Below is my column in the Hill on the leak and the refusal of President Joe Biden to denounce such conduct. It is a defining moment for his presidency that, even in the face of such a disgraceful and unethical act, the President cannot muster the courage to condemn it. He then magnified that failure by refusing to condemn the doxing and targeting of justices and their families at their homes.
Here is the column:
Nearly 70 years ago, a little-known lawyer named Joseph Welch famously confronted Sen. Joseph McCarthy (D-Wis.) in defense of a young man hounded over alleged un-American views. Welch told McCarthy that “I think I have never really gauged … your recklessness” before asking: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
It was a defining moment in American politics as Welch called out a politician who had abandoned any semblance of principle in the pursuit of political advantage. This week, the same scene played out in the White House with one striking difference: This was no Joseph Welch to be found.
After someone in the Supreme Court leaked a draft opinion in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a virtual flash-mob formed around the court and its members demanding retributive justice. This included renewed calls for court “packing,” as well as the potential targeting of individual justices at their homes. Like the leaking of the opinion itself, the doxing of justices and their families is being treated as fair game in our age of rage.
There is more than a license to this rage; there is an addiction to it. That was evident in March 2020 when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood in front of the Supreme Court to threaten Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by name: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Schumer’s reckless rhetoric was celebrated, not condemned, by many on the left, even after he attempted to walk it back by stating that “I should not have used the words I used … they did not come out the way I intended to.”
What occurred at the White House this week is even more troubling. When asked for a response to the leaking of a justice’s draft opinion, White House press secretary Jen Psaki declined to condemn the leaker and said the real issue was the opinion itself. Then she was asked about the potential targeting of justices and their families at their homes, and whether that might be considered extreme. It should have been another easy question; few Americans would approve of such doxing, particularly since some of the justices have young children at home. Yet Psaki declared that “I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest,” adding that “peaceful protest is not extreme.”
In reality, not having an official position on doxing and harassing Supreme Court justices and their families is a policy.
Whether protests are judged to be extreme seems often to depend upon their underlying viewpoints. When Westboro Baptist Church activists protested at the funeral of Beau Biden, it was peaceful — but many critics rightly condemned the demonstration as extreme; some even approved of Westboro activists being physically assaulted. When the church brought its case before the Supreme Court, some of us supported its claims despite our vehement disagreement with their views, but 42 senators filed an amicus brief asking the court to deny free-speech protections for such protests. The court ultimately ruled 8-1 in favor of the church.
In this case, the Biden administration and the Justice Department have condemned the court’s leaked draft — but not the threatened protests at justices’ homes, even though those arguably could be treated as a crime. Under 18 U.S.C. 1507, it is a federal crime to protest near a residence occupied by a judge or jury with the intent to influence their decisions in pending cases, and this case remains pending. (Ironically, prosecution could be difficult if the protesters said they had no intent other than to vent anger.)
Even if protests at justices’ homes are constitutionally protected, that does not make them right, any more than the lawful Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954 were right.
In 1954, the left was targeted for its political views; today, it is the left which is calling for censorship, blacklisting and doxing. In such moments of reckless rage, presidents often have become calming voices, tempering extremist passions in their own parties. When they have failed to do so, history has judged them harshly, as in the case of President Eisenhower’s belated condemnation of Sen. McCarthy, something he reportedly regretted for the rest of his life.
President Biden has repeatedly shown that polls, not principles, guide his presidency. He showed integrity as a senator by denouncing court packing as a “bonehead … terrible, terrible” idea. However, he has stayed silent as today’s Democrats have pushed to pack the court with an instant liberal majority, a demand that increased this week. Biden long supported the Senate’s filibuster rule and said efforts to eliminate it would be “disastrous” — but when today’s mob formed, he flipped and denounced the filibuster as a “relic” of the Jim Crow era.
Even on abortion, Biden has shifted with the polls. He once opposed Roe v. Wade and supported an amendment that would negate the decision. At the time, he declared that “I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.” Now President Biden has switched his position without really switching his logic. He recently declared that he supported Roe because “I’m just a child of God; I exist” and thus can decide what happens to his body. Accordingly, he denounced the Supreme Court’s draft opinion as “radical” and affirmed the right of a woman “to abort a child.“
Whether it is court leaking, packing, doxing or other tactics, many Democratic politicians and pundits continue to follow the mob rather than risk its ire.
