear that what they have done will in some form be done to them.
              That is the only means to restore norms.

      2. You could try facts – and not drowning yourself in hypocracy.

        Can you name an instance in the past 4 years in which any of the left media have had a guest from the right of the calibre of Turley, Derschowitz, or Greenwald – that was not a politician ?

        And even allowing republican politicians as guest is increasingly rare on the left.

        You rail at Levin for calling democrats evil.

        So are you blackballing all in the left media who call republicans nazi’s and racists ?

        When you have made good and non-hypocritical arguments – this “I can not persuade you, because your mind is set in concrete” nonsense would be meaningful.

        But you have made very poor arguments.

        You attacked infowars and Alex Jones.

        Jones is a right wing nut, tin foil hat crazy conspiracy theorist.

        And yet Jones has been right about more than any pundit on MSNBC or CNN.

        He has been right about conspiracy claims that are bat $hit crazy.

    2. “Tucker Carlson is admired by white nationalists, elected officials, and maybe some of your relatives or coworkers. Given that he has the ear of so many Americans, John Oliver explains where Tucker came from, what his rhetorical tactics are, and what he represents. ”

          1. Diogenes, the reason these people post this trash instead of responding in their own words, backed up by the video, is because they are unable to actually make sense of what he the video is saying. They can’t take his video and put it in words that make sense.

            Tucker was talking about what makes a strong army capable of defending itself. Let’s discuss that, but that is not the intention of the narcissist doing the video. He sidesteps the issues needed for frank discussion. Some are foolish enough not to look behind the sarcasm and see the mediocre narcissist is wearing no clothes.

      1. Yes, John Oliver is one of the most respected communazis in the business, Comrade Anonymous. His wisdom exceeds the measure of his calories.

      2. John Oliver is a comedian. And is sometimes funny.

        He is not someone I would cite as any kind of authority on the media.

        Would you cite Dr. Faucci as an authority on crossdressing ?

    3. LastWeekTonight
      8.66M subscribers

      “Tucker Carlson is admired by white nationalists, elected officials, and maybe some of your relatives or coworkers. Given that he has the ear of so many Americans, John Oliver explains where Tucker came from, what his rhetorical tactics are, and what he represents.”

      1. I know people who watch this restroom prowler. Totally naive. But the thing that should scare you is that they are less and less naive every day.

    4. Are you aware that Tucker Carlson’s lawyers recently defended him in a defamation suit by claiming that no viewers should expect him to be speaking truthfully, even when he claims that something is true and factual? The judge agreed that no viewers should expect him to be truthful.

      He is dishonest.

      1. The fact that Turley would appear with someone as notorious as Carlson is positively revolting to anyone who once admired this academic. I look forward to the day when Turley appears in a public forum where he will be confronted by someone demanding to know why he would debase himself so. For most academics it would be unthinkable to take Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham seriously. They are performance artists- as you note, even Carlson’s lawyers in a recent court filing admitted as much. A serious academic does not relegate his legal analysis to a 5 minute rant on a rage-filled entertainment program. Rather, he would appear on C-Span in a 1 or 2 hour back and forth discussion with an equally informed opponent. It is demeaning to one’s self-respect to subject oneself to the intellectually dishonest Fox platform.

        1. “The fact that Turley would appear with someone as notorious as Carlson is positively revolting to anyone who once admired this academic.”

          One needs to read no more. That is a sign of a closed mind that isn’t thinking.

          Jeff your words make you sound more ignorant than I think you are. The idea behind discussion is to have people with different insights discussing their various viewpoints. Such a closed mind can’t move forward and eventually is denuded of all knowledge.

        2. “For most academics it would be unthinkable to take Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham seriously.”

          Probably true. And if one thinks it through, it’s actually a good reason to take Carlson, et al. seriously.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, that is another one of your lies, perhaps not intentional but due to lack of intellect.

            2. No, they argued that the case had to be dismissed because oppinions – whether true or false do not constitute defamation.

              1. They argued that even though Carlson said “Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed,” “a reasonable viewer would not have interpreted Carlson’s characterization of those “undisputed facts” literally.”

                Lots of Carlson’s viewers seem to take him literally. In his lawyers’ view, they are unreasonable.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, you can’t read. You also don’t know the difference between opinion and fact.

                  Both of those facts make you non-credible, but the rest of you is non-credible as well because ignorance reeks from every pore of your body.

                2. You keep connecting things that are not connected.

                  The ACTUAL argument is that Oppinion journalism is NOT treated the same way as a MATTER OF LAW by the courts in defamation cases as it is in straight news.

                  The argument is NOT that what Carlson said was not true. The argument was that it is irrelevant as a matter of law whether it is True.

                  You really are poor at making an argument.

                  You are constantly making inferences that you can not make. Your arguments are clouded by emotion – not logic.

                  I have argued here REPEATEDLY that “even if X was true it was irrelevant” – making such an argument is NOT an admission that X is true.

                  Please learn some critical thinking. Some logic and get beyond this incredibly shallow and warped logic.

