Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality

A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in 2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality.  Given the huge economic and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it would have been better for public health to have this debate than to shut down any opposing views in the name of science.

The researchers declared “We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality.”

The study refutes the claim of researchers at the Imperial College London, for example, who predicted that such steps could reduce death rates by up to 98%.

They did find that “closing nonessential businesses seems to have had some effect (reducing COVID-19 mortality by 10.6%), which is likely to be related to the closure of bars.”

The most striking aspect of this study is that is part of a discussion that we never really had. Social media companies were banning or tagging anyone expressing doubts over such measures.

We have seen various journalistic and scientific figures banned for expressing skepticism over pandemic claims from the origins of the virus to the efficacy of certain treatments. For example, when many people raised the possibility that the virus may have been released from the nearby Chinese virology lab (rather than the “wet market” theory), they were denounced as virtually a lunatic fringe. Even objections to the bias of authors of a report dismissing the lab theory were ridiculed. The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and implausible.  Now, even W.H.O. admits that the lab theory is possible and Biden officials are admitting that it is indeed plausible.

The same is true with the debate over the efficacy of masks. For over a year, some argued that the commonly used masks are ineffective to protect against the virus. Now, the CDC is warning that the masks do not appear to block these variants and even CNN’s experts are calling the cloth masks “little more than facial decorations.”

Yet, the W.H.O. head is now embracing censorship as a means of combating the “infodemic.” There are also calls, including from the White House, for Spotify to ban or curtail Joe Rogan’s show for allowing dissenting views to be aired on Covid or its treatment.

If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and science behind the lockdowns. Instead, there was a chilling effect on such dissenting voices and anyone expressing doubts were labeled extremists or conspiracy theorists. Recently, for example, scientists have come forward to admit that they also suspected the Wuhan lab was the origin of virus but were silenced by the backlash at the CDC and universities.

I do not know what the data will show on these issues and I readily recognize that, in the early days, many wanted to take the most protective course. However, we could have taken that course without actively seeking to censor or silence those who had doubts on these measures.

180 thoughts on “Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality”

  1. “I view the study as much a statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns”

    Or abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble.

  2. FOX NEWS ON OVERWHELMED HOSPITALS (August)

    The coronavirus is surging nationwide, and hospitals are struggling to find available beds for incoming patients.

    Coronavirus cases in the United States have surpassed 37 million and over 600,000 deaths have been related to the virus. While cases are ramping up again, hospitals are out of beds and short-staffed nationwide.

    Health care workers say the surge feels like déjà vu — but they note this time there’s a vaccine available to help.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/coronavirus-wave-attacking-health-care-system
    ……………………………………………….

    Fox News felt compelled to run this story back in August when hospitals in Florida were truly overwhelmed. Texas had been overwhelmed one month earlier. And even Mississippi was challenged around this time.

    The so-called Red States were whipsawed by Covid in late summer, months after New York’s crisis had lifted. Yet here Professor Turley claims the entire lockdown was unnecessary.

    The U.S.had not experienced a major pandemic since AID’s in the 1980’s. So when Coronavirus hit these shores, in early 2020, no one honestly knew how serious it would be. The whole world was caught off guard.

    But now comes revisionist history where the entire lockdown was a frivolous exercise. And ‘Andrew Cuomo’ is an all-too-handy scapegoat for New York’s first in the nation crisis. But Cuomo is no explanation for the late surges in Texas and Florida.

    This brings us back to my initial point. The national lockdown in 2020 was a necessity to prevent a run on hospitals. What’s more, hospitals are still not past this crisis. Covid continues challenging hospitals around the world.

    But Turley is, perhaps, testing a talking point for the midterm elections: ‘The Lockdown was bogus’.

    1. “But now comes revisionist history where the entire lockdown was a frivolous exercise. And ‘Andrew Cuomo’ is an all-too-handy scapegoat for New York’s first in the nation crisis.”

      It turns out the lockdown didn’t work. The lockdown was supposed to be for two weeks to understand the nature of Covid better. Despite your belief that all hospitals in Texas and Florida were overwhelmed, that is not true. Many hospitals were overwhelmed, but not all, and the actual number in different areas was fluid. The only revisionist history is your own, and that history is worthless.

      Cuomo did a lousy job. Even though there were loads of empty beds suited for patients recovering from Covid, Cuomo put those patients back into the nursing homes killing many nursing home patients. That action was unnecessary and deadly.

      Almost all your grandiose statements on Covid were wrong, mixed with half-truths or misleading information. Half-truths are the equivalent of lies.

  3. “A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in 2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality. Given the huge economic and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it would have been better for public health to have this debate than to shut down any opposing views in the name of science.”
    *******************************
    Oh it’s an easy answer: The Dims and their bureaucratic flying monkeys are petty tyrants who view power as the ultimate goal.

  4. Covid censorship, a leftist device of control, has increased the number of deaths, hurt our economy and caused great harm to our children. Unfortunately, that type of person has no concern for life or property and will continue to act in the same damning way.

  5. The Pandemic Lockdown Was Not About Deaths!

    It Was About Hospital Capacity

    Professor Turley’s column is misleading. The pandemic lockdown was never about preventing deaths. It was about preventing hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. And that was a very real danger when then President Trump authorized the national lockdown in March of 2020. Back then, hospitals in major cities (especially New York) were indeed overwhelmed. In fact, hospitals all over the U.S. and many foreign countries are ‘still’ grappling with the strains of too many covid cases as noted in the article below.
    …………………………………………………..

    The ratio of COVID-19 hospitalizations to total beds gives a picture of how much strain a hospital is under. That ratio is concerning when it rises above 10%, hospital capacity experts told NPR. Anything above 20% represents “extreme stress” for the hospital, according to a framework developed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

    ICU capacity is another important indicator of hospital strain. Those thresholds are higher: When 30% or more of ICU beds are filled by COVID-19 patients, it suggests a hospital is operating under “high stress.” When 60% or more are full, it’s considered at “extreme stress,” according to IHME.

    Edited from:

    “Where are hospitals overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients?”
    Today’s NPR

    1. You don’t close whole economies because hospitals are overwhelmed. You find places to put people swamping the hospitals or you let them die and then let their relatives sue the hospitals for not having enough capacity when needed.

      I worked in IT for many years. We would run multi-million expensive machines at 50-60% capacity in order to have enough headroom for when a rare peak in computer needs arose. User response time was #1, regardless of cost or wasted resources sitting unused.

        1. Mespo, sounds like you’re saying the entire lockdown was a ‘hoax’ because that hospital ship was under-used.

          When was the last time the U.S. had had a Covid epidemic? And why didn’t Trump prepare the country instead denying the threat all through January and February of 2020?

          1. You are an idiot. NYC was one of the hardest-hit areas in the country. It had overloaded hospitals, and Trump provided NYC with beds not appropriately used and ventilators not needed in response to a panicked governor who didn’t know what he was doing. You praised Cuomo and probably slept with a Cuomo Emmy doll, so you should be silent on such subjects.

            Covid isn’t the only infection that overloads NYC hospitals. Every year, those same hospitals are overloaded with flu and the like, yet the number of hospital beds is being cut nationwide. NY was advised to buy more ventilators years earlier, but they decided not to. The NYC hospital system has always been a disaster. If it isn’t Covid, it will be something else. Covid so happened to be worse than anything recent, but NYC prefers marching to the leftist drums instead of managing its problems in advance.