Our national addiction to rage is captured in three indelible images. In June 2020, there was the White House surrounded by security fencing after nights of arson and rioting; in January 2021, Congress was surrounded by the same fencing after rioting that momentarily halted the certification of the presidential election. Now the set is complete with photos of the Supreme Court encased in the same fencing.
All three branches, having to be protected from enraged citizens on the left or the right.
Schumer’s 2020 pledge that justices would “pay the price” has been realized as they and their families are now bunkered in their homes. Despite the shocking image of a court system under attack, President Biden has not mustered the courage to dissuade these protesters. He appears to be following the lead of French revolutionary Abbe Sieyes, who watched as his 1789-99 revolution spun out of control; asked what he had done during “the Terror,” he replied: “I survived.”
President Biden is now in survival mode, too. It seems he does not lack decency, just the courage to defend it.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
The news is reporting that Justice Alito has gone into hiding and is holed up at an undisclosed location. Apparently he’s afraid of a bunch of women chanting in the street in front of his house. So do you think Biden lent him the use of Camp David? Um, no! Could he be at Mar-a-Lago? Possibly…but not likely. Is the Governor of Mississippi toasting him at a former plantation? Wouldn’t surprise me….Or maybe he’s on the run with that fugitive and his prison guard lover from Alabama, lol.
“The news is reporting that Justice Alito has gone into hiding and is holed up at an undisclosed location.”
Is it? Or is it rumor mongering?
Ilya Shapiro said he’d heard that, but he also said he was unsure whether it was true: “I don’t have any non-public sources.” “I forget whether I saw the rumor on Twitter or somebody told me. I don’t know.”
Federal law makes it illegal to picket near a judge’s home because an honest legal system cannot be subject to physical intimidation.
18 U.S.C. Sec.1507
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
One synonym for protest is demonstration.
Clearly this law as written includes all forms of protests in or near the homes of the Judges.
Protesters should be arrested, just like those who trespassed onto the US Capitol grounds on January 6, 2020.
Notice that the DOJ needs to prove intent for 18 U.S.C. 1507, which is not required in proving trespass.
“Notice that the DOJ needs to prove intent for 18 U.S.C. 1507, which is not required in proving trespass.”
What is the purpose of protesting ?
It is an intention to influence the Judges – otherwise why would they be protesting ?
Again, people protest for diverse reasons: to express frustration, to educate or influence the general public, …
That you, personally, assume that intent is there doesn’t matter legally. The DOJ has to prove it in court with evidence, and it can’t rely on your personal opinion.
Evidence is so overrated.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 Cute! Seems so these days.
Congress must establish a “MAY 9 COMMISSION” to investigate “INSURRECTION” against the duly elected and appointed government of the United States of America.
“It is a defining moment for his presidency that, even in the face of such a disgraceful and unethical act, the President cannot muster the courage to condemn it. He then magnified that failure by refusing to condemn the doxing and targeting of justices and their families at their homes.”
******************************
Unmustered courage has nothing to do with it at all. It’s about unity of sentiment and refusal to condemn your friends in an effort to cling to undeserved authority. Let’s call a spade a spade. These Dim folks meet every classic definition of evil – cowardly, prickly, malevolent, haters of civilization, scornful, envious, belligerent, crude, ungrateful, profane, racalcitrant and loud. Oh and dumb, the very sine qua non of evil – truly dumb and in an arrogant way.
Let them consume themselves as every evil revolution does with a little help, that is.
“Terror is only justice: prompt, severe, inflexible; it is, therefore, an emanation of virtue.”
– Maximilien Robespierre.
An expert on today’s Democrat, Robespierre was once the darling of the French mob. Here’s how he ended up:
“Declared an outlaw by the National Convention, Robespierre severely wounded himself by a pistol shot in the jaw at the Hôtel de Ville, throwing his friends into confusion. The soldiers of the National Convention attacked the Hôtel de Ville and easily seized Robespierre and his followers. In the evening of 10 Thermidor (July 28), the first 22 of those condemned, including Robespierre, were guillotined before a cheering mob on the Place de la Révolution (now the Place de la Concorde). In all, 108 people died for adherence to Robespierre’s cause.”
~Encyclopedia Britannica
We all can see Joe Welch himself. He played the presiding judge in Otto Preminger’s film “Anatomy of a Murder.” Sadly, Welch was never elevated to the bench.
