The Rise of Gotcha Legislation: Newsom and DeSantis are Legislating Soundbites and Voters are Loving it.

Below is my column in The Hill on the recent bills proposed in Florida and California on immigration and guns. The bills are the latest examples of “gotcha legislation,” though the Florida bill could raise some interesting legal questions if Gov. Ron DeSantis moves forward with his plan on relocating undocumented persons to Delaware.

Here is the column:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) this week may have achieved the political equivalent to apotheosis, in which mortals achieve God-like stature. Both are legislating soundbites and the voters are loving it. In California, Newsom pledged to re-purpose the Texas “heartbeat law” to limit gun rights. In Florida, DeSantis pledged to use federal COVID funds to send undocumented persons to Delaware, home state of President Joe Biden.

Welcome to the rise of gotcha legislation, where the arguments of the opposing party are used to attack its core issues.

Both proposals face serious legal challenges and likely could not survive as codified soundbites.

Newsom’s gun ‘heartbeat’ law

Newsom tapped into the liberal rage after the Supreme Court refused to enjoin the Texas law that allows people to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion performed after about six weeks. Newsom said that if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts by parceling enforcement out to private lawsuits, then “California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.”

If written as Newsom described, the law would be dead-on-arrival.

First, Newsom limited the law to gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellers — to the exclusion of a wider array of purchasers, or “aiders and abetters.” The Texas law exposed a wide array of people to potential lawsuit; Newsom is targeting companies that will not be as easily intimidated. Second, the Second Amendment expressly protects the individual right to bear arms.

The Texas “heartbeat” law was pushing the long-standing question of limits within the pre-viability period of a pregnancy.

A district court previously struck down a California law barring AR-15s, an order that was later stayed; the issue is currently on appeal.

Before you allow citizen enforcement of prohibitions, you have to establish that the prohibitions themselves are constitutional, as in Texas.

Finally, in the Texas case, eight out of nine Supreme Court justices just voted to allow pre-enforcement challenges. The same would likely be true for the California law. Newsom would force even the liberal justices to vote against California or embrace the same hypocrisy as the governor. Once declared unconstitutional, the California law would return to little more than a soundbite (to quote Macbeth) full of “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Nevertheless, some legal experts are applauding Newsom for his cleverness and chutzpah. Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, admitted to The Chronicle that Newsom is “one step ahead of where he can go legally,” then added: “He is proposing to use a mechanism that he and many others have vilified. But I think it’s quite smart, right? I think it’s a big ‘F–k you’ to the Supreme Court.”

That is what constitutes “smart law” in the age of rage.

Of course, the justices may not be quite as enamored with the message — or the messenger — as is Professor Levinson.

DeSantis’s ‘tongue in cheek’ immigration relocation law

If Newsom’s bill is a middle finger to the Supreme Court, DeSantis’ bill is the same to the Biden administration. DeSantis’s bill to relocate undocumented persons to Delaware also began as a soundbite: “It’s somewhat tongue in cheek, but it is true,” DeSantis said, “if you sent them to Delaware or Martha’s Vineyard or some of these places, that border would be secure the next day.”

DeSantis wants $8 million to create a new program that would allow Florida to contract with private companies to transport “unauthorized aliens” out of the state.

Here’s the gotcha: DeSantis wants to use the interest accrued from federal funds, including pandemic relief funds.

It is clever, given that Congress handed over hundreds of billions with few limitations.

DeSantis has also pushed legislation to bar state officials from assisting in the federal relocation of undocumented persons into the state — flipping the script on liberal states and cities that barred assistance to ICE in apprehending individuals. The Biden administration has been moving thousands of immigrants around the country by plane and bus. A Florida TV station reported 78 flights have landed in the Jacksonville airport alone between April and October. Most of these immigrants are told to report to an immigration office, and many are not given court dates. They are free to go anywhere in the United States. In that status, they can go to Delaware — and can also be induced to go to Delaware voluntarily by cash payments.

However, the proposed law would likely violate immigration laws and the Constitution if Florida forced immigrants into another state. A federal court could enjoin the program before most immigrants were buckled into their seats.

The most interesting question is whether Delaware could secure an injunction if the law were written as a voluntary relocation program. Since these individuals are free to travel in a non-custodial status, Florida could act by inducement rather than compulsion by offering financial payments to relocate. Delaware or Martha’s Vinyard would then have to argue that such immigrants are equivalent to interstate “dumping” cases or somehow violate federal authority. These would be deeply insulting to invoke in an immigration context. It would be the inverse of Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, in which the Court struck down an Alabama law imposing a fee on all interstate waste coming into the state under the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Court ruled that “no state may attempt to isolate itself from a problem common to the several States by raising barriers to the free flow of interstate trade.”

Florida might not be imposing a fee, but rather offering a benefit for the movement of undocumented persons to Delaware. Those people are not forms of pollution, but rather people free to move around the United States under federal law. That could trigger a tit-for-tat of such state laws, but a court could view that as a political question.

In the end, however, it is distinctly possible that these gotcha laws will not move a single person or gun out of their respective states.

They will, however, thrill supporters and throttle opponents in the blood sport of American politics.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

192 thoughts on “The Rise of Gotcha Legislation: Newsom and DeSantis are Legislating Soundbites and Voters are Loving it.”

  1. The Left Democrats are in trouble and they know it.


    “Refunding the San Francisco Police”

    Mayor London Breed undergoes a law-and-order conversion.

    San Francisco Mayor London Breed speaks outside City Hall in San Francisco, Dec. 1.
    Photo: Eric Risberg/Associated Press
    As crime has risen, the defund-the-police movement has become a political liability even for Democrats in progressive cities. Exhibit A is San Francisco, where Mayor London Breed appears to have had a law-and-order conversion for the ages.

    “It’s time that the reign of criminals who are destroying our city—it is time for it to come to an end,” Ms. Breed said Wednesday in a fiery speech that defied her previous tolerance for growing public disorder in her once charming city. “And it comes to an end when we take the steps to be more aggressive with law enforcement, more aggressive with the changes in our policies, and less tolerant of all the bull— that has destroyed our city.”

    – WSJ

  2. It must be nice to be able to win any argument just by calling someone a name. That would be an irrational status quo.

  3. Turley’s both-sides BS is gotten so old, Turley knows he can’t tell the truth, because it would be unfair to the liars. So he feeds a narrative to protect and smooth the feelings of those who actually believe the lies. And there’s so much he could bring up, but he would lose his Trump base in a New York minute. And yes, I do fault Turley, as a teacher and lawyer, he should know better.