            1. Alan / Meyer:

              Forget New York City. Explain how Houston area hospitals became overwhelmed in July.
              ……………………………………………………..

              Houston hospitals have been forced to treat hundreds of COVID-19 patients in their emergency rooms — sometimes for several hours or multiple days — as they scramble to open additional intensive care beds for the wave of seriously ill people streaming through their doors, according to internal numbers shared with NBC News and ProPublica.

              At the same time, the region’s 12 busiest hospitals are increasingly telling emergency responders that they cannot safely accept new patients, at a rate nearly three times that of a year ago, according to data reviewed by reporters.

              The increase in ambulance diversions, coupled with the spike in patients being held indefinitely in emergency rooms, are the latest indicators that Houston hospitals are straining to keep up with a surge of new coronavirus patients.

              Edited from:

              https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/all-hospitals-are-full-houston-overwhelmed-icus-leave-covid-19-n1233430

              1. You seem to be reading impaired. Is that a chronic condition for you?

                I didn’t say some hospitals didn’t get overwhelmed. In fact, I pointed out that being overwhelmed intermittently is a chronic problem in some areas. It depends on the seriousness of the virus. Covid is very serious and transmissible, so we see our hospital systems strained in many areas. This strain is made worse because many Covid patients occupy the same bed for long periods, decreasing bed availability. You also missed another point. Overall the number of hospital beds in the country is shrinking annually. With a disease like Covid, with a higher need for hospital beds and fewer beds, one is guaranteed to have problems.

                As far as Houston is concerned, what is your point? Are you trying to point out that more illegal immigrants are in those beds for more extended periods? I can’t say one way or another without looking at the hospital system.

                Since you brought up the question, which types of hospitals are overloaded? Where are they located? Are other areas around Houston similarly affected? Let’s have some information to go along with your questions. Forget it. I understand. You like to talk because you like to hear yourself speak. Is that because you can’t read?

            2. Alan / Meyer

              Explain how Florida hospitals became overwhelmed in August.
              ……………………………………………………..

              This week, as of Aug. 24, Florida saw an average of 227 COVID-19 deaths per day, a state record and more than any other state in the U.S. right now. The average for new, known infections hit 23,314 this past weekend, 30 percent higher than the state’s previous peak in January, according to the Times.

              Virus hospitalizations in Florida have almost tripled over the past month, with more than 17,200 COVID-19 patients statewide, straining many hospitals. The surge even prompted Orlando officials to ask residents to limit nonessential water usage for two weeks to preserve liquid oxygen, which is used to treat severely ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

              https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/covid-19-deaths-hospitalizations-hit-all-time-high-in-florida.html

              1. Are you doubling down on your stupidity?

                Covid puts many people in the hospital, so many of the answers for one place will be the same answers elsewhere.

                As I explained earlier, Cuomo did a terrible job, but that doesn’t mean other cities won’t face similar problems.

          2. News out last week reports that Prev Gov Cumo that was let off to Walk So Far est’d killed 50% more Grandmas then were original counted. Just 40-50 THOUSAND rounded off in just one state by Premeditation.

            One of these days I think Jesus will have a reckoning for you sick b*stards to attend to.

            But the Evil Wrack Jobs still can’t today even after they’ve been Exposed!

      1. Jo Jo, it sounds like you worked at a hospital that was swamped with money. I just wonder if every hospital has that issue.

    2. Nice try. Hospitals in NY and other large cities were never “ overwhelmed “. Thousands of “beds” on hospital ships and additional venues laid empty either due to the pettiness of morons like cuomo and new some, or some other reason. Maybe there just wasn’t a reason for them.

    3. “President Trump authorized the national lockdown in March of 2020.”

      He did no such thing.

      If, as per Hopkins, the lockdowns did not stem Covid mortality, then how did they stem hospitalizations?

  6. Reading comprehension by some here (or actually in-comprehension whether by inability or refusal….) does not seem to be their strong suit.

    “And is there a way we can do SOMETHING LIKE THATt, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.”. Do you reckon the Monoclonal Therapeutic treatment using Anti-bodies would fit that idea….done by injection rather than orally…..understanding the function of anti-bodies in the Human?

    The TDS crowd would never abandon their warped interpretation of what Trump ACTUALLY SAID I know…..but reasonable people who can unweave his jumbled sentax and poor sentence structure and clearly understand what his intent was when he made that comment.

    I wish there was a Pill that would cure TDS overnight…..it would sure be a benefit to a few that attend here.

  7. Just a quick comment. The study is a “working paper,” an invitation to discussion and debate. In this case, the three authors lay out their methodology, explain why they chose to concentrate on certain studies and exclude others, e.g., they excluded studies that compared outcomes to predictions by models, in part because models by Imperial’s Ferguson and others were off by factors of ten or more. Read the paper, then discuss.
    Turley’s point is correct — all attempts to open discussion on the origin and nature of the virus, its lethality, viable treatments, and the effects of lockdown (a term coined for measures taken to suppress an uprising at Attic in ’69) were suppressed. As a result, experts from Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (Heneghen, Jefferson, Gupta), from Stanford (Ionnides, Atlas, Bhattacharya), Johns Hopkins (Makary), and Harvard (Kulldorf) were silenced in a variety of ways, as were pivotal studies, such as the large-scale random study on the inefficacy of masking by the Danes, which was published in a medical journal, as a reworked version of these working papers very likely will be in future. The point is that an open debate was desperately needed, but ruthlessly stifled.
    The pity is that those who conspired (that is the correct word, not an oversight on my part) to do so will never be held responsible for what they have done to millions of people and to the credibility of a range of institutions.
    Here is the link to the working paper. If you really are curious about the virus, masks, and the scientific method, I recommend a careful search on the web and an effort to access the literature — the link below has a bibliography of several thousand citations to get you started.
    https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

    1. An old guy: very good comment and reference material. -But next time, don’t start out with “Just a quick comment–” ha ha!

  8. Opposing views continue to be censored. Thank you Johns Hopkins. Read John M. Barry’s “The Great Influenza” about Johns Hopkins’ role in combatting that pandemic and set it on a course to create our modern medical education system.

    1. Exactly! Just try try to get anything into the the major MSM sources that conflicts with the CDC/FDA/Fauci. I do this regularly in NYT comments. probably 30% of the time, my comment never gets posted but they never tell you why. The lack of counterpoint has poisoned the POV of many simpleton NYT commenters who remain steadfast in their belief that anyone unvaxxed walking around is a clear and present danger to everyone. PERIOD.

  9. Lock downs did little to combat covid. Wow, can you beat that. And all this time I believed all these dims.

  10. “We could have done better…” No we couldn’t ! They (globalist s) in charge have been lying lying and lying while suppressing any discussion. Many people on both sides recognize that two alternate realities have been promulgated by the media. We have a shadow gov operating through our news media and social media. Of these two realities we now know Fake News is fake,but a tremendous amount of damage has occurred.

