“When The Mob is Right”: Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz Supports “Aggressive” Protests at the Homes of Justices

Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz is under fire this week after going to Twitter to defend “aggressive” protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices. Chafetz explained that such mob action should be permissible when “the mob is right.”  For many who have watched the rise of threats and intolerance on our campuses, Chafetz’s comments capture the culture of many on the left. While many were taken aback by a professor seemingly supporting mob action, it is the same “by any means necessary” justification that has been used to justify everything from packing to sacking to leaking on the Court.

While I have opposed arresting the protesters on free speech grounds, I have been an outspoken critic of the doxing and targeting of justices at their homes.

Chafetz tweeted May 8 that “The ‘protest at the Supreme Court, not at the justices’ houses’ line would be more persuasive if the Court hadn’t this week erected fencing to prevent protesters from coming anywhere near it…And before the ‘oh so you support J6 lmao!’ trolls show up: the difference is *substantive*. When the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.”

No line captures the academics supporting this age of rage better than “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.” Presumably, Chafetz will tell us when aggressive protests are warranted and when they are not. It is the same license supporting the censorship of social media.

We have seen similar claims of license for what Nancy Pelosi called this week “righteous anger” and Mayor Lori Lightfoot called a “call to arms.”

Rage can rationalize any means of response. Elie Mystal, who writes for Above the Law and is The Nation’s justice correspondent, for example, declared on MSNBC, without any contradiction from the host, that “You don’t communicate to [Trump supporters], you beat them. You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.”

Many have noted that Professor Ilya Shapiro remains suspended for a poorly worded tweet that he posted objecting to President Biden pledging to only consider Black female candidates for the next vacancy on the Court. However, Chafetz mocked the very thought that he could be punished for a tweet supporting liberal mob action. He tweeted out: “Folks can snitch tag @GeorgetownLaw all they want (I’m so sorry, public affairs folks!), they’re not going to fire me over a tweet you don’t like.” (According to news reports, Chafetz limited access to his account after that tweet).

That is very likely correct under the very logic explained by Chafetz. Reckless and even violent rhetoric is tolerated when the targets are conservatives or Republicans in academia. A conservative, libertarian, or even moderate faculty member would make no such assumption today. The common view is that any controversy involving conservative or libertarian or contrarian viewpoints will result in calls for suspension and termination. With comparably few such faculty members teaching on most faculties, the chilling effect is glacial.

The concern over consistent and uniform treatment of speech is long-standing on campuses. In past postings, I have defended faculty who have made an array of disturbing comments about “detonating white people,” denouncing policecalling for Republicans to suffer,  strangling police officerscelebrating the death of conservativescalling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also supported the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

Even when faculty engage in hateful acts on campus, however, there is a notable difference in how universities respond depending on the viewpoint. At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.  We also previously discussed the case of Fresno State University Public Health Professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher who recruited students to destroy pro-life messages written on the sidewalks and wrongly told the pro-life students that they had no free speech rights in the matter.

In all of these controversies, my natural default is in favor of free speech despite the offensive content of the statements. I have the same inclination in this controversy. Chafetz should not be sanctioned for his tweet any more than Shapiro. There has been rising viewpoint intolerance at Georgetown, including retaliatory measures against not just faculty but student writers.

For an academic to support the targeting of jurists and their families at their homes should be shocking but it is not. It is a manifestation of our national rage addiction. Academics are not immune. Indeed, they can rationalize and capitalize on such rage. The means of the mob are justified when “the mob is right” … and many in academia and in politics are eager to embrace the “righteous anger” of the mob.

 

403 thoughts on ““When The Mob is Right”: Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz Supports “Aggressive” Protests at the Homes of Justices”

  1. 1960 – POtuS is assassinated
    1980 – Reagan survives assassination attempt
    2000 – GW Bush is targeted for assassination by Saddam Hussein
    2020 – will the next president elected in a year ending in a zero be targeted for assassination?
    1860 – Abe Lincoln – assassinated
    1880 –
    1900
    There is a pattern here as historians will tell you
    You do not want to be elected in a year ending in a zero —

  2. The people who constantly act like January 6th was orchestrated by Trump are also the same people who supported the 2020 summer of riots and support going into churches and to justice’s homes to try to intimidate them. Professor Turley, the next step is violence. I have a deep fear that in my lifetime, we are going to see a president and a Supreme Court Justice both assassinated by someone from the left because the left is now consistently supporting violence. If they don’t get their way, they no longer respect the process.