                  Your core claim here is FALSE.

                  The argument made by Carlson’s lawyers does NOT mean that the statements are false.
                  It means that by law in this case the truth of the statements is not relevant.

        3. A the notorious Tucker Carlson – is that anything like the notorious RBG ?

          So far the only thing you have said about Carlson is that he has purportedly said democrats are evil.

          Is that your idea of a powerful argument of moral failure ?

          Is every pundit in which you are not in perfect agreement “notorious” ?

          Almost the entirety of the left media has LIED about so many things – countless things – the collusion delusion to start with.

          Should no one appear on Chris Cumo’s show ? Rachel Maddow ? Brian Stelter ?

          Some of these people have sexually harrassed their coworkers or subordinates – they are still on the air.
          Some have violated the law – they are still on the air.

          Why in your small mind is Tucker Carlson more repugnant than Joy Reid ?

          ” For most academics it would be unthinkable to take Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham seriously.”
          How well have academics done with the facts ?

          Regardless you are making an appeal to “academics” – what academics ? Name them. If you are going to make a fallacious appeal to authority the least you can do is identify the actual authorities.

          “They are performance artists”
          Of course they are As are all media personalities.

          “A serious academic”
          Again – who are these serious academics ?

          So the psychiatrist who appeared on every left wing nut outlet that would have here and diagnosed purported mental health issues of Trump’s and later Derschowitz – is she one of your Serious Academics ?

          BTW a few people watch hour long debates between experts – and few left wing academics will debate anyone any more – much less anyone competent who disagrees with them. But the majority of people do not.

          Voters go to the polls and they vote – using important issues to guide them, based on 5 minute interviews they have heard on the media.
          Or worse nonsense in tweets.

          That is the real world. It would be nice if we all formed opinions based on the 2 hr debates between the best and brightest.
          But we don’t – YOU don’t.

          I would further note that many many issues are NOT matters for experts.

          Many choices are political not academic – though that does not step academics from weighing in.

      2. Saying no viewers should expect what they hear is the truth, is not the same as expect dishonesty. It means viewers have a responsibility to verify the information they receive is true or false. It’s no different than what Glenn Beck used to tell his audience, Don’t take my word for it, look it up. His show is popular precisely because his opinion is based on verifiable facts and evidence.

        1. No, Olly, Carlson said “Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed” and then proceeded to state things that weren’t facts and ARE disputed. He’s a liar whose opinions are NOT “based on verifiable facts and evidence.”

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are not credible so you need to provide the text so one can evaluate the statement.

          2. You say they are not facts and they are disputed.

            So what is your evidence ?

            The Stormy daniels defamation case against Trump was dismissed.
            The Tucker Carlson defamation case was dismissed.

            You are trying to claim that a legal argument has meaning with respect to the truth of the statement.

            It does not.

            Defamation lawsuits are dissmissed all the time on this argument.

            The court did NOT conclude the remark was wrong.
            It concluded that it did not matter.
            That oppinion journalism is not subject to the same standards as straight reporting.

            Courts do not decide what they do not have to.

            1. Tucker’s own lawyers admit that what Tucker claimed were facts weren’t facts, and McDougal and Daniels clearly disputed them.

              1. Incorrect.

                Tuckers lawyers argued that the truth of the statement is not relevant to the legal requirements necescary to claim defamation by an opinion journalists.

      3. Why don’t you provide the quote. You don’t because the quote will demonstrate something other than you are saying. There is a difference between fact and opinion. No intelligent person believes opinion and sarcasm are facts. Do you?

        1. Allan S(tupid) Meyer, you are so stupid, that you read Carlson said “Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed” and respond “Why don’t you provide the quote. You don’t” See the quotation marks in Carlson said “Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed”? That WAS a quote, wanker. That’s what quotation marks mean. Take an English class. Work on your reading skills.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, “Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed” is a statement absent of facts, but you are too Stupid to realize that. That is why we need the entire quote. We need to know what facts were stated along with the context that related to that sentence. You didn’t provide that information in context to prove your contention true or not true. That is because you are an unprincipled liar and Stupid to boot.

            1. “we need the entire quote.”

              Allan S(tupid) Meyer, I gave the rest of the quote in my April 16, 2021 at 9:49 AM comment. You’re either too stupid to know this or too dishonest to admit it.

              “you are an unprincipled liar and Stupid to boot.”

              Once again, Allan, you project your own faults onto others.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, you were unprepared to debate then just as you are unprepared to debate now. That is why you provide dates instead of the comments made and the responses. You are too shallow to delve more than surface deep into a problem.

                Go back to your Cuomo doll holding an Emmy and cheer for all the people Cuomo killed. That was the highlight of last year for you. You can also get some of your vicarious sexual experiences from what has been reported about Cuomo’s sex life. You can also listen to him lie and repeat the lies while you cheer.

              2. What you seem to think that providing the full quote in context at a previous time exhonerates you from drawing conclusions out of context later ?