  11. Obviously JeffSilberman did not read the link provided by Anonymous that quoted Trump word for word so I’ll repost it for your reading pleasure. https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/24/context-what-donald-trump-said-about-disinfectant-/. You see, JeffSilberman is the one we should believe instead of Politifact. It’s interesting how Jeff can just ignores anything counter to his position. The man with a jaundiced eye sees everything through a yellow lens. JeffSilberman should increase his intake of vitamin C.

    1. Thinkitthrough,

      “ You see, JeffSilberman is the one we should believe instead of Politifact.”

      It’s interesting that you cite politifact given that it is deemed a non credible source by many posters here who are Trump supporters.

      Trump: “ “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.”

      Trump who loves to run his mouth when he’s BS’ing and gave a rambling nearly incoherent explanation which is what people who are BS’ing do. Gave a strong impression of injecting disinfectant as an idea. It was stated in a way that it literally had people considering it.

      1. (1) Politifact has a “lean-left” bias from at least two independent sources. The fact that Politifact set the record straight (in favor of what Trump really said) speaks for itself.
        (2)Do you and JeffSilberman share the same lunch hour?

        1. Lin, the majority of Trump supporters could care less whether politifact set a record straight. It is only deemed credible when it supports their position. But when it contradicts their position even when the contradiction is true it is suddenly a “left leaning mouthpiece” that doesn’t deserve credibility.

          “ And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.”

          He didn’t literally say to inject disinfectant into the body. That’s the argument in defense of Trump’s comments. So it’s true if you are going to be sticking to the literal. But Trump was still alluding to the disinfectant when he continues to suggest, “and is there a way to do something like THAT, by injection inside, or almost a cleaning…”. It gave everyone the clear impression that injecting disinfectant was an idea worthy of investigation. Which was just as stupid as suggesting a “powerful UV light inside”. Obviously people made fun of him because of how horrendously stupid that suggestion was.
          Politifact also noted that the company that makes lysol had to put out a warning NOT to ingest their disinfectant because Trump’s comments came off as a good idea to consider. A lot of people were seriously considering it when so many calls to poison control followed asking if it was an option.

          1. “He didn’t literally say to inject disinfectant into the body…So it’s true if you are going to be sticking to the literal.” (Are you backtracking? Did you fail your own (T/F) test? Or was that just your opinion?

            1. Lin, Svelaz keeps saying the same garbage over and over again. He screwed up on the approved vaccines despite the FDA’s quotes and screwed up on the NY memorandum as to who would get priority for antivirals. One can find one screw up after another as far back as one goes. His mind is not up to the task of critical thinking.

              He knows nothing about science or what has been attempted in the past. He doesn’t understand what a person is saying when thinking out of the box. Some of the things that Svelaz is complaining about have been attempted in the past. The body’s protective mechanisms produce some of the chemicals discussed to destroy things that do not belong.

              1. S. Meyer: Some of your best comments were those engaging him over vaccines and therapeutics. That’s when I first started following your comments.

                1. Thanks, Lin. The problem with the blog is that too many engage in distracting comments. One can’t help it because a tiny rat is constantly biting at one’s ankles. That is seen best in the hateful responses to Turley when his op-ed is an opportunity for a candid discussion on complex subjects. I have heard that Turley used to engage those who responded. In this environment, it is a waste of his time. I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

              2. This is why I tend to think he and a few others are either under 35, or older, but raised in a bubble by nannies.

                1. James, your comments are correctly directed, but I think Svelaz is older and was never very smart. On the other hand, Jeff sounds like the type of bubble baby you are talking about with extended parental support into his elderly years. He doesn’t relate to the usual working person and relies on flip answers rather than knowledge. He says he is an attorney (probably retired or managing a family business), and I believe him because I have seen a lot of lawyers funded by the family that act like him.

      2. Svelaz, if you use disinfectant on a surface it kills the Covid virus in seconds. According to your theory some people are stupid enough to drink hand sanitizer to kill the Covid if they get it because it kills Covid on your hands. Your right. And there are some people stupid enough to believe CNN when they take something that Donald Trump said out of context as the gospel truth. Like baby Svelaz birds waiting for the CNN momma bird to jam the worms down their throats. Peep! Peep!! Peep!!! PEEP!!!!

    2. TiT,

      Don’t take my word for it. Turley, that’s right, Turley warned:

      “The maker of Lysol also issued a statement warning against any internal use of its disinfectant after President Donald Trump suggested the possibility of an “injection” of disinfectant into victims of the coronavirus. The warning reflects an interesting legal problem for these companies. Under product liability rules, a company is liable for the “foreseeable misuse” of its products. While the intentional ingestion of household cleaners have been a problem in a small number of cases, President Trump’s musing about its use could encourage others to attempt such a home remedy. We have already seen such poisonings from products ranging from tainted alcohol to fish tank cleaners. Lysol and other companies have every reason to issue warnings, particularly in the baffling absence of a corrective statement from the White House. Polls show that only 23 percent of viewers have a high level of trust what the President says on the pandemic. That is notably lower than his support in most polls overall. There are still many who trust the President on advice to a moderate or high degree. Ultimately, this is not about politics. This type of statement is dangerous for those who do rely on the President for information on the virus.”
      ——————

      Do the networks have a responsibility NOT to broadcast dangerous misinformation?

      Presumably, Turley thinks they do.

      Now, think it through and tell us what you think.

      1. The chemical chlorine dioxide has efficacy in treating viral infections in the body, and disinfecting surfaces. Chlorine dioxide is also a bleach. Chlorine dioxide has been used to treat SARS-CoV-2 infections successfully. Although it is unclear exactly what Trump had in mind when he spoke about ingesting bleach to treat CoViD-19 before the vaccines were available, given the fact that chlorine dioxide fits the description of a substance both useable as a bleach and as a therapeutic in humans, my guess is that he must have heard about this and with vague memory, made the strange-sounding claim. So, after all, he was telling the truth.
        This inexpensive therapy was reportedly mainly used in Bolivia in some of the poorer areas of the country, and positive result were reported, but misuse of the substance (which can be easily prepared in the home) also occurred, and in the meantime, better, more reliable and safer treatments seem to have supplanted it.
        Google reveals a multitude of links related to this, and as one might expect, the vaxxxine-pushers have only focused on the dangers resulting from misuse. In any case, the more reliable and safer treatments that are also cheap and widely availablel OTC in “3rd world” countries have largely obviated the need to consider this therapy.

        1. Olde eco says:

          “In any case, the more reliable and safer treatments that are also cheap and widely availablel OTC in “3rd world” countries have largely obviated the need to consider this therapy.”

          And you think that is why all the networks had decided never to rebroadcast Trump’s disinfectant musings? Not because it posed a danger to the health of some of their viewers?

          1. No, because the comment has no significance today even though you can’t stop focusing on something you don’t understand. Have things always been like this, or is this something that is just coming with age?

  12. “If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and science behind the lockdowns.” Amen.

    1. Why don’t you take a stab at answering the questions I would pose to Turley about Trump’s disinfectant musings?

        1. I will repeat what Turley stated:

          “The maker of Lysol also issued a statement warning against any internal use of its disinfectant after President Donald Trump suggested the possibility of an “injection” of disinfectant into victims of the coronavirus. The warning reflects an interesting legal problem for these companies. Under product liability rules, a company is liable for the “foreseeable misuse” of its products. While the intentional ingestion of household cleaners have been a problem in a small number of cases, President Trump’s musing about its use could encourage others to attempt such a home remedy. We have already seen such poisonings from products ranging from tainted alcohol to fish tank cleaners. Lysol and other companies have every reason to issue warnings, particularly in the baffling absence of a corrective statement from the White House. Polls show that only 23 percent of viewers have a high level of trust what the President says on the pandemic. That is notably lower than his support in most polls overall. There are still many who trust the President on advice to a moderate or high degree. Ultimately, this is not about politics. This type of statement is dangerous for those who do rely on the President for information on the virus.”