    1. FishWings wins the one trick my little pony award for the day. FishWings never presents a cognitive argument concerning the subject of the post. He just brings out his little prancing pony for the day. FishWings your working that pony so hard that someone might turn you in for cruelty to an animal. Oh well, this is a good forum for a twelve year old to work on his writing skills.

  4. OT:

    “Washington Post Grasps for New Direction as Trump-Era Boom Fades”

    News outlet’s audience is down sharply, amid sector-wide declines; subscription growth has stagnated as readers look beyond politics


  5. There are nations where whites are the minority, so racism should not be an impediment to the prosperity of the majority population, and yet they are still not prosperous. Explain that.

  6. Ancient people like the Spartans did a better job of stopping invaders from plundering and looting their civilizations.

  7. And Poof! – Just like that, people of colour speaking the ‘Kings English’ are dominating todays commercials . .

  8. DeSantis is taking a page out of Biden’s book — pass a law, even if you know it’s unconstitutional, because by the time the courts get around to stopping it, you’ve already accomplished much of your agenda. But more important, DeSantis is speaking for millions who don’t have a voice in this Biden administration. Now that even Democratic mayors and governors are admitting publicly that the Dem policies on “law & order” were a dismal failure, maybe voices like DeSantis’s will finally be listened to.

    1. Biden can only sign legislation, not pass it. Passing federal laws is Congress’ job. What unconstitutional law did they pass?

  9. JT leaves out the proposed FL law that would use Texas style private enforcement to ban “critical race theory” at schools and private business. I wonder why he left that out…oh ya he wanted fake balance between the Ds and Rs.

      1. No, not the way libel laws are enforced.

        With libel, the only person with standing is the person who was libelled. Texas allows any private entity to have standing to sue — hundreds of millions of potential plaintiffs who’ve suffered no harm

      2. A libel suit is private citizen, with a particular claim of harm and loss, against private citizen. It is *not* private citizen, doing the bidding of the government, against private citizen.

        If you want a proper analogy to the Texas, et al, “laws” — try: Government vaccine mandates enforced by private companies.

        What makes these dishonest methods doubly bizarre is that they are an attempt to transform a criminal wrong into a civil wrong. That should horrify anyone who cherishes the rule of law.

          1. I’ll grant that the following is imprecise: “they are an attempt to transform a criminal wrong into a civil wrong.”

            To be clear, it should read: “an attempt to transform [what they would like to be] a criminal wrong . . .”

  10. “In Florida, DeSantis pledged to use federal COVID funds to send undocumented persons to Delaware”

    This isn’t Gotcha legislation. This is an attempt to protect Florida’s citizens from illegal aliens that do not belong. It is also a soundbite because the people of Florida don’t like Joe Biden dumping illegals that include murderers, rapists, Covid+ persons, and those with antibiotic-resistant Tuberculosis on their doorstep.

    Transporting unwanted (in this case, illegal aliens) elsewhere has been done before. I think your statements (“can also be induced to go to Delaware”; “offering a benefit”) makes a case for DeSantis.

    “In the end, however, it is distinctly possible that these gotcha laws will not move a single person or gun out of their respective states.”

    In the case of DeSantis, he has been proven to be on target with a lot of things the left finds uncomfortable. Some might have called those earlier bits of legislation as gotcha legislation. They were wrong

  11. “Newsom said that if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts by parceling enforcement out to private lawsuits, then “California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.” If written as Newsom described, the law would be dead-on-arrival.”

    Texas’s law was not “dead-on-arrival.” The conservatives on the Supreme Court have refused to stay it, despite Justice Roberts’ description that “Texas has employed an array of stratagems designed to shield its unconstitutional law from judicial review.” Newsom described passing a parallel law about aspects of gun control.

    You, Turley, know that. Yet without explanation, you insist that a parallel law in CA would be “dead-on-arrival.” You cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that if the laws use the same means to avoid judicial review, then if the Court is consistent in its actions, either they’re both “dead-on-arrival” or neither is. Or are you anticipating that the Court majority will be hypocrites, responding differently to two largely identical laws?

    Why don’t you say the same thing about Gov. Abbott that you say about Newsom?

      1. You’re a troll who apparently has nothing to say about the substance.

        Do you agree with Chief Justice Roberts that “Texas has employed an array of stratagems designed to shield its unconstitutional law from judicial review”?

        1. Your petulance is noted, but your self-flattery is more interesting and noted in many of your responses.

    1. I regret that you fail to point out that SCOTUS only addressed the ISSUE before it, -but nearly invited “pre-enforcement challenges” on different grounds. You also fail to mention that Robert’s statements were part of the minority dissent. Notwithstanding, I believe his statements were somewhat of a harbinger of a possible future decision that addresses an issue such as you raise.

      1. What does “nearly invited” mean?

        The law is already being enforced. More than one member of the public has sued an abortion provider under Texas’ law.

        And it’s not “ISSUE” but issueS, plural, as there have been multiple cases.

        SCOTUS even granted cert for the federal suit before the conservative majority changed its mind and decided that they didn’t want to rule on it.

          1. Yes, I read your entire comment before I responded.

            Are you going to explain what “nearly invited” means?

            1. Well, you could have looked it up yourself, but I’ll do it for you:
              (from the Sep 1 ruling): “…And it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention…In particular, this order is not based on anyconclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts..”.
              From the Dec. 10 ruling: “…As with any interlocutory appeal, our review is limited to the particular orders under review…In this preliminary posture, the ultimate merits question–whether S.B. 8 is consistent with the Federal Constitution–is not before the Court.”

              1. The law was already being enforced prior to both rulings you mention, so neither one could possibly be an invitation to “pre-enforcement challenges.”

                1. Let me try one more time. The Court severed those parts of the law (proper parties) that WERE before the Court at that time, and ruled on them. Having no other challenges to the law BEFORE THE COURT at that time, the rest of the law remained in effect. In my opinion, the Court hinted at other potential challenges, i.e., my words, “nearly invited,” that could make their way up to the Court.

                  1. Let me remind you: the Court had before it the question of whether the federal government could file suit, and instead of ruling, the conservative majority changed its mind and decided that they’d “improvidently” granted cert.

                    Whatever hints they may have given, they were not about “pre-enforcement challenges,” as ALL of their rulings have come post-enforcement.

                    And in my opinion, had any state tried to regulate religion in the way that Texas has tried to regulate abortion, the same conservatives who refused to stay enforcement of Texas’s law would have figured out how to stay enforcement of an unconstitutional restriction on religious practice.

                    1. Are we even talking about the same case? Are you talking about the Court’s dismissal of filings from the Biden administration? please provide caption/ citation and I will respond, thanks?