            2. ATS is also completely ignorant of the fact that a legal argument – even a correct one, speaks to the LAW not the facts.

              We get these idiotic claims of implication from the left all the time.

          2. No one is debating what Carlson said.

            There are two things being debated:

            The first is did Fox’s legal argument constitute an admission.
            That one is trivial, legal arguments are only admissions about the law.

            The 2nd is was Carlson’s statement true. Based on the facts as we know them now the statement is fairly accurate.

            McDougal lost her defamation claim against Carlson – Daniels lost her claim against Trump – even being forced to pay legal fees.
            To be clear – in the Carlson case the court did NOT decide anything regarding the Truth or falsity of Carlson’s remarks.
            It merely decided that McDougals defamation claim did not meet the requirements of the law.

            What does it take to get you left wing nuts to understand that an argument of the form “If X then Y” does not assert X.
            You are violating some of the simplest rules of logic.

            1. “the facts as we know them now the statement is fairly accurate.”

              BS. You are either ignorant or lying. McDougal didn’t approach Trump at all, much less did she approach Trump “and threaten to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money.”

              She lost the case not because his claim was “fairly accurate” (it isn’t), but because the Judge agreed that a reasonable viewer would view his statements as opinion and not fact.

              You’re awfully confused about what the facts are.

              ““If X then Y” does not assert X.”


              “You are violating some of the simplest rules of logic.”

              LMAO that you claim this but don’t actually quote anything from me to substantiate it. Because you cannot.

              1. If these stupid pedantic language games of yours pump your ego – more power to you.

                I do not give a $hit about inconsequential inaccuricies of language.

                Nonsense like does All include Ford herself or not.

                If your ego needs to declare victory over those meaningless pedantic differences –
                take a lap.

                When you have finished – you can explain how that changes anything.

                The same is true of this nonsense.
                There are many details of McDougal and Daniels that I have forgotten.
                Because they do not matter.

                What is true with certainty is that Trump did not trumpet them to the world.
                McDougal sold her story as I recall and Daniels agreed to a non-disclosure in return for money.
                All fine.

                But the stories came out anyway. And not because Trump held a press conference.
                They did not come out by magic.
                They came out because these women broke their agreements.

                Further Daniels filed a defamation claim against Trump – and lost.
                McDougal filed a defamation claim against Carlson and lost.

                All that losing means is that the statements made by Trump and Carlson were not legally defamatory.
                It does not speak to the truth of what was said.

                The Argument Carlson’s lawyer made was legal.
                Carlson’s show – like that of all media talking heads is an opinion forum.
                If media talking heads were subject to defamation claims – most would be bankrupt.

                To better understand the legal argument consider that in England you can defame someone even if what you claim is true.
                Truth is only a defense in the US.

                “““If X then Y” does not assert X.”


                “You are violating some of the simplest rules of logic.””

                “LMAO that you claim this but don’t actually quote anything from me to substantiate it. Because you cannot.”
                Just read your own post. You have concluded a fact from a legal argument.
                That is a simple logic error.

                I do not need to prove it or quote you or substantiate it – you openly did it. You have not denied saying what you said.
                And you are still pretending that it has any factual meaning.

                There is nothing that needs quoted, there is nothing that needs substantiated.
                You made an obvious logic error. It is self evident.

    5. Tucker Carlson: “Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed. Two women approach Donald Trump [photos of Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal on screen] and threaten to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money. Now that sounds like a classic case of extortion.”

      Except the claim isn’t factual and isn’t undisputed. McDougal never approached Trump at all, much less did she threaten to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he didn’t give her money. Daniels also disputes that. McDougal sued Carlson for defamation. She lost the suit when Carlson’s lawyers argued that he “cannot be understood to have been stating facts,” despite his own claim that he was stating facts. The judge ruled in his favor, saying “This ‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.'”

      You’re deluding yourself to think that “Tucker Carlson is one of the most reasoned and honest voices.” He is not honest, and his lawyers defend him by claiming that people shouldn’t think he’s honest.

      1. What an absolutely ignorant comment.

        Did the women sue or threaten to sue?

        ” He is not honest, and his lawyers defend him by claiming that people shouldn’t think he’s honest.”

        That isn’t quite the case because by omission you are lying. Is that unusual for you? No. You do it all the time.

        1. Only Allan S(tupid) Meyer is so stupid that he reads “McDougal sued Carlson for defamation” and then asks “Did the women sue or threaten to sue?”

          1. Anonymous the Stupid: ” McDougal never approached Trump at all,”
            Anonymous: “Did the women sue or threaten to sue?”

            like the Gerbil you are you are trapped in a maze with multiple choices but none of your choices ever end in success.

          2. False representation.

            You seem to think that just because some left wing nut wrote something – we are obligated to accept it as true.

            Past experience has lead to questioning every single thing posters on the left claim.

            While every single detail is not misrepresented – so many are that every detail is questioned.

              1. I have tried your “link” in two different browsers – it does not go to a specific comment.

                What is your point ?

                What is your claim ?

                What is your argument ?