          Don’t evade my question:

          Should the networks re-broadcast Trump’s dangerous musings about disinfectants because banning it violates his freedom of speech?

          Yes or no?

          1. No.

            People did take that advice to heart. Just as the advice running around social media that drinking urine will prevent the omicron variant infection.

              1. Really Jeff? Ok…people did not take the advice to heart. I said it.

                As I am sure you know, the comment in question was spoken during a presidential brief with an expert describing research into efforts to mitigate CV-19.

                Trump said (emphasis mine); “ And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so IT’D BE INTERESTING TO CHECK THAT, SO YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO USE MEDICAL DOCTORS with, but it sounds interesting…”

                Trump was asking a question of the expert and suggesting that it should be researched. To be clear, he asked “is there a way to do this”, he did not state “do this”.

                1. Ray in SC claims:

                  “people did not take the advice to heart. I said it.”

                  Really Ray? That was NOT the opinion of Turley:

                  “The maker of Lysol also issued a statement warning against any internal use of its disinfectant after President Donald Trump suggested the possibility of an “injection” of disinfectant into victims of the coronavirus. The warning reflects an interesting legal problem for these companies. Under product liability rules, a company is liable for the “foreseeable misuse” of its products. While the intentional ingestion of household cleaners have been a problem in a small number of cases, President Trump’s musing about its use could encourage others to attempt such a home remedy. We have already seen such poisonings from products ranging from tainted alcohol to fish tank cleaners. Lysol and other companies have every reason to issue warnings, particularly in the baffling absence of a corrective statement from the White House. Polls show that only 23 percent of viewers have a high level of trust what the President says on the pandemic. That is notably lower than his support in most polls overall. There are still many who trust the President on advice to a moderate or high degree. Ultimately, this is not about politics. This type of statement is dangerous for those who do rely on the President for information on the virus.”

                  Turley took Trump’s remarks as a serious danger!

                  I take it then that you believe that there is NO speech so dangerous (short of inciting imminent violence) that a network should responsibly refuse to broadcast it. The risk that a few Trumpists may poison themselves is the price you are willing to pay to prevent any network presuming to ban some speech it believes is too dangerous to publish.

                    1. Just trying to get a straight answer out of these Trumpists and non-Trumpists.

                    2. Jeff, you clearly can’t help yourself and have walked into self-made trap AGAIN. If you possessed any self-awareness, you would find this to be very embarrassing.

          2. This is really whataboutism, as this is not the subject of discussion, but you are going into some “well one time Trump said”.

            To answer your question though, Yes. The news should re-broadcast what he said, and contextualize it… you know, their jobs. Take complex issues that most people do not have the time or ability to look into in great detail, then in an unbiased, objective and rational way explain the issues in a concise and accurate way without twisting the, admittedly poorly articulated, meaning of the speaker.

            Deciding to just censor anyone who you disagree with is a sure sign that you are on the wrong side of history. If there is something said that is stupid (and your example is poor because you are using a strawman — misinterpreting the meaning and context of the sentiment.) then combat that with your better ideas. If you cannot do that then maybe you ideas or your intent are what you need to examine.

            1. Rusty, your claim that “If you cannot do that then maybe you ideas or your intent are what you need to examine” suggests that you believe good speech is generally able to defeat bad speech. Have I misunderstood, or is that what you really believe?

              Certainly good speech doesn’t always defeat bad speech. For example, good speech did not prevent the Holocaust, and it hasn’t prevented more recent genocides.

              It’s especially difficult for good speech to be an effective counter to bad speech giving current technology, which (1) enables people to individually block speech that they don’t want to hear and (2) uses algorithms that feeds people more extreme versions of what they already want to believe.

              1. “It’s especially difficult for good speech to be an effective counter to bad speech giving current technology, which (1) enables people to individually block speech that they don’t want to hear and (2) uses algorithms that feeds people more extreme versions of what they already want to believe.”
                Were you talking about Google or Wikipedia? Or blog trolls? Or all three?

                1. I was talking about *all* technology that “(1) enables people to individually block speech that they don’t want to hear and (2) uses algorithms that feeds people more extreme versions of what they already want to believe.”

                  Google searches sometimes do (2), but not necessarily; it’s quite easy to use Google to search for info that’s contrary to one’s beliefs. I’m unaware of Google searches doing (1); if you believe otherwise, just present evidence of how they do that. If you’re talking about some aspect of Google other than searches, you’ll have to clarify what you’re referring to.

                  An example of technology that does both (1) and (2) is Facebook.

                  AFAIK, Wikipedia and blog trolls do neither (unless, perhaps, you’re referring to a bot posting to a blog?).

              2. I’m sorry, are you claiming the Holocaust was speech?

                I don’t really care if “good” speech can defeat “bad” speech, whatever the hell that means. That is not the context I look at it in. Speech is just that, speech. Remember kindergarten: “sticks and stones” etc…. You note that “It’s especially difficult for good speech to be an effective counter to bad speech giving current technology, which (1) enables people to individually block speech that they don’t want to hear and (2) uses algorithms that feeds people more extreme versions of what they already want to believe.” and you think the solution is to just prevent other people from hearing what YOU determine is “bad”? Isn’t that the exact same problem? “Let’s just have algorithms that prevent “bad” ideas from even being discussed? Then it turns out that the “bad” ideas turned out to be right all along?

                People have different ideas that they express in speech. That is the only way short of violence we have to come to consensus and hash out differences. Sometimes bad ideas win, sometimes they lose. The point is that we should be free to hear all ideas and make up our own minds on what we believe. Everything else leads to lots and lots of people getting killed. We have seen this time and again throughout history, all you need to do is look at the 20th century.

                Irrational people will believe irrational things. Hell even rational people will believe irrational things. There are tons of people (maybe even on this blog) that think the world is flat. There are people who claim the holocaust never happened. If they want to believe that there is nothing I can do about it, but the answer is not to forbid people from saying what they want to say, or to censor this from the public square because it does not comport with your ideas and beliefs. The only thing we can do is educate ourselves and our children to be able to critically think, and then use those tools to bring the batshit to light. Genocides are allowed to happen when we give those in positions of power the ability to censor what we see and hear.

                1. Rusty says:

                  “The point is that we should be free to hear all ideas and make up our own minds on what we believe…. The only thing we can do is educate ourselves and our children to be able to critically think, and then use those tools to bring the batshit to light.”

                  Fox News is no longer broadcasting live Trump’s rallies where he claims that the election was stolen?

                  Is Fox censoring Trump’s rallies?

                  Fox has banned from its airwaves Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis because they are continuing to spread Trump’s Big Lie.

                  Is Fox cancelling these Trumpist lawyers?

                  Why won’t Fox allow this batsh*t to be heard by its viewers?
                  —————-/

                  Are you going to duck these questions too?