I don’t know where to begin. Turley complains about a POTUS who refuses to condemn a “disgraceful and unethical act”, that being the leak of a draft SCOTUS opinion that reeks of intellectual dishonesty, that took away a Constitutional right on the flimsiest of theories, written and supported by judges who LIED their way onto the SCOTUS for the specific purpose of pursuing the hard-right agenda of banning abortion. Each of them was appointed by a president who LOST the popular vote. But this isn’t what Turley finds “disgraceful and unethical”–it’s the early release that has his shorts in a twist. Turley also rails over “a politician who had abandoned any semblance of principle in the pursuit of political advantage.” Really? What about that fat, spray-painted fool who cheated his way into office with the help of a hostile foreign power, and after never receiving even a 50% approval rating, after trashing the successful economy he inherited and botching a pandemic causing the country to shut down for 2 years and putting us in a recession, when he lost re-election, fomented a riot by lying about losing? Next, the loser tried to bully state election officials to falsify election results, went on “stop the steal campaigns”, tried to litigate his way to stay in power, and when that didn’t work, fomented an insurrection. Where’s your outrage over “any semblance of principle” as to this conduct? Turley isn’t being paid to be either fair, reasonable or balanced–he is paid to attack Joe Biden, who has bigger fish to fry than some internal security issue within the SCOTUS.
Truth is, no one knows who leaked the opinion, which could well have been one of the justices themselves. I’ve heard credible theories on both sides of the argument about whether it was a liberal or Trumpian justice, some law clerk or whomever, but at the end of the day, we don’t know who and we don’t know why. In any event, it’s not Joe Biden’s problem. And, I don’t personally find anything “unethical” about a heads up on the unprecedented act of taking away a Constitutional right by people who don’t belong on the SCOTUS in the first place.
Progressives are totally untethered to any moral or ethical center so it was clearly the unethical act of a liberal lunatic clerk. Who almost certainly did not act alone. This was a coordinated leak. From the left.
The other obvious point: Does anyone really believe a journalist would protect the identity of a conservative clerk?
Not for one second.
+100
Natacha, the justices did say that Roe is established law but they did not say that established law may never be overturned. As an example, the Jim Crow laws were established law. According to your interpretation the Jim Crow laws should never have been overturned. Politicians on both sides of the isle are in agreement that the leak was a complete breach of ethics. You however give us excuses for why the leak is justified. Democrats have found the leak to be unethical because they have a sense of what is ethical and you do not.
They never hinted that they believed Roe was “egregiously wrong”, which was their opinion that the deceitfully failed to disclose when directly asked about Roe. The “leak” is the failure of the SCOTUS’s internal security measures, and what’s the big deal about hearing what they’re planning to do the month before it was schedule to be released.
There are even some of you Trumpster morons out there who have tried to blame Judge Ketanji Jackson for the leak, and she’s not even on the Court and doesn’t even have an office there.
That right – scotus nominees are not even ethically allowed to hint at cases that might come in front of them.
I’m going to say this one last time: each of the 5 who will presumably vote to take away reproductive freedoms and set the stage for other freedoms to be abolished was asked his/her opinion about ROE, not about hypothetical cases. This excuse is just some crap you got from alt-right media.
You really are clueless.
There is ALWAYS an abortion case coming to the supreme court.
No justice can EVER discuss how they might rule on something that will come before them in the future.
They can not speak of Rowe in the way you claim – because – as we see now – challenges to Rowe are certain.
Who tried to blame Jackson ? No one I am aware of – fake news.
Should we send camera’s to the jury room of criminal trials ?
This is the same. The justices are the “jury” for the cases they hear.
Drafts are not final oppinions – the vote may change, and with certainty the opinion will change.
SCOTUS is supposed to act based on the law and constitution – not political or public opinion.
Say says:
“SCOTUS is supposed to act based on the law and constitution – not political or public opinion.”
For once you agree with me. The leak was an abominable act. The protests in front of the Justices’ houses are disgraceful. The Justices must ignore all public opinion. Their duty is to follow the law and weigh the arguments on both sides.
Nor do I believe the conservative Justices lied in their confirmation statements about Roe. Nothing they said could legitimately be taken as a promise as to how they would vote on Roe. Such a guarantee is impermissible. If a Senator wanted to discern where they stood on Roe, the Justices’ prior decisions and dicta were the best evidence.