      2. This is what you are fixated on ?

        Daniels lost her defamation suit against Trump and had to pay legal fees.

        As you noted the Judge dismissed McDougal defamation suit.

        You are presuming that Tuckers remarks were false – based on an argument in court.

        Any lawyer defending a defamation case is ALWAYS going to argue that the defamatory statement is one of opinion rather than fact.

        You are conflating defenses in court with admissions regarding Truth.

        In a previous post I have argued that giving the Russians polling data was not collusion.
        Making that argument is not an admission that Manafort gave the russians polling data.

        Nor would a judge dismissing a Defamation lawsuit because opinion journalism is not held to the same standards for defamation as straight reporting means the Judge has concluded the statement is false.

    6. I would note that Greenwald is pretty far LEFT.
      But he does not warp his principles and values depending on who is in power.

      He is probably the Top national security journalist in the country.
      He has attacked Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden for lying about national security.

      But he is honest enough to note that Trump is the least bad president on national security issues in the 21st century.

      He did not keep his promises with respect to getting the US out of needless foreign entanglements – but he came close.
      And might have succeeded had “the generals” not lied to him.

  2. Dear Professor Turley. You exclaim surprise that Nadler is calling for packing the court. Nadler is the same man he’s always been. He has been your compatriot in the Democratic Party for years yet somehow you have been unable to distinguish the center of his character. Are you so tied to the “D” behind your name as to be blinded to who Jerry Nadler has been for decades. Were you also surprised when you read that Hillary paid for the Steele dossier. How many such surprises will it take for you to come to understand the real nature of your party. An identity clung to for a long time is difficult to give up. Perhaps you are long past due.

    1. Thinkitthrough,

      You have to understand that Turley wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, I presume he must fulfill his obligations under his employment contract with Fox News to validate its narratives while at the same time not completely burning his bridges with the Left. For I predict that Turley will not be able to remain at Fox when he is called upon to validate its narrative that Trump is being unfairly persecuted (as opposed to being justly prosecuted- when he ultimately faces trial). After he is no longer useful for the Right, Turley will attempt to resuscitate his reputation with the Left. Never forget that Turley is a paid mouthpiece; he can argue both sides of a controversy depending upon who is his client. Unfortunately, once one has soiled himself by working for Fox News, Newsmax, Infowars and the like, there is no way to regain one’s unimpeachable reputation.

      1. Presumptions and predictions. You might as get a comfort animal. Your OCD with JT’s reputation is making you out as a blog stalker. 😱

          1. We are all certain that some without much intellect will appreciate his insights. Those with intellect will first defend his insights in their own words and then show the video. That leads to intellectual discussions. The other leads to the type of garbage strewn on the blog daily by those that don’t know much of anything and have overestimated their intellect..

          2. Appreciate whatever you wish.

            No one is stopping you.

            My criticism or that of any other poster is not stopping you.

            Why are you again ordering others arround ?

            “If you don’t like his comments?


            Criticizing is also a valid choice.

              1. Not an argument.

                I do not care if you wish to call my posts “bloviation” – while that is false, it is also irrelevant.

                Bloviate is not a synonym for error.

                You seem to think that insults are arguments.

                1. “I do not care if you wish to call my posts “bloviation” – while that is false, it is also irrelevant.”

                  True AND relevant.

                  That you are unable to see it is YOUR problem. Yours and yours alone.

        1. Olly, just think of me as an Anti-hypocrisy Absolutist. I will spare no one the humiliation of exposing their two-facedness. This is a free speech forum- not a safe zone. I’m sure Turley can handle my criticism even if you can’t.

          1. just think of me as an Anti-hypocrisy Absolutist.

            You’ve been carping about JT not writing posts to satisfy your thirst regarding a lawsuit against FoxNews. Not quenching that is not hypocrisy. The absence of such a post leaves you in the position of making assumptions of his motives. This is a legal blog, hosted by a renowned constitutional scholar, not some Leftist Tuesday night circle-jerk support group. Your feelings, absent facts and evidence, are moot. Because on this blog, hypocrisy is measured relative to our constitutional rule of law, not your Leftist’s worldview.

          2. “just think of me as an Anti-hypocrisy Absolutist.”

            Jeff you are DROWNING in your own hypocracy.

            “I will spare no one the humiliation of exposing their two-facedness.”
            So far you are the poster in this thread with the two faced problem.

            Absolutely no criticism you have made of Carlson does not apply in spades to the entire left media.

            “This is a free speech forum- not a safe zone.”
            Amen, a lefty who understands that free speech is a right.

            “I’m sure Turley can handle my criticism even if you can’t.”
            I am sure Turley can. I have seen no evidence that Olly can not.
            So why are you claiming that he can’t ?

      2. Turley hasn’t been a paid Fox contributor for three years if I’m not mistaken. It wasn’t long after President Trump took office

        1. Alonzo,

          Turley currently claims he is a “Fox News contributor” which is a paid position presumably. Apparently, he is not proud of that fact, for he reveals his Fox employment ONLY when he must, that is, in order to disclose his conflict of interest. Otherwise, he does not mention it. You’ll notice that on Twitter, he identifies himself as:

          “Jonathan Turley
          Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, criminal defense attorney, and legal analyst.