                2. Rusty,

                  “are you claiming the Holocaust was speech?”

                  I’m claiming that both the lead-up to the Holocaust (Hitler’s election, for example) and the Holocaust itself involved both speech and acts, and speech by other people (e.g., Hitler’s opponents) was insufficient to prevent the Holocaust.

                  Do you disagree that speech plays a significant role in creating sufficient hate that a genocide can occur? If you disagree, why?

                  “I don’t really care if “good” speech can defeat “bad” speech, whatever the hell that means.”

                  You told Jeff “If there is something said that is stupid … then combat that with your better ideas. If you cannot do that then maybe you ideas or your intent are what you need to examine.” That’s what I was referring to. You suggested that Jeff combat stupid ideas (bad speech) with better ideas via (good speech), and my point is that good ideas aren’t always effective in combatting bad ideas.

                  “you think the solution is to just prevent other people from hearing what YOU determine is “bad”?”

                  No, that’s not what I think. Which is why I didn’t suggest anything close to that.

                  “There are people who claim the holocaust never happened. If they want to believe that there is nothing I can do about it”

                  So why were you telling Jeff “If there is something said that is stupid … then combat that with your better ideas” when you believe that your own better ideas have no impact?

                  I disagree that there’s nothing you can do. Of course there’s something you can do! At least if you interact with someone who falsely believes that the Holocaust never happened: engage them in conversation and challenge their false belief with facts, challenge them to present what they’re taking as evidence, … There’s no guarantee that you’ll be able to convince them, but that doesn’t mean that there’s nothing you can do.

                  Back to your claim “If there is something said that is stupid … then combat that with your better ideas. If you cannot do that then maybe you ideas or your intent are what you need to examine,” would you agree that “better ideas” do not always effectively combat stupid ideas (or worse, dangerous and even genocidal ideas)?

            2. Rusty,

              Mazel Tov! You are first Trumpist to take a stab at my questions!

              How do you contextualize what Turley frankly concedes is “dangerous” misinformation? Tell me. And why bother doing so if it is admittedly dangerous? Can you answer that?

              You say:

              “Deciding to just censor anyone who you disagree with …

              No, you are changing the subject. The subject is DANGEROUS misinformation, not “opinion with which you disagree.” I concede that the latter should not be censored, but I am asking about the former.

              Do you believe that the networks have no responsibility not to broadcast dangerous misinformation?

              1. I am not a “Trumpist” whatever that even means. Just because I am in favor of free speech does not mean I think that Trump was a good guy, or good for the country.

                1. Rusty,

                  A “Trumpist” is merely a “follower of Trump.” A “lying Trumpist” is someone who believes the election was stolen.

                  I’m glad that you are neither!

                  1. Anyone who believes in Jeff must be a Silbermaniac. If they believe in what Jeff says they must be a lying Silbermaniac.

                  2. There are good, smart people who offer comments on this site for consideration by others. There are good, smart people on this site who respond with substantive comment and critical thought. I’m glad that you are neither! Yours truly, lin.

                2. Rusty,

                  You evaded my question:

                  “Do you believe that the networks have no responsibility not to broadcast *dangerous* misinformation?

                  It’s a very simple question. Why don’t you want to answer it?

              2. “The subject is DANGEROUS misinformation, not “opinion with which you disagree.””

                Actually the subject is censoring ideas that are not popular only to find out later that they were not “DANGEROUS misinformation” but merely “opinion with which you disagree” and were inconvenient for the established narrative and powers that were backing those narratives.

                Even with the Trump example, you misconstrue what was said and then act like that is some kind of carte blanche to censor because you, intentionally or not cannot tell the difference between “DANGEROUS misinformation” and “opinion with which you disagree” or think that everyone is so stupid that they cannot determine that injecting bleach into their veins is a bad idea (which is not even what was said or implied unless you are intentionally trying to interpret something in the most absurd way possible).

                Now, I am done with trolls for the day, I should not have engaged at all, but free speech is kind of important to me.

                1. Let the record show that I put to Rusty the following questions:

                  1. How would you contextualize what Turley frankly concedes are Trump’s *dangerous* disinfectant musings? Tell me.

                  2. Do you believe that the networks have a moral and legal responsibility NOT to broadcast dangerous misinformation when there is a risk that their efforts to contextualize it may prove ineffective?

                  Let’s see if he will have the courage to answer them.

                  1. Let me be clear and let the record show that Siblermaniacs flood the airways on the left-wing media such as CNN. They engage in immorality that the Silbermaniacs love and adore. Do the Silbermaniacs know what misinformation is? No. Jeff has proven his inability to separate fact from fiction. All Silbermaniacs follow the Sibermaniac’s lead. They place ignorance on the top of a totem pole and pray in front of it.

          3. The entire event should dissected in context and the spin the opposing news outlets put out adnauseam. A Doctor who was on stage (whose probably innocent) failure to explicitly correct and take a laymans explanation and give a professional explanation to remove any misinformation. A contrarian will twist reality. If you take any and everything a person says or does and report negatively about them your a sophist. Our News now reports a narrative not facts. They’ve cooked a narrative by only using some facts and excluding others then opinions are stated as facts and then ad hominem attacks liberally mixed in and you have narrative to print on the front page every day for three years.

            1. John says:

              “Our News now reports a narrative not facts.”

              Does “our News” include Fox News? I don’t recall Turley EVER conceding that his network, Fox, has reported a narrative instead of facts.

              1. Fox News, TRUMP…is that all you ever think about?? It gets old. You need help. TDS is getting worse.

                1. Wen Bars says:

                  “Fox News, TRUMP…is that all you ever think about?? It gets old. You need help. TDS is getting worse.”

                  My shrink has a suggestion for you: turn to a different channel if you don’t like what you are hearing.

          4. Jeff, it is obvious you have no understanding of what goes on in the world today. You are ignorant. The next time you buy a product, read all the warnings. Some of them appear crazy but have nothing to do with Trump. That is something your mind has created in an attempt to make you feel virtuous. Maybe if you actually did something virtuous, your mind would stop thinking in that fashion.

            None of the warnings is Trump’s fault. If you want to find blame, blame a litigious society where the settlements are frequently ridiculous.

          5. I answered this question as a reply to another similar comment. Trump was very likely trying to refer to the compound chlorine dioxide, which can be used as a bleach, but has also been used as a therapy. Info about use of this soluble gas has largely been suppressed in the Western “developed” countries dominated by Big Pharma, but was used for a time reportedly successfully in Bolivia.

            1. Olde Edo,

              Since in your opinion Trump was telling the truth, you believe the networks failed its viewers by suppressing his musings about the efficacy of disinfectants?

      1. As much as I voted for Donald Trump, he is not Doctor Trump. I liked his policies on how this country should be governed and I liked his economic policies.

        1. Independent Bob,

          Like all the Trumpists, you are deliberately evading my tough questions:

          1. Since it is an article of faith that good speech invariably will inoculate bad speech, is it impermissible for a network to continue to censor Trump’s musings?

          2. Will Turley defend the freedom of speech of a network to begin re-broadcasting Trump’s harmful disinformation?

          3. Would Turley not be opposed to those who seek to ban Trump’s disinfectant statement even if it is harmful and argue that they should instead resign themselves to persuading his followers that he is an idiot and should not be heeded.