                    2. Let me remind YOU: It appears that you were referring to No. 21-588, -in which the Court dismissed theBiden adminstration’s writ of cert as improvidently granted (back in oct-nov?) based on ultimate proper parties/standing on THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. Go back and read it. Why are you mischaracterizing this?

                    3. 21-588 “Question Presented: May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced?”.— Look it up. (p.s. my reference to “oct-nov” follows my words concerning when review was originally granted). Good night, sir.

                    4. I don’t need to look it up. I told you in my 7:07pm comment that “the Court had before it the question of whether the federal government could file suit.” And there were no words in any of your comments about US v TX “concerning when review was originally granted.”

                      You’re silent about “had any state tried to regulate religion in the way that Texas has tried to regulate abortion, the same conservatives who refused to stay enforcement of Texas’s law would have figured out how to stay enforcement of an unconstitutional restriction on religious practice.”

                  2. Addendum: I suspect you do not know how many cases were still pending at lower court levels, i.e., pre-enforcement challenges involving different issues, at the time the Court issued its rulings?

    2. “. . . the laws use the same means to avoid judicial review . . .”

      That is spot on. In both cases, the means are slimy, dishonest, and destructive.

      Both are examples of state-sanctioned vigilantism. But they’re worse than normal vigilantism. A vigilante takes the *law* into his own hands. In those two cases, citizen-vigilantes are encouraged to enforce that which is *illegal* and *un*Constitutional.

  12. Irony that Dems want to go after guns at the same time that their base recognizes the benefits of self defense.

    Sad that Lefties are so rabid about abortion when they kill future Dem voters.

    Kids tend to vote like their parents and of the 50 million children aborted, a significant number would have voted Dem.

    Dems killed off their potential voting majority in the interests of convenience.

    Perhaps we should encourage abortion since it disproportionately kills of Lefties.

    But we are moral people so we stand for principle.

    1. Sad that Righties are so rabidly against Covid vaccination that the counties with the highest Trump support have the lowest vaccination rates and more deaths. Is killing current R voters OK with you? (Lest it be unclear, I’m using your hyperbole. I don’t believe either group is rabid.)

      BTW, if you think Republicans don’t also get abortions, you’re in denial.

    2. No one is rabbid about abortion… usual you use Republican smears. Women want the same protection of their right to be secure in their persons that men enjoy. The right views women, as one Republican Congress member put it, “host bodies” subject to the strictures dictated by the government envisioned by Republicans who sold their souls to the Catholic Church during the run up to Nixon’s second term. So much for small government!

  13. Both criticisms from Turley are valid. However he should add the Supreme Court to that criticism. It is precisely because the court refused to stay the Texas law even when it could pending litigation in lower courts that allowed California and Florida to use similar enforcement mechanisms which are currently legal absent a stay.

    The longer the Supreme Court drags its feet the more problems other states will create with these laws.

    1. Svelaz: As you know, SCOTUS nearly INVITED pre-enforcement challenges on different grounds to “ripen” the issue before it….

      1. What does “nearly invited” mean? They got preenforcement challenges and refused to stay it.

      2. Lin, “nearly invited” doesn’t mean they did. They either did or didn’t. The court is avoiding a difficult decision by being wishy washy with its opinions in SB8.

        The court has full authority to stay the law pending lower court decisions. If it’s trying to avoid the appearance of being political it is already too late.

        1. Svelaz: please research on when it is appropriate for an appellate court, sua sponte, to intervene. That is why Ch.J. Robert’s statements are considered dicta in his dissent (which you failed to tell readers). If you are an attorney (methinks not), shame on you.

    2. Svelaz, your ego permits you to march with big guns, but you don’t know how to shoot.

      1. S. Meyer,

        “ Svelaz, your ego permits you to march with big guns, but you don’t know how to shoot.”

        It’s obvious you’re way in over your head when all you have is insults.

        1. Svelaz, I provide plenty of fact, but you can’t comprehend anything above a third grade reading level. After your shallowness is revealed you run away only to repeat the stupidity again and again.

          Why should anyone waste time straightening out your poor logic and lack of critical thinking skills. I do that for those that want a real discussion.

  14. (music)
    California! Here I come!
    Right back where I started from.
    I’ve got bullets, machine guns and lots of fun!

  15. Florida also is working on a bill to allow parents to sue school districts that are infusing CRT into their curriculum.
    That put the leftist propaganda outlets into a grand tizzy. The are MAD….and at the same time squeel that CRT is a myth, it is only a theory…in collage…at the law school…to debate

    But they are still mad about something they say does not exist.

    1. Iowan2,

      “ That put the leftist propaganda outlets into a grand tizzy. The are MAD….and at the same time squeel that CRT is a myth, it is only a theory…in collage…at the law school…to debate

      But they are still mad about something they say does not exist.”

      Nobody is claiming CRT doesn’t exist. Nobody. What parents and those who are falsely promoting it are claiming CRT is being taught at schools. That claim is not true. Parent are conflating diversity training with CRT. Those two concepts are not the same thing.

      Unfortunately parents are being duped into thinking that their kids are being told they are racist because they are white or that they are oppressors because someone over a hundred years ago was. None of that is what CRT is about. No school has CRT in their curriculum. Even legislators who pass laws banning the teaching of CRT have no real proof that it is being taught or are in school curriculums.

      These laws are already being challenged under free speech grounds abs they have a very good chance to succeed.

      1. The deaf and blind can neither hear nor see, but still can recognize CRT exists in the school systems. That leaves the dumb out in the open.

        1. S. Meyer,

          “ The deaf and blind can neither hear nor see, but still can recognize CRT exists in the school systems. That leaves the dumb out in the open.”
          If that’s the case give us an example of CRT in school curricula. I’m sure you can post a legitimate document showing CRT as curriculum in a school. An official school curriculum document. Please do.

          1. I think one of my recent posting did exactly as you asked. I’m talking to you, a guy who provided a link that he probably never read. I read the paper quickly and found it juvenile. It was more like a summary of other people’s thoughts.

            You said the guy is an expert and I toldl you he hasn’t yet obtained his PhD. You fight that he did and that goes back and forth with me providing you a copy of his bio from the link you cited that proved the paper came from someone without a PhD. Even then you argued. I concluded you were deaf, blind and dumb so nothing anyone says penetrates your skull.

            When you start being honest and sincere I’ll treat you like an honest and sincere person.

            1. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

              “ I think one of my recent posting did exactly as you asked.”. You think? You mean you don’t know for sure? That only means you didn’t. Provide the link showing an actual school curriculum document showing they are teaching CRT. Surely you would have no problem posting it again if you “think” you did.