          He does NOT note that he is a “Fox News legal analyst.” Without a doubt, his Twitter followers would be better served to be apprised of his service as a Fox News analyst as opposed to being informed that he is the “Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law”!

          1. “Turley currently claims he is a “Fox News contributor””

            So ?

            “which is a paid position presumably.”
            Because you say so ?
            And what if it is ?
            If Turley is getting paid – that means what he says is valued.

            “Apparently, he is not proud of that fact, for he reveals his Fox employment ONLY when he must, that is, in order to disclose his conflict of interest. Otherwise, he does not mention it.”

            So Turley must list his entire CV everywhere – or you will claim he is embarrassed by whatever he does not list ?
            This is typical left wing nut fallacious BS.

            I have been published in atleast a dozen magazines.
            If My Twitter Bio does not list them – does that mean I am not proud of that ?

            “You’ll notice that on Twitter, he identifies himself as:

            “Jonathan Turley
            Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, criminal defense attorney, and legal analyst.”

            Yup, You think those are the only things in his entire life he is proud of ?
            He has also appeared before congress many times – that is not listed – does that mean he is not proud of those ?

            “He does NOT note that he is a “Fox News legal analyst.””
            Because he is not. Just as he is not a “house of representatives legal analyst”.
            He is a respected legal analyst who appears proudly in myriads of forumns – many of which he is paid for.

            Another of those idiotic things of the left.

            I was paid for half a dozen magazine articles – does that mean I can not be proud of that ?
            I am well paid for several things – and I am VERY proud of that.

            “Without a doubt”
            Because you say so ?

          2. Jeff,

            I suggest that you might want to post anonymously.

            I would be embarrassed by the blatant hypocrisy in your attacks on the hypocrisy of others.

            You have literally argued that it is evil to call an ideology evil.

            Are you saying there are no evil ideologies ?

            Are you saying that unjustified theft is not evil ?

            Are you saying it is OK to call those you do not like racist, misogynist, homophobic hateful, hating haters ?

            1. If I were you, John, I’d be embarrassed by YOUR blatant hypocrisy. But you apparently aren’t. Frankly, it’s rather amusing that you accuse others of blatant hypocrisy and do not see your own.

              1. “If I were you, John, I’d be embarrassed by YOUR blatant hypocrisy. But you apparently aren’t. Frankly, it’s rather amusing that you accuse others of blatant hypocrisy and do not see your own.”

                You are making a moral claim of hypocracy against me.

                The burden is on you to prove all claims of moral failure.

                Hypocracy is double standards – treating the same pattern differently based on personal biases – like ideology.

                I have provided examples of Jeff doing exactly that.

                You have not provide any examples where I have done that.

                Regardless YOU have made a claim against me – now back it up.
                Facts, logic reason.

                What I do not do is buy this idiotic “false equivalences” of the left.
                They are just stupid – and often hypocritical arguments.

                If you want to claim Trump is a liar – you are obligated to prove it.
                I am not obligated to accept your claim just because you have made it.

                When I have made a claim against others – you, Jeff, assorted politicians – I have provided the evidence to back up that claim.
                I have not asked you to accept it on faith – even though often it is self evident.

                Many of my posts are long – which you complained about – BECAUSE I provide the evidence to back up argument – espeically claims of moral failure by others.

                Further I have done with an identity. I have been posting as John Say for nearly 2 decades.
                Everyone here and many other places can look at my past corpus of comments and judge whether I am a reliable source.

                There is no history to your posts. There is no means to go back one hop on a threat with certainty to establish your past credibility.

                You post as anonymous – you are not entitled to anyone’s trust based on a past record. Further you are free to defame me or anyone else without consequence.

                If I started posting bat $hit crazy stuff as John Say – quickly people would lose trust in my posts – Nutacha is an example of someone who has destroyed her own credibility.

                But you post as anonymous – you have nothing to lose by posting bat $hit crazy nonsense. You have nothing to lose by defaming others.

                So why should you be trusted?

                1. “The burden is on you to prove all claims of moral failure.”

                  No, John, one only has a burden to prove factual claims, not opinions. That’s one of the differences between the two.

                  It’s your opinion that other people also have a burden to prove moral opinion. Big whoop. I’ll believe that you truly hold that opinion when you hold yourself to your own standard and prove your own moral claims. You generally do not.

                  “If I started posting bat $hit crazy stuff as John Say – quickly people would lose trust in my posts – Nutacha is an example of someone who has destroyed her own credibility.”

                  LMAO. Some people have the very same opinion about you that you have about Natacha: you post bat $hit crazy stuff and have destroyed your own credibility.

                  1. “No, John, one only has a burden to prove factual claims, not opinions. That’s one of the differences between the two.”
                    Unproven claims of moral failure – are themselves moral failure.