          Care to take a crack at them?

          1. Sure JeffSilberman I’ll take a crack at your questions about what Trump said. Unlike you I wont just make things up in my head. https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/24/context-what-donald-trump-said-about-disinfectant-/. As you see it, Trump must consider that some kook somewhere will take his every statement to heart and do something harmful to himself out of blind belief. Has any one else noticed that JeffSiberman never presents any outside source that bolsters his imaginations. We understand. Jeff is still whipping down his groceries. Shush. Don’t tell him.

            1. TiT says:

              “As you see it, Trump must consider that some kook somewhere will take his every statement to heart and do something harmful to himself out of blind belief.”

              Not just me who sees it, Turley does too!

              It is NOT what Trump considers what some Trumpist will do to harm himself out of his blind loyalty to him, BUT what the networks- the NETWORKS- think some idiot Trumpist will do!

              WHY DOESN’T FOX CONTINUE TO BROADCAST TRUMP’S DISINFECTANT MUSINGS? WHO ARE THEY TO DECIDE THAT TRUMP’S SPEECH IS TOO DANGEROUS FOR HIS KOOKS TO HEAR?

              1. JeffSilberman, the only one who continues to broadcast that Trump’s every word is dangerous on a daily basis is you. The networks still continue to tell us that disinfecting surfaces is still a good idea even if someone might extrapolate that drinking disinfectant might cure their Covid. At least when something has been debunked, unlike you, the networks move on. Perhaps they are not so challenged with their phobia that they never decide to let it go.

                1. TiT,

                  I take it then you agree with me that Networks SHOULD NOT broadcast dangerous misinformation. They should have censored Trump’s DEBUNKED disinfectant musings.

                  But WHO decides what is and what is not BUNKUM?

                  1. All that needs to be done is what is usually done, place Trump’s words in the proper context. Trump is neither a doctor nor a scientist. The idea of putting things directly into the lungs to fight an existing problem is presently done. In fact, some of the people on this blog use such things. That you don’t know about them makes you ignorant on the subject, so maybe that is why you fail so badly understanding what Trump says.

                    1. S. Meyer: “The idea of putting things directly into the lungs to fight an existing problem is presently done. ”

                      +++

                      Commonly with Covid since steroids fight the inflammation that damages the lungs. Some use a nebulizer with budesonide.

                    2. Young, you win the grand prize, a picture of Jeff with an open raincoat. You exposed his ignorance.

            2. Thinkitthrough: I am beginning to think that JeffSilberman must have applied for a job at FOX and was not selected. I just cannot understand why, no matter what the blog of the day is substantively discussing, he reverts to Trump and FOx. He. just. can’t. let.it..go….There are so many good substantive comments (like yours) to engage on—like you citing the Politifact piece-that he did not address at all. I read your comments all the time, and thank you for them!

          2. He’s not Dr. Trump. For 3 years this country was headed in the right direction. Businesses were expanding peoples 401k plans and IRAs were growing in value. There were quarters when there was 4% growth. Obama said we would be lucky to see 2% rate of growth. What the hell do I care about his home remedies. I couldn’t believe the rate of growth in my retirement funds. I suppose I should listen to Fauci. That’s the reason I voted for Trump and he came through.

            1. Bob,

              Don’t change the subject. Since you are ducking my questions, I take it that you believe that there is NO speech so dangerous (short of inciting imminent violence) that a network should responsibly refuse to broadcast. The risk that a few Trumpists may poison themselves is the price you are willing to pay to prevent any network presuming to ban some speech it believes is too dangerous to publish.

              1. Who’s going to do the censoring? You. Who is the omnipotent being that will determine who should be heard, and who shouldn’t? Oh I know who, Nancy Pelosi.

                1. Independent Bob asks:

                  “Who’s going to do the censoring? You. Who is the omnipotent being that will determine who should be heard, and who shouldn’t? Oh I know who, Nancy Pelosi.”

                  First, I’m trying to be serious. You are not. The persons doing the censoring are the lawyers at the networks who review the show scripts to make sure there are no defamatory statements in the talk show’s monologues. After Fox was sued for defamation by the election machine companies, Fox canned all talk of conspiracy theories about how these election companies were involved in stealing the election. The Trump lawyers expounding this disinformation have been banned from the network. Fox will not broadcast live Trump’s rallies because he too will not stop claiming the election was rigged.

                  All of this is Fox censorship. Is Turley complaining about it? A lot of Trumpists have ceased watching Fox in favor of Newsmax or OAN because these networks are not censoring the *stop the steal* narrative.

                  Each network decides what to broadcast. If a network can act legally to prevent broadcasting information which poses a threat of defaming a person’s or company’s reputation, it certainly can decide not to broadcast disinformation which may pose a danger to its viewers’ health.

                  1. jeffsilberman: You just said ” A lot of Trumpists have ceased watching Fox in favor of Newsmax or OAN because these networks are not censoring the *stop the steal* narrative.” Where in the world did you get that information from? Please cite. Thank you in advance.

                    1. I watch these networks. I speak with authority. Do you watch Fox and Newsmax in prime time?

              2. Jeff, let me take another stab at this.
                We can debate whether Trump actually said to drink disinfectant. The fact that Lysol put out a statement leads me to believe that their lawyers were trying to preempt possible lawsuits if anyone died or had ill effects from drinking their product.
                Do I think that that any network should censor the President? Absolutely not!! Should they voice concerns over his comments up to and including rebuttal? Absolutely!
                The problem as I see it is this new desire to limit ” disinformation” or ” misinformation. Two words that I am really starting to hate. In my world there are no actual ramifications from ‘disinformation”. or ” misinformation” There are stupid people being duped. There are people too lazy to do their ” homework. Or have enough common sense to seek pertinent information from appropriate authorities. I don’t go to my car mechanic for medical advise. I don’t go to my doctor when my car is making a funny noise. My father told me many things that I dismissed that I later found to be absolutely true. But I lived and learned. Did any of the things that I ignored cost me my life? No. But in some cases they could have. I was fortunate. We as a society cannot expect others to save us from ourselves. Unfortunately, the consequences of that is sometimes dire. Unless it is a case of suicide, no heroin addict wanted to overdose and die. But my guess is they knew that was a possibility and chose to take a chance. You can’t save this person from themself. And I don’t think there is a lot of ” “misinformation” on heroin use. The price of using censorship to ” protect” individuals from themselves is too great.
                Before the ” Little Brother vs. Big Brother ” debate, I understand that private entities like Twitter can set their own ” censorship” standards.
                On Fox not broadcasting certain individuals, that is most likely a business decision. Not popular people. My guess is the same logic is used by left leaning networks not having Louis Farrakhan’s latest speech commented on.
                The problem with ” misinformation” is not that it’s prohibition ideally is to protect the innocent, but WHO GETS TO DECIDE what is misinformation? As I said previously, any suggestion that Covid emanated from the Wuhan lab was previously labeled ” misinformation”. Now it is becoming a viable explanation. ( And as I said previously in my opinion the mostly likely explanation.) In my estimation the entity that decides what is ” misinformation” is the individual. Not some network executive or some unelected bureaucrat. And just as a side note, the definition of bureaucrat is, ” an official in a government department, in particular one PERCEIVED as being concerned with PROCEDURAL CORRECTNESS at the expense of people’s needs” Think about that definition for a moment! Not my definition, Oxford’s.
                I am going to say something hyperbolic to emphasis my free speech advocacy. If some network, any network, wanted to have a daily reading of Mein Kampf and extoll it’s virtues, I have absolutely no problem with that. Actually given the recent rise in anti- Semitism I would welcome it. Because that would open the door to rebuttal. And educate.
                And on a somewhat related note, even though the combined I.Q of the hosts on “The View” is lower than room temperature, the suspension of Whoopi ( Caryn Johnson) is wrong. What she said was reprehensible, but understandable. When you literally only see things as black and white dismissing other factors is foreseeable
                She apologized and now it is time to move on.
                I know I cut off our previous communication because of a family issue. But I do not recall you commenting on my synopsis of the three branches of government, particularly in my estimation the singular role of the Supreme Court. I would be very interested in your opinion.