    1. You could very well be correct about the future of acceptable rage in this ‘age of rage.’
      Wasn’t that long ago that lynching a black by a mob was considered ‘right.’

    2. If we focus on targeted political murder / targeted attempted murders (not the more common murders, which instead involve intimate partners, family members, neighbors, etc., and not non-premeditated killings), we find that political murders are more often carried out by those on the right.

      There are several instances of political murder carried out by anti-abortionists (e.g., the 1996 Olympic Park bombing by Eric Rudolph, the murders of abortion providers).

      Cesar Sayoc attempted to murder multiple politicians and others on the left via mail bombs.

      Multiple white supremacists have murdered groups of people (the Tree of Life Synagogue murders, the El Paso Walmart murders, the Charleston Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church murders, …).

      One can also find them on the left (such as the attempted murders by James T. Hodgkinson at the Congressional baseball game), but not as often.

      I hope that your fear is never realized. Violence is not the way to solve our differences.

      1. you forget the Justice Dept is the agency that attaches the labels

        You note James T. Hodgkinson, The FBI ruled that a suicide by cop. Failing to attach any meaning to a man that specifically asked who was practicing when, and sought to assassinate Republican Congressmen.

        So your comparisons are faulty, because the DoJ is a political agency, always working to advance a leftist agenda.

        1. Idiot, I was talking about Hodgkinson’s attempt to assassinate members of Congress as an example of someone on the left carrying out political violence.

          1. But the FBI tried to sweep it under the carpet.
            The analysis you are attempting, fails because the DoJ is corrupt and politicized.

      2. In the United States, the right in the past was probably more violent. That’s no longer the case today. Republican leaders firmly denounced January 6th. Democratic leaders give tepid replies to political violence and usually only issue a denunciation once the violence has increased.

        1. My comment was about assassination/murder/attempted murder, not about general violence.

          As for “tepid replies,” I’ve seen a lot of Republicans making very tepid statements about Jan. 6.

  3. Jonathan: You say you are “opposed to arresting protesters on free speech grounds”. That’s not what you said in your 5/9 post. You said peaceful protests outside the homes of certain justices “could be treated as a crime ” under 18USC, Section 1507. You only changed your mind after probably someone on your staff pointed out that Section 1507 couldn’t be used to arrest protesters. But your point was not lost on many of us .If you could you would prosecute them.

    But you are still opposed to “doxing and targeting of justices at their homes”. “Doxing” does not accurately describe what has happened. The names of the 5 conservative justices are right there in Alito’s draft opinion. “Doxing” involves uncovering the real name, job description, etc. of a person and exposing it publicly, usually on the internet. The conservative justices can hardly complain if their photos were prominently displayed on protester signs. They don’t need to be “doxed”. Maybe you would prefer that the SC meet in secret with justices hooded to avoid being identified. That’s what might happen in dictatorships but not in a democracy. Ultimately, we have a right to hold justices accountable for their decisions.

    Now you claim the opponents of Alito’s decision are engaged in “mob rule”. No one is calling for protesters to storm and break into the SC building to prevent a final vote on Roe. This is in stark contrast to what happened on Jan. 6. Trump encouraged a “mob” of his supporters to storm and break into the Capitol to prevent the counting of the electoral vote. For Trump the “mob is right”. Peaceful protests outside the homes of the conservative justices is hardly “shocking”. What is “shocking” is Alito’s opinion that would take away a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body–a right that women have relied upon for 48 years! I say stop your own incendiary rhetoric and, maybe, actually discuss the import of what the conservative majority intends to do with women’s rights. I suspect you won’t until the dire deed is done because you actually support Alito’s draft opinion.

    1. So, let me ask you Dennis McIntyre. If Roe is struck down will we see the protests of the left turn violent will you condemn the violence? Please be studied in your answer because we will recall your condemnation of violence if you try to justify it at a later date. Please tell us why you have made no comment telling us that you are against the defacing of church property and the fire bombing of the office of a pro life organization. Please comment for the record.

    2. Trump encouraged a “mob” of his supporters to storm and break into the Capitol to prevent the counting of the electoral vote.
      Never happened.

      This is another raw lie that will be repeated endlessly.

      1. “Fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more” “Stop the Steal” rallies. Supporters told to march to the Capitol and that he’d join them. Supporters with a cache of weapons in Virginia motel. Doesn”t sound like a mere “protest” to me.