              “ I’m talking to you, a guy who provided a link that he probably never read. I read the paper quickly and found it juvenile. It was more like a summary of other people’s thoughts.”

              LOL!!! “I read the paper quickly”. You did a lazy cursory meander on the paper because it was too complicated for you to grasp. If you really did grasp what it was saying you wouldn’t be dismissing it as “juvenile”.

              I’ll be waiting for that example S. Meyer. Anytime.

              1. “That only means you didn’t. ”

                I provided the document, but your criteria are that the document is verified by someone from the left who is untruthful. Go back and look at some of my recent postings. There were multiple places to find the information, including a book containing everything you ask for but reject because a leftist icon will not admit it is true.

                You are dumb. Nothing is 100%. Critical thinking skills help one obtain the best answer. You have none and rely only on predigested leftist talking points promoted for all ages and mainly geared to the non-thinker.

                “LOL!!! “I read the paper quickly”. You did a lazy cursory meander on the paper because it was too complicated for you to grasp.”

                You are an idiot. At the time, I read it quickly, but that gave me the ability to use his words against what you had said, and it also gave me the ability to recognize who wrote it, when, and at what point in his life it was written. You knew nothing of what you linked to. You have only one speed of reading, slowly without comprehension. Many of us read a lot, so we are used to changing rates based on the reading material.

                Based on what you have written, it is clear that among all the leftist posters that post regularly, you are the dumbest.

                “I’ll be waiting for that example S. Meyer. Anytime.”

                Go ahead, Svelaz. I will let you take white. Pick out the salient points from your article, summarize them and tell us their location. Then we can discuss them. Maybe you can surprise us, but that is doubtful.

      2. What parents and those who are falsely promoting it are claiming CRT is being taught at schools. That claim is not true. Parent are conflating diversity training with CRT. Those two concepts are not the same thing…. Unfortunately parents are being duped into thinking that their kids are being told they are racist because they are white or that they are oppressors because someone over a hundred years ago was.

        What’s unfortunate for you and your ilk is that parents are thinking. They are not going to be fooled by an acronym or definitions any longer. They are going directly to the content of these racist indoctrination schemes and whether they call it CRT or GFY, they are rejecting it. Go gaslight somewhere else, because the evidence is overwhelming your lies.

        Rufo revealed he spoke with a whistleblower who revealed Dr. Fatima Morell, the associate superintendent for Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Initiatives, has been pushing “radical politics.”

        He wrote: “According to one veteran teacher, who requested anonymity, Morell’s training programs have pushed ‘radical politics’ and, in practice, become a series of ‘scoldings, guilt-trips, and demands to demean oneself simply to make another feel ‘empowered.”

        “Teachers must submit to these ‘manipulative mind games’ and express support for Morell’s left-wing politics, or risk professional retaliation.”

        The seemingly new curriculum teaches students that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism,” Rufo explained.

        Additionally, he said it teaches that “often unconsciously, white elites work to perpetuate racism through politics, law, education, and the media.”

        1. “whether they call it CRT or GFY”

          Like Humpty Dumpty, they and you apparently don’t care what words mean.

          CRT isn’t being taught in schools. You don’t want to use the right words. Why? Do you prefer the sound of CRT to describing it correctly?

          1. ATS, since there is such a debate about what CRT is and is not among those pushing CRT, perhaps your definition would clear things up. Christopher Rufo and others have pointed out how CRT is in the school system. We have heard it for ourselves, our kids, and we have even heard it from teachers.

            Either define what you mean by CRT or state why all those complaining about CRT in the public schools are wrong.

            You can’t do that because you prefer playing word games to honest discussion and when you lose at word games you resort to deception and lies.


            1. SM,
              We may being nearing the end of the “Woke” lifecycle.

              The battle over “critical race theory” in the Virginia gubernatorial election was an early illustration. It’s difficult to discern how much critical race theory is being taught in Virginia schools: there are official Virginia state documents which call explicitly for “critical race theory” to be used in the training of teachers and the make-up of the curriculum; in some districts, CRT inspired consultants were hired to do mandatory teacher training. Materials deployed by these new “diversity” consultants are full of a bizarre racial essentialism, portraying white people as cruelly individualistic, people of color as warm communalists. Some Virginia parents in comfortable suburban districts were troubled enough by it to turn traditionally sleepy school board meetings into hotbeds of protest.

              Curiously, the response by the Terry McAuliffe campaign—to charges by his opponent that Democrats were ignoring parents and teaching CRT in schools—was to claim that there was “no critical race theory” taught in Virginia schools, that the whole issue was a racist “dog whistle” cooked up by conservative activist Christopher Rufo and others. This denial was echoed repeatedly by nearly every mainstream media outlet covering the election.

              This itself was an interesting tell. Liberals generally have no reluctance to defend their beliefs or policies, whether they be the right to have an abortion, higher taxes on corporations and the rich, or worker and environmental protection laws. But on CRT they mounted no defense, just denial and obfuscation. They would explain, as to a fifth grader, that critical race theory was a high brow discipline sometimes studied in law schools, and is absolutely not something taught to Virginia elementary and high school students. As if they assumed that people wouldn’t notice that programs and curricula explicitly grounded in CRT pedagogy, endorsed officially by the nation’s largest teacher’s union, was seeping into the schools.

              Why did the sophisticated, consultant heavy, and poll savvy McAuliffe campaign lie? The most plausible answer is that it understood that the substance of a critical race theory pedagogy couldn’t be defended before voters in a campaign, knew it was extremely unpopular among people of all races, and knew also that it couldn’t be disavowed, because powerful constituencies within the Democratic party, especially the National Education Association, were too heavily invested in it. When push came to shove in a tight election, the establishment left wouldn’t stand up and fight for woke pedagogy.

              1. SM,
                This is just another example of how the Left believes what we have is a definition problem:

                “It is a bit of semantics in that fully vaccinated for the purpose of the regulations and requirements that people have is to be what are you considered as being fully vaccinated.” Fauci said in an interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “But there’s no doubt that optimum vaccination is with a booster. I mean, there is no doubt about that.”

                He also discussed the difficulty in pushing “mandates,” instead suggesting that people should discuss “requirements” as a more palatable term.

                1. The left deceives and outright lies. There is no question about that. In leftist groups they admit to being proud of lying, violence and a lot of other despicable things.

                  Anonymous the Stupid is not just an ideologue. He pushes the worst of leftism and is anti-

                2. “. . . ‘mandates,’ instead suggesting that people should discuss ‘requirements’ . . .”

                  1. Let’s try this, again.

                    “. . . ‘mandates,’ instead suggesting that people should discuss ‘requirements’ . . .”