                1. Paul you say:

                  “We as a society cannot expect others to save us from ourselves.”

                  Yes, but why make it harder for people to save themselves by not responsibly removing knowingly false and harmful information?

                  Why is that we have laws against defamation and false advertising? Should networks NOT act *responsibly* by refusing to broadcast that which they would be held liable for damages in a court of law? That is nonsensical! I’m not advocating government censorship. Just responsible journalism. Why do we have schools of journalism and ethics in that profession? To publish fact-based information and not to publish falsehoods. Are networks always correct? Hell no. But they should make a good faith effort and not devolve into an Infowars which Turley would disparage if ever he were asked.

                  You say:

                  “In my estimation the entity that decides what is ” misinformation” is the individual. Not some network executive or some unelected bureaucrat.”

                  Again, why have journalists? Why have company legal counsel to vet stories? The government does not decide. Journalists and lawyers do. You don’t like their filter, then change the channel. You have no liability if they publish defamation, but they do. You have no loss of reputation if they report misinformation, but they do. Put yourself in THEIR shoes.

                  I agree that Whoopi should not have been suspended. She made a stupid comment; not a malicious one.

                  You say:

                  “If some network, any network, wanted to have a daily reading of Mein Kampf and extoll it’s virtues, I have absolutely no problem with that.”

                  Nor do I. I also have no problem if no mainstream of Rightwing network refuses to air that show. And I would have no objection if the satellite or cable company told that network to take a hike because it refuses to facilitate anti-semitism. The Nazis still have ham radio and can hand out leaflets.

                  1. Jeff, you say ” knowingly false and harmful information” .Others use the all encompassing ” misinformation and disinformation” .Which has become in many cases OPINIONS that they don’t agree with. In the case of the disinfectant accusation, it was broadcast and printed and referred to by many. To my knowledge no network or any other entity has been sued for reporting the story. So there appears to be no legal ramifications. So we are back to disinformation. And who gets to decide what falls into that category.
                    Again, the price of “protecting” vs. censorship by any entity in my opinion is too great of a price to pay. Unless you are using a platform to instigate violence, or organize a crime, censorship is off the table for me. I am also not talking about defamation. That is a whole different ballgame. Defamation is a far cry from the
                    perceived ” crime of misinformation”.
                    You are too intelligent not to think that journalists in many cases have an agenda. That doesn’t mean the abolition of journalists. It means being smart enough to comprehend their slant.
                    And you have legal council to protect against actual defamation liability, not ” misinformation”.
                    Just watched a ” Law and Order” rerun today and it made me think of this topic. A guy pleaded guilty to a torture- murder and his defense was that all of the violence on T.V made him do it. I know this is fiction but I see a similarity. In my book, regardless of media, television shows, podcasts, books, movies, social media or anything else anyone digests viscerally, the individual is responsible for their own actions and well being.

                    To my knowledge the false advertising laws protect against people purchasing products under false pretenses. Not having a contrary opinion.

                    Any comment on my duties of the three branches of government? Specifically my interpretation of the ONE DUTY of the Supreme Court. In case you forgot, IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?

                    1. Paul,

                      Look, we have to distinguish between two categories: mere opinion regardless how hateful and universally recognized disinformation. Turley recognizes the two categories. That is why he would not criticize networks refusing to broadcast Trump’s disinfectant musings. That’s why networks don’t put on people who subscribe to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. There are responsible limits which journalists will not cross. Thank goodness. You can Google it. Fine. But responsible networks won’t broadcast such crap as “information.” They will rightly label it disinformation which is effectively calling it “fake news” which is tantamount to censoring it, for it if not to be believed even though you heard it!

                      Please refresh my addled memory about the 3 branches.

                      How did you do on Sunday?

                  2. Jeff, cannot respond to your post on Feb. 3 6:09 PM. Only gives me the ” Like” option.
                    First the easy part. On Sunday I broke even. Was up 28-10 with K.C. and had the ball 1st and goal from the 1 with 5 seconds left with no time outs. K.C. chooses to run 1 more play instead of kicking field goal. Which I have no problem with. Maholmes does the ONE THING he cannot do. Not throw the ball into the end zone. ( Taking a turnover out of the equation). He completes a pass in bounds and Hill gets tackled short of the goal line. I knew I was dead then.
                    Had S.F and won by the ” hook”.

                    On the 3 branches. I can’t find the initial post by Turley where I ” came off of the bench”. Maybe you can find it. When it comes to technology, no one on the planet has less knowledge than me.
                    It had to do with the upcoming Supreme Court nomination. I stated that the Republicans were morons by putting out any objections prior to Dementia Joe naming a candidate. You said something about Biden ” saying the quiet part out loud”.
                    I then referenced a statement by Crazy Mazie saying something like the next justice should know the law (duh) but also take the societal impact of her rulings into consideration.
                    I totally disagree. And you said to the best of my recollection that Mazie’s statement made sense.
                    I then went on to say that from what I remember from civics class, there are 3 branches of government. And without stating all of the Articles involving the 3 branches, in a very narrow definition here is how I understand the duties and power of each branch.
                    Executive: enforce the laws. Not it’s only duty but primary
                    Legislative: Write the laws. Not it’s only duty but primary.
                    Judicial: ( for the purposes of this conversation, The Supreme Court.). ONE DUTY ONLY. Is it Constitutional or not?
                    Addressing societal problems falls to the Judicial branch. Not The Supreme Court. That is the problem. What some cannot address or change by a Constitutional
                    remedy ( Congress) they try to achieve by the Court.
                    The reason that this end run is wrong is it takes ELECTED people out of the decision making process and substitutes APPOINTED individuals who once seated are no longer accountable to the voters.
                    If you want to make a case for term limits for the Court, that is a different argument.
                    In my opinion the Court should never let outside noise influence their decision. And I understand that the Court has overturned itself in the past. But it must be in my mind something super significant like Dred Scott. Otherwise stare decisis must be adhered to. And with new issues, the Constitution document itself should be their only source for decision making.
                    And if there is a law that some oppose or part of the Constitution that some think that needs to be changed, the Electoral College comes to mind, this fantastic document ( Constitution) has a remedy for that. It is called an Amendment.
                    I am not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar. But recently I did take the time to read the entire Constitution. And speaking as a layman, I think that the Founding Fathers wrote a fantastic document. Especially given the time it was written. Some elements of the Magna Carta, which I also took the time to read, but nonetheless in my mind an absolutely brilliant document.