                    If I say you are a liar – that is NOT an opinion. that is a factual claim.
                    It is a claim that you have knowingly made false statements.

                    “It’s your opinion that”
                    Nope everything is not an opinion.
                    If you fail to support a claim of moral failure – then you have lied.

                    If I say you perved a 14yr old boy – that is not an expression of opinion. I am stating a fact. One that is also an accusation of moral failure.
                    There are really only two possibilities – you did perve a 14yr old boy – or I am lying.
                    Even if in some bizarre set of circumstances I sincerely beleive you perved a 14yr old, but I am wrong – that is STILL a moral failure on my part. And one I am obligated to correct.

                    Next, even in the realm of actual opinions – which is not what we are dealing with.
                    All opinions are not equal.

                    you are constantly trying to pretend that things that are not matters of opinion – are, AND that stupid opinions are equal to wise ones.

                    It is a fact that past increases in government spending have strongly correlated to declines in standard of living.

                    It is an opinion that any specific increase in government spending that has not yet occurred will lead to a decline in standard of living.

                    It is a credible opinion backed by lots of historical support.

                    While the opinion that we can spend as we please without consequence – is a poor opinion not supported by facts.

                    “I’ll believe that you truly hold that opinion when you hold yourself to your own standard and prove your own moral claims. You generally do not.”

                    Really ? There are only two instances in which I make moral accusations with respect to others.
                    Where i can prove it.

                    As an example – theft is a moral failure. doing so with the impramatur of government does not alter that.
                    Advocating for theft, voting for theft is a moral failure.

                    Another example would be calling someone a liar – who has made a false accusation of moral failure against another and failed to prove it.
                    There is no burden of proof in that instance – because the original accusation was not proven.

                    ““If I started posting bat $hit crazy stuff as John Say – quickly people would lose trust in my posts – Nutacha is an example of someone who has destroyed her own credibility.””

                    “LMAO. Some people have the very same opinion about you that you have about Natacha: you post bat $hit crazy stuff and have destroyed your own credibility.”

                    That would be correct – people such as yourself who can;t even post under a pseudonym.

                    Credibility is not determined by consensus were everyone votes and all votes weigh equally.

                    If you do not have credibility yourself – your view on the credibility of others has no weight.

                    When you post as anonymous, you post without any credibility.

                    We have been through this over and over.

                    You can not earn credibility as anonymous.
                    When you post as anonymous you CHOOSE to abandon credibility in return from the protection from any consequences that anonymity affords. If 10 anonymous posters say Nutacha is credible and I am not – the total weight of that is zilch.

        2. Who cares ?

          I have no problem with Turley getting paid for providing his wisdom.

          Oppinions are worth about as much as people will pay for them.

      3. Jeff, you read a lot into things, but most of your conclusions have no basis in reality. Turley has plenty of room at Fox to move in all directions regarding Trump. His problem lies with the left that can cancel him at almost anytime for nothing more than speaking the truth. Turley’s stand on civil rights hasn’t changed. What Turley believes today is virtually what he believed a dozen years ago.

        The left would cancel a JFK today along with a Pat Moynihan or Harry Truman. The left of today has gone crazy.

      4. You seem to think that Fox suppresses dissent on it shows.

        There are several from the left on Fox – Juan Williams as an example.

        Turley is a liberal – and he speaks as such everywhere I have heard him.

        I used to see him alot on MSNBC, CNN, … they do not book him anymore, nor derschowitz, not Tulsi Gabbard, nor Glenn Greenwald, nor Matt Taibi, nor Barri Weis, nor …. myriads of liberals or others from the left that deviate even a little from the woke dogma.
        They rarely allow elected republican guests on their shows.

      5. You ranted about Carlson and Levin because they make moral judgement of democrats.

        And then YOU claim that even the taint of contact with Fox, .. soils someone so much they can not regain their reputation.

        How is that not precisely what you are accusing Levin and Carlson of.

        Actually it is much worse.

        Carlson and Levin claim the obvious – some ideologies are immoral.
        You are claiming that mere contact with an ideology you deem immoral is immoral.

      6. I have a criticism of Turley – that is that he is far too long suffering of the immoral foolishness of the left and most democrats.

        He argued with respect to BOTH Trump impeachments that as they were enacted that they were WRONG.
        But that had they been done properly – had they allowed due process, had they done proper investigation that the would not be wrong.

        But the facts as we know today – and as were probable at the time and likely known by many democrats do not bear that out.

        Trump did not act as democrats allege with respect to Ukriane – but had he done so – the conduct of the Bidens warranted that action.

        What is increasingly self evident – with respect to impeachment and much else that democrats have claimed – is that they have LIED.

        Turley is far too tolerant of actual liars.

        You talked about damage to reputations.

        Why do Swalwell and Schiff have any repurtation at all ? On numerous matters – they LIED.
        I am not claiming they made predictions that did not come true, or made promises they did not keep.
        But that they claimed as truth that they KNEW then things that were FALSE.
        WE now know they were false – but THEY knew they were false years ago.