                    A thorn by any other name would prick just as hard.

                    As if one needed any more evidence of Fauci’s complete dishonesty.

                1. I trust this iteration of the attack will be over, but rest assured, there will be others. If we remain vigilant, we can shorten the lifecycle of these attacks and reduce their frequency and effectiveness. .

            2. S. Meyer,

              Christopher Rufo is a conservative political activist. He used CRT and conflated other books not associated with the theories as CRT.

              This is what parents and even legislators who are either too stupid to research the real CRT theories or are too ignorant to try.

              This explains why many who believe CRT says are being lied to.

              “ How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory”


              1. You criticize him for relying on “conservative” Chris Rufo, -then you attempt to rebut by relying on left-wing New Yorker’s take on this? Amusing. Try looking at Nicole Hannah-Jones and her progeny for a sense of the real thing.

              2. Another reason I don’t take you seriously, Svelaz, is because you engage in character assassination rather than proving your case. Then you link to a site that lies through omission. That doesn’t matter because the chances are you were provided the site from you talking points and never read it.

                1. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

                  “ Another reason I don’t take you seriously, Svelaz, is because you engage in character assassination rather than proving your case. ”

                  It’s about pointing out disingenuous narratives that rely entirely on manipulating information to convey a false portrayal of what CRT is.

                  Rufo’s intent is to incite gullible parents and lawmakers into a fit of anger by lying to them and using their own ignorance as a means to peddle the lies. Many parents are not going to really research CRT and only rely on Rufo’s deliberately deceiving narrative. Just like you.

                  1. “It’s about pointing out disingenuous narratives “

                    But, you never prove your case. When you do you link to things you never read or didn’t understand.

                    When you engage in character assassination be prepared to back it up.

                    When I call you a fool, I do so because all you do is use words or facts that have been proven wrong over and over again. If you didn’t have the information, I wouldn’t insult you, rather I would provide it or someone else might. Instead, you waste everyone’s time, act nasty and lie. That type of fellow in my book is a fool.

                    1. Take note, as usual, Svelaz’s character assassination leads to Svelaz running away again. This guy has no credibility.

                      He tried character assassination of Christopher Rufo because he had no answers to what Rufo brought to the table. The Washington Post attempted the same, but the Washington Post had to retract what it said and was forced to stop smearing Rufo.

                      “They have also made me a target for the Left. In recent months, outlets including the New York Times, New Republic, MSNBC, CNN, and The Atlantic have attacked me on television and in print. No doubt the Washington Post believed that its 3,000-word exposé would undermine my reporting and cast me as a right-wing villain … the Post piece rested on a bed of untruths. Meckler and Dawsey fabricated the timeline of events surrounding my involvement with President Trump’s executive order on critical race theory; botched a direct quotation from me about my work; erroneously claimed that a diversity lesson at a Cupertino, California elementary school never happened; and insisted…Within 48 hours, the entire story collapsed. The paper admitted to fabricating the timeline of events, retracted or added six full paragraphs to the story, reversed its assertion that the Cupertino diversity lesson never happened, and…”

                      Anyone who listens to Svelaz is listening to a fool. Jeff constantly praises Svelaz for his acumen (actually a lack of acumen), making Jeff another fool.

                      Why should we react with hostility to these people? Because these individuals are trying to destroy our children and do so by attempting to gaslight mom and dad. We need not be polite with people that lie and deceive while our children are taken advantage of. We need to call them out and say exactly what they are. Svelaz, you have said enough garbage and destroyed your alias. You need a new one. Anonymous the Stupid your you destroyed your alias long ago, but you think you can hide under a generic anonymous name and icon. That is why I call you out and name you like others are now doing. You are known as ATS or Anonymous the Stupid. That helps separate you from other anonymous posters on the blog.


          2. You don’t want to use the right words. Why?

            Because I am an educated American citizen with critical-thinking skills and I don’t need to be told what “the right words” are. I provided an example of what is being taught in the schools. In that teaching are a bunch of words that when put together form a curriculum that is indoctrinating our youth to a racist ideology. Millions of parents around the country are rejecting this racist indoctrination. And they certainly are not going to play the role of useful idiot and back off merely because they are told this is not CRT. It doesn’t matter what it is called, what matters is that it ends. So I will call it GFY.

            1. From Chris Rufo:

              “As illustrations of critical race theory in American institutions, DeSantis cited seven of my reports for City Journal: Arizona claiming that babies are racist; Santa Clara County denouncing the United States as a “parasitic system”; Philadelphia teaching students to celebrate “Black communism”; San Diego telling teachers “you are racist”; Bank of America teaching that the United States is a “system of white supremacy”; Verizon teaching that America is fundamentally racist; and Google teaching that all Americans are “raised to be racist.”

              1. And yet we’ll be told by these less-than-useful idiots, but, but that’s not CRT. To that I will say, you may not have actually eaten paint chips as a child, but the left-half of your brain isn’t functioning.

            2. You’re clearly not using your critical thinking skills when you choose words that don’t mean what you pretend they mean. (Or you’re using them to purposefully obfuscate.)

              You didn’t provide an example of what’s being taught in classrooms. You provided hearsay about professional development outside the classroom.

              Of course it matters what it’s called! If you’re going to twist the meanings of words, communication falls apart. If I called you an atheist or a deserter, would you let me twist their meanings or would you object? You’re not an atheist or a deserter.

                1. Since you also don’t care what words mean, I won’t waste time discussing the contents.

                  Have to admit, though, I’m curious what dates Mr. Young would give as the dates when the US stopped being racist and stopped being sexist, and whether he thinks the same for ethnic bigotry, religious bigotry, etc. I agree with some parts of his model legislation though.

                  1. A better question is when will ATS stop using race and sex as a power play and act for the betterment of all American citizens.

                    When will you say an American citizen should have more rights than an illegal alien?
                    When will you admit that Democrats in NYC prevent blacks and hispanics from getting a better education because the Democrats are looking out for power rather than the people?
                    When will you admit that non-vaccinated people have a right to their own bodies?
                    When will you stop lying?

              1. “. . . about professional development outside the classroom.”

                What do you think the purpose is of that professional development?

                Could it be that the ideas and techniques taught are intended to be integrated into one’s profession — in this case, into the classroom?

                1. That’s possible, but it’s not guaranteed. Sometimes professional development is only for the teachers’ information. For example, if teachers get training about signs of child abuse, that doesn’t guarantee that they’re going to be teaching their students about child abuse.

                  You cannot know what the purpose is unless you see the details of the PD, you can only guess, and you shouldn’t conflate the content of PD with the content of classroom lessons.

                  1. “. . . unless you see the details of the PD . . .”