        1. “Fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”
          That was the Mayor of Chicago,

    3. Very weird post.

      First using your description of J6 – this is Exactly what democrats are doing.

      Encouraging protestors to interfere in the deliberations of SCOTUS to get the outcome they want.

      No one has as of yet broken into the supreme court – because it was not designed to accomidate the same public traffic as the capital.

      The massive bronze doors have been beaten repeated and protestors even mananged to get them to move several inches.

      There is no doubt that if they could break in they would.

      Nor is there any doubt of their intent – they wish to intimidate justices into changing their decision.

      I do not beleive Judges and justices are entitled to special protection.

      At the same time – the first amendment is not the right to speak, protest, petition government anywhere anytime.

      We ARE free to petition government – AT THE CAPITAL – and locking the capital to hide from protestors is both cowardly and wrong.
      We are free to protest at the supreme court.

      We are free to use words – even mean nasty threatening words to attempt to persuade senators, representatives, judges, … to change their decisions.

      We are NOT free to physically intimidate anyone. We are not free to protest government at peoples homes.

      You keep ranting about J6 – to the extent their is a difference – J6 is far more legitimate.

      Senators, Representatives, Judges can lock their homes. Non-content based speech regulation of time, and place is constitutional.
      It does not violate the first amendment to say you can not protest in front of ANYONE’s homes. Or that you can not protest in private neighborhoods – even on public streets and side walks.

      What you CAN NOT do is make protest of government at government property illegal or difficult.
      The HIGHEST levels of free speech protection would be for protesting at the seats of power – with the Capital being the penultimate.

      We can not prevent protests OUTSIDE the supreme court.
      We can not prevent protest OUTSIDE the whitehouse.

      But protestors MUST be allowed to assemble and petition government INSIDE the capital.

      You can setup security to check for bombs and weapons, within limits you can restrict the number of people allowed in the capital at one time. But if you lock the capital while congress is in session you violate the constitution.

      Finally – when Government behaves lawlessly, violence is ultimately inevitable and justified.

      The 2020 election was inarguably conducted LAWLESSLY, After the Election the courts FAILED to scrutinize the election.

      You rant about J6 – but AGAIN the Problem is with democrats not protestors – not even violent ones.

      The Real demand of J6 protestors was to delay certification and appoint a commision to look into allegations of election fraud.

      But even if those protestors wanted to demand that Trump be installed as president – they are FREE to make that demand.
      Free speech does not mean good speech. It does not mean speech you agree with.

      When you conduct a lawless election, when the courts fail at their job, when our elected representatives try to evade protests against what they are doing by locking the capital, you can expect violence.

      Read the declaration of independence – it is exactly that kind of conduct by the british that lead to the revolution.

      The J6 protests would have been justified – even if there was no election fraud. The constitution does not say that you have to be right to speak, it does not say that you have to be right to assemble, or to petition government or to protest.
      Our rights – especially first amendment rights are not conditioned on being right or good.
      Nazi’s and white supremacists have the right to free speech, to assemble to petition government.

      When you interfere with those rights – justifiable violence will ensue.

      Violence is not justified because you do not get what you want.
      It is justified when you do not get to speak, to assemble, to petition govenrment, it is justified when government is itself lawless.

      We all expect pro-choice protests, and most of us support that right of protest – AT THE SUPREME COURT. Not at justices homes.

      We expect the language of those protests to be violent and incendiary.

      Most of us pointing out that the language of democrat leaders and protesters is MORE violent than anything at J6 – are not demanding the prosecution or silencing of Democratic leaders or protesters, we are just pointing out YOUR hypocrisy.

      The first amendment does not require people to be polite, or right or to avoid violent rhetoric.

      The MOST protected form of speech is political speech with respect to government.

      There is almost nothing that pro-choice protestors can say that would would not be protected by the first amendment – IF it was said at the capital or in front of the whitehouse, or in front of the supreme court.

      The same is true of J6 protestors.

    4. Protestors DID try to storm and break into the Supreme Court during the Kavanaugh hearings – SCOTUS was not in session, the building was closed, and is smaller and not intended for large scale public access.

      The law is not supposed to be made in the Supreme court – that occurs in the capital.

      Regardless, protestors failed to break into the supreme court in 2018 because it was more secure than the capital.