                    As of right now I have no idea who I will play in the Super Bowl. Probably will use my primary indicator of who to bet. Go against the public. And I sure hope that anyone attending the game, if they take their mask off, remembers to hold their breath.

                    .

                    1. Paul,

                      I’m glad you were not a loser on Sunday. I watched the games. Personally, I prefer college football, but I’ll watch the playoffs. So you will bet the underdog Bengals? I’d betting the underdog historically a safer bet? I would think so. I like to root for the underdog. I’m sure Trumpists root for the favorite.

                      Your understanding of the 3 branches is correct, but it is naive to think that the SC only interprets the law. It makes law- the common law- which fills law libraries. Courts make far more law than Legislatures who merely pass statutes! It’s applying those laws to the human experience is where the law is really fleshed out and made. And it’s inevitable that justices consider the social consequences of their interpretation of the intent of the Legislature.

                      Every decision is a new precedent- new common law. To say that Liberal justices make law and Conservative one’s don’t is a smear. They both make law. To rule that the 2nd Amendment includes a personal right to gun ownership is not stated in the Constitution. It was implied by the conservatives; some would say made up just like finding a right of privacy to justify abortion.

                      Don’t fool yourself; both sides accuse the other of doing what they both claim they don’t do.

                      If I had more time, I would have written a shorter reply!

                  3. Jeff, once again I only have the ” Like ” option for your post of Feb.5 5 :12.
                    I am an underdog better also. Nothing is more satisfying than winning with the points. Especially by ” the hook”. It is easy to pick an obvious favorite. And I root for the underdog in life also.
                    I do find it interesting though that you can’t resist having the name ” Trump” in a context ( betting) that has absolutely no possible tangential connection.
                    Don’t know who I will play in the game yet . My heart says Bengals. But I have found that betting with my heart, rather than my head has not been successful.
                    Remember, I am from Chicago.

                    You say ” it is inevitable that justices consider social consequences”. I am not disputing human nature. But my point is, if my interpretation of the ONE DUTY of the Supreme Court is accurate, should they? Does the Constitution at least in spirit, if not in actuality , prohibit the justices from making any ruling on the Constitutionality of any issue, to use any source outside of the document itself, to come to a conclusion?

                    I never said that only Liberal justices make law. Neither side should.

                    And again, not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar, but didn’t Heller address the individual right to bear arms?

                    No need to limit your replies.

                    On an unrelated point, but on a subject matter that is obviously close to your heart, my hope is that Trump doesn’t run. Up to and including an unlawful and unconstitutional prohibition. Him running will tear this country apart. Country before party. But as a conservative my wish is that someone who more reflects my values would be elected. And in my mind, he is unelectable.

                    Be well.

                    1. Paul,

                      What does by “the hook” mean? BTW, I don’t understand the rationale of overtime rules. Why is the NFL rule superior to the college? Why should the winner of a coin flip win the game upon getting a touchdown? It seems to me that the other team ought to have the same opportunity. If the first team scores a touchdown, put the ball on the other team’s 25 yard line and see if they score a touchdown. If not, they lose. If they do, then sudden death.

                      The SC should not write law like a legislature, that is, make up laws, but in applying a law to facts in a case before it, that decision sets a precedent which becomes law. Are you saying the judges ought not to consider the public policy ramifications of their decision? Maybe that could be the deciding factor one way or the other. Some laws are vague, and they could be interpreted either way in good faith. Public policy may be the only decisive means by which to argue which interpretation is more rationale. Read some court cases. You’ll find that all kinds of arguments are employed in applying a law to a set of facts that falls through the cracks. Legislatures can’t think of everything and anticipate all factual scenarios. Courts have to put themselves in the shoes of the Legislature when interpreting a law.

                      Trump won’t let the Big Lie go, and he is tearing the Republican Party apart. Believing in the Big Lie has become a litmus test. EVERYONE must declare which side they are on. We know where Turley stands though he is not outspoken which is a shameful failing on his part. People must be heard loudly and unmistakably in order to defeat Trumpism. Silence is not an option in times like these. It begets demagogues.

                      Closeted Republican NeverTrumpers are praying that the justice system will make a felon of Trump so that they can use that stigma to give them the plausible deniability when they are accused of betraying him. They will argue that the party cannot nominate a convicted felon even if the case was rigged! They will argue that when Trump’s conviction is overturned on appeal, then he will be our leader again!

                  4. Jeff, only have “like” option for your reply of Feb 5 3:47 . Must be me.

                    The ” hook” is a half point. I had S.F + 3 & 1/2. L.A. won by 3. Therefore I won the bet.
                    I agree with you on the O.T rules. Each team should at least have 1 possession in O.T. But even in college after a certain number of tries from the 25, if the teams are still tied, they are prohibited from kicking the extra point and must go for 2. Expediency?

                    You make some good points on legislature. They cannot anticipate all factual scenarios. But neither can the Court. So again we are trying to anticipate a possible negative effect of a law on society. And my guess is a” negative effect” is sometimes perceived as negative based on political philosophy. You mentioned the 2nd Amendment. My guess is your political philosophy doesn’t agree with Heller. Does it? Hence the need for the Supreme Court. Potential laws are debated in committee and on the floors sometimes for weeks. That is where it is incumbent on our elected leaders to debate on societal effects before giving it to the President to sign into law. Does this mean that they anticipate every possible effect on society on every law. Of course not. But no system is infallible. And if they make a ” mistake” they can remedy that later. Legislatively.

                    Maybe you could help me with some self analysis. I don’t consider myself a Never Trumper nor a Trumpist. What does that make me?

                    1. Paul,

                      Statistically is taking the points are better bet? Teams ahead typically take their foot off the gas allowing the underdog to score meaningless points unless you are a bettor. I don’t ever want to root for a team to win a bet as opposed to win a game!

                      The SC often looks at Legislative intent in the House and Senate debates of the pros and cons of a law in order to determine its meaning. They look at Federal Circuit Courts’ opinions, they can even consider State SC opinions all in an effort to apply a law. I’m not sure there is anything that is off limits for their consideration. That’s the nature of being a judge. I would think that the worse judges consider too LITTLE information than too much!

                      Of course, the Legislature often amends a law if a court misinterprets it.

                      It is evident you are not a Trumpist. The question is why you are not a NeverTrumper like Turley and me. Tell me what you make of this post of mine:

                      https://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/03/a-stain-on-our-democracy-vindman-sues-donald-trump-jr-rudy-giuliani-and-others-for-witness-intimidation/comment-page-3/#comment-2156329

                    2. Paul,

                      Re: the only option being “Like” and not “Reply,” if you look at the comments on a page, you’ll see that a reply to a top-level comment is indented, then a reply to a reply is indented again, etc. The commenting system here only allows so many levels of indentation before it cuts off the replies. It’s not just you. One option is to do what you’ve done: go up to previous comment that allows replies and reply there. Another option is to use the email notification system, which allows one to reply that way (but then you have to deal with getting emails with all of the comments that are posted).

                      Rest assured that everyone who replies via the web interface encounters this problem. It’s because the WordPress commenting system isn’t very well designed. Other commenting systems (like Disqus) stop indenting without cutting off replies.

Leave a Reply