                    Which, of course, I have seen. And, no, I have no interest in “discussing” them with you.

                    1. I doubt you’ve seen the details of the PD described by hearsay in Olly’s article, which was the topic you replied to.

                  2. “You cannot know …”

                    This guy ATS is full of excuses when anything said disagrees with his ideology. He can’t look past his nose. He can’t find good answers when he does, so he uses deception and lies.

                    The problem is he thinks he is more intelligent than he is. There are many more people smarter than him, which is why he is known as ATS.

                    He is now fighting with Lin, an intelligent lawyer. ATS may or may not have picked up on a fine point that he learned is true and weasels that point into the discussion so that there is some truth in what he says, even if he doesn’t know what he is talking about. ATS purposefully tries to lead the discussion into cross-talk to point to the BS he is saying even though he is wrong. Then he can say he was right all a long.

                    Anonymous the Stupid, ATS, is a disrupter of honest discussion. He hides his identity under a generic icon and name, so when he looks like a fool, he can blame another anonymous, or one of his pretend friends.

                2. Sam, you are, as usual correct. Just in case you missed a recent posting of mine.

                  CRT comes to Medicare reimbursements. It makes the deniers of CRT look like morons. (see link below)

                  Decades ago, the left forced PC onto doctors in ways that weren’t pleasant or good for patients. They started diluting the quality of physicians along with the subject matter. I saw that at the university when I first took organic chemistry. They found too many people failed, so they changed books to an easier and thinner one that depended on a lot of rote memory without much understanding of the chemistry involved. I couldn’t understand the new text, so I used the old one (purchased used at the end of the prior semester). The old book was very technical and probably ten times the size of the new one. When I took the exam, I got a failing grade, almost zero, because the grad student looked at my answers, and they didn’t conform with the solutions derived using the new book’s science. I looked at those answers and saw they got the correct result but created a lot of wastage due to the algorithms used instead of science. I was sent to the head of the chemistry department and repeated my story. He said my answers were perfect and explained the problem the school had. He gave me a perfect score and said they would return to the former book because I (who understood chemistry) couldn’t learn from the new one but perfectly understood it from the old one. This downgrading of education has slowly been going on for many decades and has accelerated now with CRT.

                  If we don’t reverse directions and teach students how to think at the university level, how will they think when they are out of the university? Same for high school and all the grades. We are dumbing ourselves down, leading to mediocrity, something the most powerful nation in the world can’t afford.

                  Biden Administration Offers Bonuses to Doctors Who Implement ‘Anti-Racism Plans’
                  New Medicare rules also reward ‘trauma-informed care’


          3. ” Critical race theory began in the late 1980s in law schools but over the decades has become prominent in other academic disciplines and the K-12 education system. There are thousands of pages of academic literature and a number of textbooks on “critical race theory
            in education,” instructing primary and secondary school teachers how to adopt critical race theory principles into the classroom. CRT cofounder Kimberlé recently boasted that “critical race theory originated in law schools” but was adopted by “K-12 teachers”—“and that’s a good thing.” In the words of Richard Delgado, another CRT cofounder, “critical race theory is in some way livelier in education right now than it is in law.” While most K-12 schools do not explicitly label their materials as “critical race theory,” any school that is teaching its core principles—such as whiteness, systemic racism, white privilege, and intersectionality—is, by definition, practicing critical race theory in the classroom.”

        2. Olly,

          “ What’s unfortunate for you and your ilk is that parents are thinking.”

          LOL!!! No they are not. Most parents are being TOLD or HEARD what CRT is about and make no effort to actually verify it. The majority of those parents don’t have the time or energy to research the theory. That much is obvious.

          I’ll bet that half of them are too stupid to understand it if they really got their hands on the actual papers describing the various theories that make up CRT. That’s the saddest part is none will ever understand why it is actually an important theory. One that was never meant to be something for K-12 education. It was and still is a university level type of complex issue.

          These are the same kind of parents who were losing their $hit over a new way to do math because they couldn’t understand it. It wasn’t wrong. They just didn’t like it because it was different. So it was mocked and ridiculed instead of making an effort to learn it. That’s a real life demonstration of just how poorly educated this country has become. It’s a fear of something out of their comfort zone. CRT does the same thing. It forces one to go beyond what once was thought as settled history.

          1. Attaboy! Of course, if only these parents weren’t so stupid, they would understand that a curriculum that is indoctrinating their children to judge their fellow classmates by the color of their skin and to believe their country is dominated by evil, white supremacists, is actually a good thing. They probably didn’t take the time to learn about the health benefits of Tide Pods either. I tell you what, given your implied claim of a far superior intellect than the rest of us, dumb down theory and give us the net tangible benefit of teaching our children to hate our country and some of their classmates, that were their friends only yesterday.

            1. “. . . if only these parents weren’t so stupid . . .”

              Excellent point!

              That is the key to their con game. Undercut the public’s confidence in their own judgment. How? Set themselves up as Philosopher Kings — with a special faculty of insight that allows them, and only them, to see the true meaning of ideas. (A trick that they got from Plato.) The rest of us benighted souls, who do not have that mystical power, must blindly accept their edicts. (It also helps to concoct nonsense words, aka “academese,” that they, and only they, can understand — but in fact that nobody understands, because it is gibberish.)

              If you want to create a nation of mindless puppets, first convince people that their ability to reason is congenitally defective.

      3. claiming CRT is being taught at schools. That claim is not true.

        Then why would anybody worry about getting sued? Its not being taught. Why so mad?

    2. CRT is an unfortunate catch-all term that covers the following views:

      1. Racism is everywhere and dominates everything. When not visible it is hidden in the structures of our society and economy.

      2. Disparities in outcome are the result of this racism.

      3. These disparities arise because the structures of our society and economy systematically favour some groups over others. The most privileged are white, cisgender, heterosexual, male and Christian. The most oppressed are black, transgender, gay, female and non-Christian. An intersectional hierarchy of oppressors and oppressed determines socioeconomic outcomes and even how the world is understood. Where you fit in this hierarchy is determined by your race, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation and religion.

      4. The only way to end the oppression is to dismantle the structures.

      5. The way for those at the top of the hierarchy to conduct themselves is to recognise that they are oppressors and to join the oppressed as allies in the dismantling of the structures. If they do not conduct themselves in this way, they are racists. Advocating for an approach that treats individuals without regard to race etc is to support white supremacy.

      Anyone who says that these views do not permeate the system of public education has not examined the training materials for teachers. In the school system my daughter attends, the mandatory training for new teachers features Tiffany Jewell’s “This Book is Anti-Racist,” which contains all these views.
      No alternative perspective is provided.