      Not for lack of trying.

    5. The majority of the country supports some access to abortion for women.
      They also support far more restrictive abortion law than we now have.

      The Mississippi law being currently decided is LESS restrictive than most or Europe – than most of the world.

      Most of us accept that people have the right to choices about their own bodies.

      But a fetus is unarguably IN a women’s body it is NOT the women’s body.

      It is not relevant whether the fetus is a person – so long as it is distinct.
      We have laws barring killing eagles, and wolves, and endangered species.
      We have laws regarding when you can hunt or fish and how many dear or fish you can catch.
      We even have laws governing how you can kill insects.

      Whether you or I like it or not – government has already been given the power to regulate killing creatures of far less significance than a fetus.

    6. I do not support Alito’s draft – I have repeatedly made clear it is no more constitutional nor correct that Rowe – which was ALSO wrongly decided.

      Personally I think Abortion is easy.

      There is no right to kill a fetus.
      A woman has the absolute right to remove a fetus from her body anytime up to birth, even if that results in death.
      But she is not permitted to kill the fetus as part of removal, if the fetus can be removed safely without killing it.

      That simple. There is no “science” in this, there is no trimesters. That is a decision reflecting REAL constitutional rights.
      It is also consistent with our founders and with law on issues aside from abortion.

      It will not make pro-lifers’ happy. It will not make pro-abortion groups happy.
      And it leaves states to decide the extent to which they will regulate efforts to save the fetus that is removed.

      Regardless, I will be happy to “discuss” issues with you.

      But you do not want to discuss – you want to impose your will by force.

      If you wanted a discussion, you would actually address the issues.

      If you say there is a right to abortion – where does that right come from ?

      Abortion is not in the constitution and the broadest reading of the 9th amendment does not include an unconstrained right to kill.

  4. Protesting at their homes is not necessarily illegal.

    As I’ve now pointed out a few times, 18 U.S. Code § 1507 addresses “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.” Notice that for the protest outside a Justice’s home to be illegal, it must be done “with the intent of influencing” the Justice “in the discharge of his duty.” If the person is simply voicing support for abortion rights, expressing disagreement with the draft ruling and using the protest location to get publicity for their views, that’s not illegal.

    Turley said as much a couple of days ago, and again in this Hill column: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3483105-protesting-at-justices-homes-should-be-a-subject-of-condemnation-not-criminal-charges/

    1. The comment above was posted as a reply to Ian Michael Gumby’s 10:24 AM comment, but became decoupled because of some tech glitch that periodically decouples my comments from the comments they were posted in reply to.

    2. If you are not seeking to change the decision – why are you protesting ?

      Whether you like it or not the intent of protestors to acheive a different outcome is self evident.

      All protests are ALWAYS efforts to persuade someone to act differently.

      If you want to get what you want without conservatives changing their votes – pass a constitutional amendment or change federal or state law.

      The purpose of protests is to change votes in the supreme court. That is litterally what the law bars.

      1. If you actually want to know, ask the people who are protesting, not me, as I do not speak for them.

        But don’t suggest that your question is sincere while pretending to read their minds.

        I plan to travel to the protest in DC on Saturday, and my reason for doing so is because I wish to join others in expressing my support for abortion rights, not because I expect the protest to change the minds of the conservatives on the court.

        There are also satellite protests planned in other states, more info here: plannedparenthoodaction.org/rightfully-ours/bans-off-our-bodies

        1. I plan to travel to the protest in DC on Saturday, and my reason for doing so is because I wish to join others in expressing my support for abortion rights, not because I expect the protest to change the minds of the conservatives on the court.

          Why protest? You dont want to change the mind of Judges, and you don’t believe the People have the power to regulate abortion. So you well be exactly as effective, deliver the same results, as protesting alone, in dark, at an empty parking lot.

          1. I told you why I’m going. You refuse to accept that my values are different from yours when it comes to protesting.

            Why do you post comments here? You’re not going to change any judges’ minds either.

        2. I do not need to ask them, they have written, shouted, chanted their “intentions”.

          They do not want Rowe overturned. They are perfectly clear on that.
          They are entitled to that expectation.
          They are entitled to protest demanding that.

          They are just not free to do so at a judges home.

          The law here is much more sold that what you have with the J6 protestors.

          They were relatively clear what they wanted – though you keep getting that wrong.
          They – like the Pro-choice protestors were free to want even demand an outcome that others do not.
          They are ever free to be wrong in their beleifs.