        There is a whole army of democrats that to a lessor or greater extent share the same moral failures.

        But I do not hear you or Turley criticising them.

        I do not hear you saying that mere association with Swalwell or Schiff is morally repugnant.

        Why are you not worse than you claim Carlson and Levin or Turley are ?

        If you care about reputation – why do you still listen to most of the left media about anything ?

        I can not even list all the MAJOR things the left media has been wrong about – mostly unhinged wrong about in the past 4 years.
        I can not even list the major things they have been wrong about Covid – the list is too long.

        What is it that Carlson or Levin or Turley has been demonstrably wrong about ?

        What can you prove as a matter of fact that they have been wrong about ?

  3. Turley appeared on Tucker Carlson’s program and commented with respect to enlarging the Supreme Court that “what’s driving this is the most extreme voices in our politics, and when Justice Breyer recently said ‘Don’t do this. This will really damage the court,’ he was attacked…. voices of reason no longer resonate in our age of rage.You have to be a Berserker today. You gotta be someone who is willing to lay waste to any institution or tradition on the way to final victory…. what was really tragic today was the absence of voices coming from the Democratic Party saying ‘enough.’ … And the most conspicuous voice that was absent is President Biden….”

    It makes my stomach turn to witness such rank hypocrisy. First, Carlson is one of the so-called “Berserkers” which Turley warns against. He could not sit through one of Carlson’s diatribes about how the country is becoming “dirtier” on account of immigration without his blushing. Turley legitimates a network who broadcasts a program featuring fringe radio host Mark Levin who unabashedly refers to Democrats as “evil” and specifically refuses to call them his “opponents” but rather calls them his “enemies.”

    Turley is a sell out willing to prostitute himself for a handsome paycheck. One of these days, he will be held to account for his pretending not to be cognizant of the “Berserkers” that he is enabling by appearing on Fox News. In the fullness of time, he will be confronted by those of us who are demanding an answer why he would not level his charge of “rage” against the likes of Carlson, Hannity, Levin, Pirro, etc.

    1. Jeff Silberman at 9:42. Jeffy, so switch the subject from Supreme Court packing to the big bad Turley. One can debate the issue or stoop to demonizing the author when not able to present a cognitive rebuttal. Put more plainly, a cheap trick presented by the intellectually weak.

      1. Thinkitthrough,

        I do not disagree with Turley’s argument about adding members to the SC. In fact, I agree with most of Turley’s commentaries. However, I will not rest pointing out his willful blindness to the “rage” emanating from his Fox colleagues. The fact is that he NEVER criticizes Fox hosts for the same rhetoric he levels at CNN and MSNBC. I cannot abide his rank hypocrisy even when he makes a good point.

        1. I am not a fox fan, but frankly fox is not even close to as bat $hit crazy as most of the media have become.
          That was not always so. That was not even so maybe 8 years ago.

          But with the election of Trump – most of the media went “berserker” to use YOUR term.

          Fox has always presented a center right perspective. It might be slightly more right today than in the past.

          But it is not insane. I can disagree with Fox hosts. I can not like them. But they hold defensible positions and they make valid arguments.

          Most of the media today does not. They are divorced from reality.

          I would further note that Turley – like many other actual liberals appears on Fox – because the left media will not book him.
          They are not interested in commenters who do not buy the woke left nonsense. Dissent is not tolerated in most of the media.

          But Fox does tolerate dissent. Carlson will have on guests that he does not agree with. He will allow them to make their arguments
          he has even sometimes agreed with some. I doubt Carlson agree’s with Turley uniformly.

          Carlson does not all that to stop him from booking Turley – those on CNN, MSNBC, …. do.

          If you want to try to argue that democrats are moral with a straight face – that would be easier to swallow if they were not so busy supressing small ideological deviations among their own.

    2. Carlson is not a “berserker”.

      I do not agree with some of his positions, but he has been consistent on them.

      Nor are they extreme.

      As to immigration – it is the absolute right of a nation to decide who it lets in and who it does not.
      This country has been divided over that through its entire history. For the most part we have done batter as a nation when we have been more willing to accept immigrants. But we are in a different era. In the 19th and early 20th century arriving immigrants were entitled to nothing. Today we give them free education, free heatlhcare, myriads of other benefits.

      I actually want very nearly open borders. But I want it on 19th century terms – I wany you to come to the land of opportunity, not the land of the hand out.

      Further, you must be blind not to grasp that though large scale immigration has many benefits. It also comes with costs – and those costs are borne nearly entirely by poor minorities already in the country.

      Finally, this is a nation of laws. The president swore not only to uphold the constitution – but the laws of the land.
      Trump upheld the existing immigration laws – Biden is not.

      Our law does not say – pick and choose which illegal immigrants get deported.
      It does not say “catch and release”.
      It says you come to the country illegally you get deported – period.

      I will support some changes to our laws – such as not deporting “dreamers”. But in the meantime – we MUST enforce the laws we have.