      Nothing will persuade the educational establishment that they are wrong. I have tried and been politely dismissed and ignored. The writings of Sowell, Loury, McWhorter, Reilly, Riley and Woodson, to name just a few, are either unknown to them or disregarded. They know nothing of works such as Herbert Guttman’s on the history of the black family in slavery and freedom, which showed definitively that the breakdown in the black family was not a legacy of slavery or Jim Crow but emerged only in the 1960s.

      So in the face of such intransigence and ignorance I have come to support initiatives begun by Christopher Rufo and adopted by DeSantis and others to try and outlaw the teaching of this nei-racist ideology as if it were true. By all means include it as one theory among many, and examine how true it may be, but do not use it to indoctrinate teachers so they can go on to do the same to their students.

      1. Again, thank you for a very thoughtful, well-written alternative to the plethora of (what I see as) narrow-minded perspectives/ opinions that are treated as conclusory, dispositive fact.

      2. “CRT” is only becoming a catch-all term because so many people refuse to use its actual meaning.

        What you’re claiming is not CRT.

        1. Daniel, ATS likes to play word games. His critical thinking skills are near nil. You provide intelligent posts, he does not. He specializes in self-aggrandizement or as said elsewhere self flattery. Daniel, your posts are meant for discussion. His are not.

        2. You can call this set of views whatever you want. The label doesn’t matter. The substance of the views is what matters. That is what teachers are being trained to think and to teach their students. That is what the training materials actually say.

          1. No, one cannot call things whatever one wants! As I just pointed out to Olly, if you’re going to twist the meanings of words, communication falls apart.

            If you want to discuss what training materials actually say, link to the training materials and let’s discuss them. As a start, can you link to training materials that say that “racism dominates everything”?

            1. Read Tiffany Jewell’s “This Book is Anti-Racist”, which I referred to. That is the training book used. It is for teenagers and up so you should be able to get through it.

              1. Snark is counterproductive. I’m quite literate, and our disagreement didn’t arise from the contrary.

                I’m not going to buy a book simply to test your claim. Google Books let me search for “racism dominates everything,” and it’s not there. Why don’t you tell me the page where you think she claims “racism dominates everything” in some other words?

                1. It’s not a direct quote. I believe the direct quote is “racism is everywhere” and compares it to the air we breathe. You can get the book from a public library.

                  1. “It is all around us; racism is everywhere. Our lives are polluted by racism and it harms us all.” Page 30.

                    1. Your original (lengthy) comment does not in any way suggest direct quotations, but rather implies paraphrasing of the subject content. Any inference otherwise is in error, and your clarification was gratuitous

                    2. That one can see X all around does not imply that X dominates everything.

                      For example, we can see aging everywhere, but aging does not dominate everything (my opinion — do you disagree?).

                      So why do you interpret what you just quoted as “racism dominates everything”?

                      I agree that racism harms everyone. Do you disagree with that?

                  2. No, Sam, it’s not a rabbit hole to point out that the actual text doesn’t imply what he inferred.

                    1. Racism is not “everywhere” and does not harm “everyone”. The book says it is and does and this is false. It also says the institutions of this country are now maintained by the white, cisgender, male, heterosexual, able-bodied Christians to preserve their power and distribute social and economic benefits to themselves and to disempower and deny social benefits to those in the subordinate culture as defined by their lower position in the intersectional matrix of oppressors and oppressed. Rufo documented how these ideas played out in a third grade class in Cupertino, California, where each student was asked to pick out those elements of his or her identity and determine whether it contributed to their being an oppressor or oppressed. You can deny what is happening all you want, but it does not change the facts of what is taking place. If you think these ideas are true and should be taught in this way to young children by all means say so and defend your position. But don’t pretend what we see and read with our own eyes is not there.

                    2. Daniel, we face a problem that people like ATS and Svelaz lie when the truth is revealed. They will not admit they were wrong. They wait until the left-wing talking points change and either move to the new talking points or what aboutism.

                      ATS does this under a generic icon to further hide his lies, while Svelaz uses his newest alias after the old one was laughed off the blog.

                    3. “. . . a third grade class in Cupertino, California, where each student was asked to pick out those elements . . .”

                      Yes, but did the teacher say the words: “critical race theory?”

                      And did she require students to read the original works, including all of the footnotes, and essays in academic journals?


      3. I don’t disagree, daniel but you’re going to have to make already hired teachers that were taught that it is true gospel in college, and current teachers-to-be in college being taught the same, that it isn’t ‘true’, somehow. And bear in mind that said individuals are perfectly happy to twist the circumstantial truth in service of what they believe is the highest truth, and that their society destroying methods for employing it are ‘doing the noble thing’. There will not be an easy solution to this problem if we do not course correct, and fast.

        Your comment, though great, is relying on a foundation of logic and morality that simply do not exist in the individuals in question. It would be like telling a chicken, that righteously believes in being a chicken, to spontaneously become a car. There is no beginning point for the thread of critical thought and prior knowledge you are hoping for to occur. You are relating your theorem as though everyone has the same foundation and basic understanding to work from as you. They don’t. In this case, they really, REALLY don’t. Therein lies what makes this a big, big problem that could very easily become intractable in a very small amount of time.

        1. Thanks James. I agree with you. As I said there is no overcoming their intransigence and ignorance. They are deeply committed to this world view. That is why I now reluctantly support the Rufo approach to legislative action that Desantis and others are adopting. The only other possible solution involves changing School Committee membership and forcing change at that level.

    3. CRT may very well be a problem, but it is also distracting from the creeping survelliance of children (and the deterioration of the content they should learn) through social-emotional learning tests and standards-based grading.

      1. “The forms of affective capture, mood-tracking and emotional augmentation and modification via psychological categories documented by Davies are indicative of future directions in the digitization and datafication of social-emotional learning. As both the WEF and EdSurge documents show, the alleged potential of new forms of affective computing in education is to data mine students according to psychological signals detected from the skin, face and brain”

        1. Hmmm. I’m concerned that whomever “liked” that information did so because he/she thought data-mining kids’ psychological signals is a good idea.

          I hope my concern is wrong and that, rather, the person liked the post because he/she “liked” that I posted this concerning information so other people would be aware this is going on, too.

          1. Prairie, the Chinese have always felt they are the center of the world superior to all else. They are the ones doing the most data mining and attempting to obtain genetic information on everyone. They are aided by social media like facebook.

            They believe the Hans are superior. Note how there are concentration camps for the Uyghur population. Do you think eugenics is beyond them? How about a virus that injures or kills only non Han?