I condemn the leak. I wouldn’t even read the draft opinion. I’d wait for the final one. I’m not against criticizing a Justice’s jurisprudence and the rationale of his or her opinion, but you don’t protest against a sitting judge. You rightly protest a politician who serves his constituency. Judges must ignore the mob.
We agree – mostly.
It is pretty arrogant to presume I have chosen to agree with you – given that my views – not just on this but most everything are consistent, and yours are not.
NO it is not to weigh the arguments on both sides.
it is to follow the law and the constitution.
The purpose of adversarial arguments is to assure they do not miss something significant.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
That is ONE reason we have free speech.
It is why we have adversarial debate.
Thank you, Master, you are my teacher.
Jeff,
THANK YOU!! PERFECT!!! You are a gentleman and a scholar.
If more on ” your side” would not consider this and other issues” us vs, them” like you do this would be a much better country. We will never agree on everything, but is civility too much to ask?
I am civil.
You may think you are civil but your words prove otherwise.
Paul would you be willing to hold the money for a wager I have against some anonymous person on this blog? I would send you my wager, and we’ll see if he will do the same. We could do it by PayPal. Probably $100.
If Turley approves of the 2000 Mules movie, he wins. If Turley disapproves (or ignores mentioning it), send the money to me.
You are the only person we both trust!
What do you say?
Natacha, protesting in front of a jury members or a judges house is against the law. If you are encouraging the breaking of the law it can only be understood that you are a Domestic Terrorist and you should be investigated by The Justice Department.
Ti T,
Read more carefully.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
See the part about ‘intent’?
See the part about ‘intent’?
Al the video provides proof of intent.
I invite you to link to video that you believe shows “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or … intent of influencing any judge … in the discharge of his duty.” (But I won’t hold my breath.)
Your evidenceless assertion is worthless.
Shouting at justices at their homes to change their vote is quite literally what the law makes illegal.
There is no provision in the law that says you can terrorize a judge in their homes, if you believe you are right.
Regardless, you do not actually have the right to speak freely whenever and wherever you like.
Nearly all of us accept that you can be thrown off another persons property for ranting in their home.
If you are free to protest (disrupt the peace) at a judge or supreme court justices home – can I play Led Zepplin at 120db pointed at your home at 2am ?
I didn’t encourage anything, nor do I have any duty to condemn such conduct. People do have a First Amendment right to make known their opinions, so I disagree that “protesting in front of a judge’s house is against the law”. What law? I could take a page from the Q-Anon playbook: maybe it was radical right wingers who are doing this to make pro-choice people look bad. Truthfully, I really don’t care one way or the other so long as no one is exceeding their First Amendment right to freedom of speech by trespassing or engaging in other criminal behavior beyond mere protesting. I note that citizens do take seriously the revocation of a Constitutionally protected right and people who lie to get onto the SCOTUS so they can shove their personal political philosophies down the throats of other people. I also note that abortion providers have been harassed by hard-righters like you, who even killed a physician.
“people who lie to get onto the SCOTUS so they can shove their personal political philosophies down the throats of other people”
You mean like Ketanji, Sonia, and even RBG, who all lied by omission.
Ketanji flatout lied.
“I didn’t encourage anything, nor do I have any duty to condemn such conduct.”
I will repeat that back to you next time you demand that Trump ro the rest of us condemn something that bothers you.
“People do have a First Amendment right to make known their opinions,”
Correct – in a public forum. Not at someone else’s home.
You can protest in front of banks, or stores, or the courthouse.
You can not in front of private homes.
There is a point at which protest becomes terrorizim – and that is NOT basd on what is being protested – but WHERE the protest is tking place.
” I disagree that “protesting in front of a judge’s house is against the law”.”
The law does not care if you agree.
” What law?”
Look it up.
“I could take a page from the Q-Anon playbook: maybe it was radical right wingers who are doing this to make pro-choice people look bad.”
Actually that is a tactic exclusively used by the left.
Can you cite a single incident of a right winger faking being a left winger ? The reverse is common place – look at Jussie SMollet – or several of the most egregious J6 protestors.
“Truthfully, I really don’t care one way or the other so long as no one is exceeding their First Amendment right to freedom of speech by trespassing or engaging in other criminal behavior beyond mere protesting.”