      Democrats control congress and the presidency – if Biden does not wish to enforce the existing immigration law – he can ask congress to change it.

      I do not completely agree with Carlson on immigration – but that does not make his arguments unreasonable, nor does it make him a Berserker.

      You complain about Tucker and Levin making moral judgements of democrats – throughout my entire life democrats – not just the far left have been making moral judgements of republicans.

      I can not recall a republican presidential candidate in my lifetime that was not called a Nazi by many democrats.

      Today all we here – and from the most prominent democrats is racist, mysoginyst, homophobic hateful, hating hater.

      This despite the fact that democrats are more likely to be all of the above.

      There is barely a papers width of difference between white supremecists and the woke left on race.
      Regardless, the way to end discrimination by race is to end discrimination by race.

      Democrats are going to bring about full equality for women – by replacing the entire cohort of successful women with trans women.
      I can not think of much that is more mysoginist than that.
      I have no problem with people choosing their sexual identity – but it is a choice it is not a biological fact.
      If choosing to identify as a women makes you a woman – then we might as well give up any pretense that there are different sexes.
      Can I choose to be black ? If we are going to allow trans women to compete with biological women in those preserves we have created exclusively for women – then we should eliminate those preserves. They should be no “women’s sports” – no womens anything.

    3. Are you saying that it is wrong to make a moral judgement about an ideology ?

      You seem to think that it is actually immoral for Levin or Carlson to make moral statements about ideology.
      Is fascism evil ? Naziism ? Communism ? Socialism ?

      You need not agree, but don’t you accept that we ARE free to find some ideologies morally abhorant.

      It is immoral to steal. It is immoral to use force against others without sufficient justification.

      Democrats – ALL democrats – and way too many republicans argue for exactly that all the time.

      I call them immoral.
      If you share those views – that I am calling you immoral.

      Regardless, if you are claiming that Carlson and Levin are distinguishable for just about any democrat today – because they label those opposing them as immoral – you are drowning in hypocracy.

  4. “I am particularly disappointed to see Nadler in this group. I never imagined that I would see the day that the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee would step forward to call for raw court packing.”

    With all due respect, are you kidding?! Nadler?! The liar and conspiracy theorist of impeachment spectacle ignominy?

    1. JT is doing his Claude Rains impression: “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

  5. I heard that Nancy has refused to bring the bill to the floor. I guess even pterodactyls can be House trained.

      1. Good question. Not exactly. I believe she and Joe are waiting to see if the “commission” can hard sell the public on letting the Democrats rape the Supreme Court. At least she’s afraid of backlash. The rest is up to us.

    1. It is highly unpopular – for good reason.

      In addition to being generally unpopular – democrats do not vote over SCOTUS – but republicans do.

      Packing the court will not buy democrats any votes – it will cost them some.
      But more importantly it will energize republican voters.

  6. When RBG passed, Hilary Clinton asked President Trump if she could replace her. Trump thought for a minute and said, very well Hilary, I’ll talk to the undertaker.

    1. Of course not. The left never holds their own to the standards they hold others too.

      Nor do i recall republicans tearing up the capital over evidence free allegations of private events almost 40 years ago.

        1. Not 40 year old eyewitness allegations of feelings rather than facts that are many times over past the statute of limitations and did not appear until recently.

          If you were familiar with the way memories are stored – you would know that nothing that old is reliable. It is not evidence.

          Absolutely no one and absolutely nothing corroborated anything about Ford’s story.

          No dates, no actual location. All the people in the story claim it is not true AND that there was no occaision in which all 4 of them were together that summer.

          1. It’s evidence, whether you can admit it or not.

            “All the people in the story claim it is not true”

            You can’t even be honest. Blasey Ford is one of the people in the story.

            1. “You can’t even be honest. Blasey Ford is one of the people in the story.”
              More nit picking. It is error to misrepresent a relevant fact.
              I did not accuse Ford of denying her own story.
              I did note everyone SHE placed in the story of denying it.
              I did note that Ford herself can not provide any testable facts to support her story.

              Ford’s credibility rests on thin air.

              Allegations are not proof.
              Ancient allegations are far worse.

              If I claim you perved a 10yr old 40 years ago – with no further details – no place, no time, a bunch of witnesses/participants who all deny this ever happened – should anyone believe me ?

              It is possible that Ford is telling the truth – but the probability of that is incredibly low.

              1. News Flash:

                Anonymous “perved a 10yr old 40 years ago “

                Wow. Is it true? Can he prove it isn’t?

        2. “Eye witness testimony is evidence. It’s a very common form of evidence.”

          This individual is saying absolutely nothing. His statement is vacuous. The claim is no different from ‘water is wet’ and adds nothing to whatever discussion is occurring. His statements are littered with “water is wet” type of information.

  7. The illustrious senator Markey, the only job he had in the private sector was driving a ding dong cart. His nick name is ” Mr. Frosty”.

  8. Apparently, Nadler’s love, for expanding his torso, has shifted to the SCOTUS.

Leave a Reply