      2. I agree with you that SEL is a problem, as are the surveys they take. I also believe SEL is being used to promote the idea that you are and should be defined by your intersectional identity. My daughter’s SEL class is called RJ, which stands for Restorative Justice, and she is constantly being asked about her “culture”. They also recently spent a session where each child was asked to say how they felt about the vaccines, which were just being rolled out for 5-11 year-olds. The effect was to put peer pressure on the few whose parents are skeptical about vaccines for this age cohort.

  16. [OT] In other news, since Turley will not mention it here, much less analyze this potentially landmark free speech case, I present you:

    “The Court Can Infer That Fox Intended to Avoid the Truth’: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Dominion Lawsuit Against Fox News Over 2020 Election Coverage”

    This article outlines the sort of legal analysis one would expect to be of interest to a self-described “Free Speech Originalist.” The Judge stated:

    “The Court, reviewing the Complaint’s allegations, notes that it is reasonably conceivable that Fox’s reporting was inaccurate. As alleged, Dominion attempted to factually address Fox’s election fraud allegations. After Fox began connecting Dominion to election fraud claims, Dominion sent Fox executives and television anchors its “SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT” emails. Dominion’s emails, which contained analysis from election and related experts, tended to disprove the election fraud claims. Nevertheless, Fox and its news personnel continued to report Dominion purported connection to the election fraud claims without also reporting on Dominion’s emails. When Fox guests spread or reiterated disinformation about Dominion, Fox did not use the information Dominion provided to correct its guests or to reorient its viewers. Instead, Fox and its personnel pressed their view that considerable evidence connected Dominion to an illegal election fraud conspiracy.

    In addition, the Court notes that it is reasonably conceivable that Fox was not dispassionate. Given that Fox apparently refused to report contrary evidence, including evidence from the Department of Justice, the Complaint’s allegations support the reasonable inference that Fox intended to keep Dominion’s side of the story out of the narrative. Moreover, the Complaint alleges numerous instances in which Fox personnel did not merely ask questions and parrot responses but, rather, endorsed or suggested answers. Fox therefore may have failed to report the issue truthfully or dispassionately by skewing questioning and approving responses in a way that fit or promoted a narrative in which Dominion committed election fraud.”

    And it gets worse, as the Judge continues:

    “The Complaint supports the reasonable inference that Fox either (i) knew its statements about Dominion’s role in election fraud were false or (ii) had a high degree of awareness that the statements were false. For example, Fox possessed countervailing evidence of election fraud from the Department of Justice, election experts, and Dominion at the time it had been making its statements. The fact that, despite this evidence, Fox continued to publish its allegations against Dominion, suggests Fox knew the allegations were probably false.

    In addition, the Complaint alleges that several of Fox’s personnel openly disclaimed the fraud claims as false. Yet, certain Fox personnel (e.g., Mr. Dobbs) continued to push the fraud claims. The nearby presence of dissenting colleagues thus further suggests Fox, through personnel like Mr. Dobbs, was knowing or reckless in reporting the claims.”

    Lou Dobbs was summarily taken off the air. Funny, I don’t recall reading Turley complaining about Little Brother Fox News censoring Dobbs for exercising his free speech prerogatives. Come to think it, why would Fox can Dobbs when it maintains that its employees have not engaged in defamation?

    I did a search of Turley’s archive to confirm that he did not come to Dobbs’ defense. However, I did discover this rather amusing tidbit comparing Dobbs’ comments about Trump with that of Anthony Scarramucci’s:

    Turley concluded presciently:

    “The contrast in comments captures the insane divide in this country. There is no ground between these extremes for meaningful discussion which is a dangerous place for this country to find itself before a national election.”

    I could not agree more.

      1. Whig98 — They are wannabe bloggers who don’t have the brains or courage to write their own daily column, so they’ll complain that Turley didn’t write about everything under the sun, every day of the week. Their lunacy shines through, and in the end they are seen as what they are: useful idiots.


      There. You can take the rest of the day off, Jeff.

      1. James,

        Chill out man. My contribution concerns Free Speech which is the prime directive of Turley’s blog. Relax.

    2. Jeff Silberman,

      I find it absolutely amazing that Turley is ignoring this. He KNOWS what’s going on with the Fox News Dominion case.

      I think he is really painted into a corner here. If he writes a column about the case and the chances of Fox News losing the case it can and will be used against Fox in court. By continuing to criticize left leaning media for the kind of coverage and type of journalism he claims is detrimental to the business he is multiplying the level of hypocrisy he will have do eventually face once the case is over.

      He still hasn’t spoken about the revelations of texts from Trump allies begging him to stop the Jan 6 insurrection or even Fox News own lying about the issue. Which is quite obvious.

      Here’s another free speech issue that Turley is deliberately ignoring. The GOP’s attempt to silence and intimidate Sen. Liz Chaney. They are terrified of her and what she has in store. She knows who is in trouble and who is complicit in what Trump tried to do.

      Liz Chaney is done with the republicans who have acquiesced to Trump’s insanity. She has nothing to lose abs that’s more of a threat to the Trump republicans than democrats.

      1. Svelaz,

        Everything you say is true. It must weigh heavily on Turley what to do. Speak up and defend Fox’s false narratives or to cower in silence so as not to further damage his academic credibility (though silence itself is damning).

        His best course of action would be to resign from Fox so that he “could spend more time with his family.” Until then, he is a captured analyst.

        Liberate Jonathan Turley!

    3. I thought of you when I saw this news. Dominion’s suit against Fox now proceeds to the discovery phase, just like its suits against Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell, and Giuliani.

      1. Just keeping Trumpists apprised of developments that will NOT be reported on Fox, Newsmax, OAN and Infowars. They should live in darkness.

      1. Anonymous,

        Are you Green Anonymous? I had seen this article. I was intending to post it as an off-topic contribution to this blog because it is very illuminating for an academic like Turley. If only Turley would see the light and forego a 6-figure income to do the right thing.

  17. Perhaps the Professor misses the important fact…..Delaware would be free to sue the Federal Government for creating the problem by its “importation” of a problem common to the many States.

    What say States ban together as they have on the Vaccine Mandate issue and sue the Biden Administration over its handling of the Illegal Immigration crisis caused by its very own policies.

    That is Court challenge I want to see heard by the SCOTUS.

    1. Ralph Chappell, Delaware would be free to sue Florida.

      Ironically those same immigrants could just come back to Florida on their own.

  18. The critique of the political rhetoric on both sides is justified, but the use of the adjective “undocumented” is not. If someone illegally breaks into my home, they don’t become an “undocumented” resident.

    1. “If someone illegally breaks into my home . . .”

      The country is not your “home.” And you do not own the country.

Comments are closed.