In most of the country there are noise ordinances, and you can not be loud during the night.
“I note that citizens do take seriously the revocation of a Constitutionally protected right and people who lie to get onto the SCOTUS so they can shove their personal political philosophies down the throats of other people. I also note that abortion providers have been harassed by hard-righters like you, who even killed a physician.”
There have been very few actually violent acts targeting abortion providers – nearly all by the same guy who is now in jail where he belongs.
Yesterday we had a prolife center – fire bombed.
Through the summer of 2020 we have arson, looting, destruction and violence all over.
We had the same in DC when Trump won in 2016.
We had Clinton ranting that the election was stolen and trying to get electors to change their votes.
NUTCHACHA says,
Affirmative action…
Don’t leave home wiffout it.
and
The Glass Ceiling…
Don’t break through it wiffout affirmative action…oh, and matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
We’s is women hea us roah!!!
You go, girl!
Yes, you want to force women — especially white women — to bring pregnancies to term against their will be because you’re “pro-life,” but you don’t want those women to have proper nutrition while pregnant and don’t want infants and kids to have enough to eat, so you object to WIC. Got it.
FOmisogynist.
No, I don’t, you ——- —–! The baby does!
PROBATIVE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – “MY BODY, MY CHOICE!”
By persisting and incessantly continuing to develop, the embryo, fetus and BABY speaks for himself and says, “My body, my choice,” – that he wants to live and he wants to be born.
Ask the baby and he tells you, by persisting, that he chooses life.
___________________________________________________
“Just the facts, ma’am.”
– Sergeant Joe Friday
_________________
The truth.
The whole truth.
And nothing but the truth.
So help you God.
An embryo doesn’t “want” anything, as it has no capacity for desire.
I see you have no excuse for denying that “baby” adequate nutrition when the family is poor.
“An embryo doesn’t “want” anything, as it has no capacity for desire.”
********************************
While a fetus may not experience our brand of sentience until the 24th week of gesttation, there is no evidence that it is incapable of want and desire. Even amoebas move away from bright lights and towards prey.
I will not join you in attributing “want” to an amoeba. You’re talking about instinctive or conditioned behavior that evolved in a species because it was adaptive, not “want.”
The baby wants to continue developing so it does continue developing.
The baby human being does not stop developing, unless your breed kills it by abortion.
That is a clear statement that it desires to continue and that it will continue, unless your gang of perpetrators of homicide kills it.
The baby’s desire to continue developing makes the statement that it has an innate, instinctual desire and impetus to continue to grow…SO IT DOES.
The inverse cannot be said.
The baby demonstrates and displays NO desire to STOP growing and developing into an older and more mature human being.
The baby is going to grow and be a human being for an average of 78.8 years, if you don’t commit homicide and kill it.
Charity is not the business of government – PERIOD.
“Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish.”
As to your claim
“The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.”
38% of those in this country who identify as christian – have considered adoption.
There are more LGBTQ families that want to adopt that kids available for adoption – and LGBTQ families are a small portion of prospective adoptive parents.
The only impediment to broad adoption is GOVERNMENT.
According to CDC there a 600K abortions a year in the US – that would not meet the needs of LGBTQ families if all were adopted.
There are almost 30m Christian families open to adoption
Per the Founders, a key purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “promote the general welfare.”
I seem to recall an awful lot of other things.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Here is a contemporary and strong influence on our founders describing how to “promote the general welfare”
Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.
Adam Smith
Regardless, the constitution did NOT give carte blanche to government to do anything it thought might produce a common benefit.
It required government to stick to what WILL do so – peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice. THAT IS ALL.
You do not appear to be very familiar with late 18th century history or thought. Try reading up on the scottish enlightenment
Franklin was a member.
Such courage – with other people’s money and property – the parasite’s mystical realm.
Whatever will happen if the sleeping giant awakens to your fraud and parasitic dependence?
Oh, my! That could get ugly.
Just curious, who’s the Hollywood lawyer that paid Hunter Bidens tax bill?
We might not have this level of public anger is Congress were doing its job instead of ducking responsibility by hiding behind arcane rules.
The worst affront to the Constitution was allowing the political parties to redefine 3 Constitutional offices (President, Presiding Officer of the Senate, and Speaker of the House) as partisan offices. This leaves no powerful, neutral referee at the head of these institutions responsible for herding the partisans into constructive conflict. It leaves nobody responsible for the overall productivity of the institution.
I would like to see the partisanization of these Offices challenged in the Courts. The Constitution allows freedom of association, yes, but not to the point of redefining the Constitutional branches of government as partisan instruments. What the Framers imagined as powerful referee-manager-leaders must be restored, and there is ample grounds to reassert it after the terrible track record we’re witnessing.
The voting block in question did not live through the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and all of their ancestors from the Great Depression and WW II have left us They do not have a single idea what they are asking for. One could be forgiven for thinking that the war in Ukraine that appears to be a simple meme in America – like posting a black square to your social profile with no foreknowledge whatsoever – could tell us that we have reached penultimate crassness, callousness, and. ‘I’m ok, so why should igive a sh** beyond my limp virtue signaling?’. the dems in this country have gotten the party they very much intentionally made. That sane people think otherwise is kind of a given. Yes, bringing a pregnancy to full term and then ‘aborting’ is murder. We shouldn’t even be giving people that espouse otherwise the time of day. Yes, there is still a war in Ukraine, even if it i no longer giving you hits on your social media accounts. We have created a couple of generations of people that are devoid of human compassion, cannot critically think, and may very well bury the entire human race in the ground if we do not stop them, beginning this November. Again: ‘classical’ liberals, wakeup and realize that you are checked out, you haven’t been paying attention, and the things you believe in, though good, are not in any way, shape or form represented by America’s modern DNC. You cannot possibly be this stupid, and if youare this preoccupied, then stop denying your privilege to be so and maintian what gave you the freedom to be so asleep in the first place.
No one is “bringing a pregnancy to full term and then ‘aborting’” it.
Anonymous, for as long as you keep telling us that no one is saying that there should be no limit on abortions I will continue to post the following link from The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/medicare-for-all/abortion-restrictions/. No limits means what it says which includes up to the very last minute. I agree that there should be an exception due to the health of the mother but the Democrats have added in the mental health of the mother to be included. Mental health of the mother is simply a catch all excuse and has been written into the law to justify what the “no restrictions” politicians really want to happen. Just as when you have tried to tell us that CRT is not being taught in our schools you now are trying to tell us that no one is saying that abortion should be allowed with no restrictions. You have every right to put the shade over your own eyes but we will not allow you to pull the shade down over our eyes no matter how hard you try.
Ti T,
I said “No one is “bringing a pregnancy to full term and then ‘aborting’” it.”
Your straw man is “you keep telling us that no one is saying that there should be no limit on abortions.” I didn’t say that. Did you fail your English class, so you don’t understand the difference? Or are you instead purposefully making that false claim (AKA lying)?
My guess is the latter — you’re purposefully lying — because this isn’t the first time that I’ve pointed out to you that you are falsely attributing something to me that I didn’t say.
I beg to differ. In some states a ‘partial birth abortion’ is legal and it occurs. This is a nearly full-term or full-term child who is partially extracted from the womb and is then killed. These are viable babies who would be expected to live a healthy life in many cases.
Give us an example of a viable fetus that was legally aborted in a situation where the mother’s life was not at risk.
I’m not asking about a “nearly full term” fetus that is nonetheless not viable (i.e., due to a serious medical condition).
Svelaz, when was the last time you had intimate relations with a womyn?
You really are not doing your Trans MTF side any favors
Gosnell did what you refer to so often and so egregiously that there is a movie about it.
But there are actually worse cases than Gosnell.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3722234/
Apparently you either didn’t notice the word “legally,” don’t understand its meaning, or prefer your straw man.
The only time you want to discuss legal is when you found a loophole that makes criminality look legal.
Not a straw man – Gosnell performed LEGAL abortions for years I beleive more than a decade under hellish conditions.
The state regulated him and turned a blind eye – for years and years and years.
He was not prosecuted for late term abortions. He was prosecuted for murder.
I beleive two of the women he performed abortions on died as a result, and several babies were born alive and later killed.
“It is a defining moment for his presidency”
How so?
“There is more than a license to this rage; there is an addiction to it.”
Yet Turley feeds this addiction with his own columns — when he cherrypicks evidence, takes phrases out of context, …
“White House press secretary Jen Psaki declined to condemn the leaker and said the real issue was the opinion itself.”
And Turley has declined to condemn the draft and has implied that the “real” issue is the leak. I have to wonder why he condemns Psaki for focusing on one but not the other, when he is doing the same thing — just making a different choice of focus than Psaki.
What Psaki said was “we certainly note the unprecedented nature of it [the leak]. … and obviously it’s up to the Department of Justice to determine what, if any, action they will take. … But our focus is on not losing sight from what the content is in the draft and what is at risk here. … Our focus is on highlighting what the content in there would risk-, put at risk for women across the country.”
“In reality, not having an official position on doxing and harassing Supreme Court justices and their families is a policy.”
This is another example of how he feeds the rage he complains about. Here’s part of the relevant exchange:
Q … The justices have had to see their security stepped up in the last few days. Just curious what the President would make of that, if he’s aware that that’s had to happen; what the message might be to those who are upset by this and are contemplating the unthinkable.
Psaki: … [the President’s] message directly would be to anybody out there who is feeling that frustration, is participating in peaceful protest, is: Ensure it’s peaceful; have your voice heard peacefully. We should not be resorting to violence in any way, shape, or form. That’s certainly what he would be conveying.
…
Q Do you think the progressive activists that are now planning protests outside some of the justices’ houses are extreme?
PSAKI: Peaceful protest? No. Peaceful protest is not extreme.
Q But some of these justices have young kids. Their neighbors are not all public figures. So would the President think about waving off activists that want to go into residential neighborhoods in Virginia and Maryland?
PSAKI: Peter, look, I think our view here is that peaceful protest — there’s a long history in the United States and the country of that. And we certainly encourage people to keep it peaceful and not resort to any level of violence.
…
Q … These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices. Is that the kind of thing this President wants to help your side make their point?
PSAKI: Look, I think the President’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document. We obviously want people’s privacy to be respected. We want people to protest peacefully if they want to, to protest. That is certainly what the President’s view would be.
Q So he doesn’t care if they’re protesting outside the Supreme Court or outside someone’s private residence?
PSAKI: I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest. I want it, we want it, of course, to be peaceful. And certainly, the President would want people’s privacy to be respected.
But Turley cannot bring himself to include her repeated statement about respecting people’s privacy, and instead of linking to the transcript of the entire exchange, he links to a NY Post article that slants it the way he wants to slant it.
Over and over and over again, he cherrypicks and he chooses secondary sources that the same bias as he does instead of linking to the primary sources.
He points out “Under 18 U.S.C. 1507, it is a federal crime to protest near a residence occupied by a judge or jury with the intent to influence their decisions in pending cases,” and at least he notes that for the protest to be a crime, it must be done “with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty,” and isn’t a crime if they’re simply “venting their anger” or voicing their disagreement. FWIW, under 18 U.S.C. 1507, it is *also* a federal crime to protest “in or near a building housing a court” — such as in front of the Supreme Court building — with the intent to influence judges’ decisions in pending cases.
“In such moments of reckless rage, presidents often have become calming voices, tempering extremist passions in their own parties.”
Biden isn’t calming. But Trump was considerably worse, acting as an accelerant. For example, after Bernie Sanders allowed protesters to seize the microphone at a campaign rally, Trump said “That showed such weakness … That will never happen with me. I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will,” as if “fighting” would have been the right response. Ditto for Trump’s response to being interrupted by protesters at his own campaign rallies: “See, the first group, I was nice. ‘Oh, take your time.’ The second group, I was pretty nice. The third group, I’ll be a little more violent.” And about another protester: “Maybe he should have been roughed up,” and another: “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise,” and another: “I’d like to punch him in the face.” But Turley didn’t condemn Trump in the way that he condemns Biden, because Trumpists are Turley’s main audience.
The real issue is the leak.
The issue regarding the decision becomes the issue when the decision is rendered.
In the meantime you are planting grass and hoping you get peas.
I will attempt to engage in “wokespeak”:
“Your speech is violence and our speech is self defense.” So when we protest by burning down cities, physically attacking our opponents, desecrating churches, doxxing and threatening members of the judiciary, it’s acceptable and commendable since it is all for a good purpose.
Am I missing anything, s@@tlibs? I am a deplorable with limited abilities, so I need help from those morally superior and intelligent than me.
I WANT A DIVORCE.
antonio
I don’t assume that you’re a “deplorable.” Clinton herself only placed half of Trump voters in that category. About the rest she said “that ‘other’ basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”
I also don’t assume that you have “limited abilities.”
Based on your frequent caricature of liberals, and your consistent use of “s@@tlib,” I’d say that you’re a s@@tslinger who gets off on caricaturing those he disagrees with, and you’re only looking to make excuses for why you won’t have a good-faith discussion with any liberal.
Remember when the Left complained about 45 and his mean tweets? Fun times
Hunter Biden’s laptop password: analf–k69
Yep and Joe Biden likes to talk about decency. What a bunch of malarchy. He and his family are as indecent as they come.
Freedom of speech, Jonathan Turley. Freedom of speech.
That surely includes the freedom *not* to speak, yes?
If the decision to not speak is based on fear of reprisals, then it is duress, not freedom. Nothing good, healthy or sustainable in that brand of Woke Progressivism.
That surely includes the freedom *not* to speak, yes?
The Democrat selected Jan 6 committee begs to differ.
No, it doesn’t. The people who’ve been referred for contempt of Congress could have shown up an pled the 5th like Roger Stone did.
“President Biden’s supporters terrorized Supreme Court justices in their family homes and Catholics in their churches this Mother’s Day weekend.
Both of these are federal crimes.
Biden and his top aides fanned the flames all weekend.
Shameful, very dangerous, but unsurprising.”
-Mike Davis
Have any universities established a program in mob psychology? It would appear that the 21st century will see more Lynch mobs in the old west.
Harvard failed the nation. Two years late and a dollar short. This is what white privilege and elites in government do to people of color, the poor, immigrants, etc
Remote learning likely widened racial, economic achievement gap
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/05/remote-learning-likely-widened-racial-economic-achievement-gap/
Contrast with:
Chicago Teachers Union
@CTULocal1
the push to reopen schools is rooted in racism, sexism and misogyny
Dec 12, 2020
There were years of sex, drugs & rock & roll. Steppenwolf live – Magic Carpet Ride
Seems like a lip-sync or remix.
GREAT – SIMPLE – REAL – ROCK ‘N ROLL.
Repeating the lie that Joe Biden is now – or has ever been – a decent, honorable man, is akin to when all the mouthpieces in the Swamp were calling James Comey a straight-up guy, clean as a whistle, beyond reproach, perfect pick to lead the FBI.
Turley we have no idea what you are drinking over at FOXNEWS, but please stop before you embarrass yourself anymore.
You embarrass yourself Fishy, with each of your silly comments.
Fishwings it is very likely that Turley has a non-disparagement clause in his contract with fox news which is ironic since it is a form of corporate censorship. What is even more ironic is it’s based on the same principle of a TOS in Twitter and Facebook which EVERYONE agrees to when they sign up.
Just something to think about.
“Fishwings it is very likely that Turley has a non-disparagement clause in his contract with fox news which is ironic since it is a form of corporate censorship. “
Sliming people is what the left does. What facts have sufficient basis for you to say such a thing?
Anonymous,
“ Sliming people is what the left does. What facts have sufficient basis for you to say such a thing?”
Fox News contracts have a non-disparagement clause which legally prevents employees from criticizing or making fun of Fox News. This is standard on Fox News contracts. It’s legally binding censorship.
It’s no different than the a TOS (Terms of service) contract that EVERYONE agrees to prior to being able to sign up for Twitter or Facebook or any social media platform, even Turley’s.
Once you agree to the terms and conditions you are effectively agreeing to a legal contract.
If the terms and conditions have clauses that gives the social media platform the right to remove or censor content or statements that are in violation of their policies you have no real right to complain, because you agreed to their terms. That’s why Trump got kicked out of Twitter. Because even he had to agree to THEIR terms and conditions in order to have the privilege of posting on THEIR platform.
“Fox News contracts have a non-disparagement clause which legally prevents employees from criticizing or making fun of Fox News. This is standard on Fox News contracts. It’s legally binding censorship.”
If you can say that then you can prove it with a copy of the document and Turley’s signature. Otherwise it is libel.
So why does the ayatollah in Iran still have a Twitter account?
Three words: FJB FJB FJB
And three more: F Obama too
And your little lapdog Psucky Psaki