          The fundimental difference is that the Capital IS a government created public free speech forum, and the judges home is not.

          In fact the capital is the PRE-EMINENT place to protest, petition the government, assemble to aire your grevances.

          The justices homes are not.

        3. I am not reading their minds. I am listening to what they say.

          “Do not overturn Rowe.” – simple. Perfectly meets the laws requirement of attempting to alter the deliberations of a judge.

          Are you saying these protestors are there for a different reason ?

          That they are parading in front of justices homes saying not to overturn Rowe – without meaning what they say ?

          You do not seem to understand whether it is J6 or Pro Choice, Restrictions on speach MUST be content neutral.

          It is irrelevant whether the J6 protestors were right or the pro choice protestors are wrong.

          Govenrment can only restrict speech NEUTRALLY limiting time and place.

          ALL Protests at judges homes are illegal.

          ALL protests at the capital must be legal.

          You can not condition the right to protest or petition govenrment on the position of the protestors.

          Time and place – not content.

        4. You really are clueless.

          If you plan to “support abortion rights” – and you do so infront of a judges home who is deciding what abortion rights are – you have violated the law.

          Your belief that you will not succeed does not change what you are doing.

          I fully support your right to protest in favor of abortions – or for burning nazi’s at the stake. Or anything else in the world you wish to protest.

          I do not support you protesting in front of ANYONE’s home for any reason good or bad.

          I fully support your protesting at a government created public forum – like the Capital while in session – even if you have to break the door down to get in.

          What you are protesting does not matter. You are free to protest for or against absolutely anything.

          WHERE you protest is relevant – private home – NO. Government created public forum YES.

          I beleive the law in question here prevents you from protesting in front of the courthouse.

          If so THAT part of the law is unconstitutional.
          But you might have to get arrested to win that.

          1. “If you plan to “support abortion rights” – and you do so infront of a judges home who is deciding what abortion rights are – you have violated the law. ”

            No, the law is actually narrower than that. For example, if my intent in protesting on the public sidewalk in front of the Justice’s house is simply that I want to broadcast my beliefs to a wide audience and it’s a good spot to get the attention of reporters, that’s totally legal, as long as I’m peaceful.

            But you have your eyes closed to the text of the law and why the intent requirement is there, so I’m not going to waste my time responding further.

            1. There is no such thing as a protest that intends nothing except to stand around on the sidewalk.

              The law is narrow – and pretty much any protest involving any case that is before a judge would be illegal at their homes.

              You are bending yourself into a pretzel trying to hide from what is not only obvious but openly stated.

              “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.”

              1. You’re wrong that ‘pretty much any protest involving any case that is before a judge would be illegal at their homes,” and Schumer’s statement is irrelevant, as he’s not protesting at their homes.

                  1. Did you read the article?

                    It contains hedging phrases like “seem to.”

                    The fact is: in convicting someone of violating that law, the DOJ has to prove intent, and as Turley himself has said, “I believe the use of this law to arrest protesters would be a serious blow to free speech and would be difficult to defend in the courts. … Even under the vague intent element under the statute, protests are criminal only if they are 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.” Certainly, today’s protesters are upset about Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and they want to see Roe v. Wade preserved. However, few seriously believe that protesting at justices’ homes will make [the Justices] more inclined to yield to mob demands. … If charged, the protesters likely would insist they were denouncing the justices’ views, not trying to coerce a change in those views.”

                    1. Yes, I read the article.
                      A bevy of legal experts all said the same thing. The law is constitutional and similar laws have been upheld frequently,
                      Not one of them found the slightest problem with intent – protesting is itself prima fascia intent.

                      I would further note that even if this law was blatantly unconstitutional – it would with near certainty be upheld by all courts – even proabortion left wing courts.

                      No judge is going to give carte blanche to protesters to come to his home.

                      I would note – we tripped over versions of this with the VA loudin county mess.

                      the NASB, and Biden admin “Alleged” that protests at school board meetings were domestic terrorism.
                      They are not. But a case could be made that protests at school board members homes are criminal harrassment – if not actual terrorism.

                      Free speech becomes harrassment as it leaves public life and interferes with private life.

                    2. Turley is wrong on this.

                      First because it will be trivial to defend in court. The most left wing nut prochoice judge int he country is going to be thinking about the fact that tommorow she could have an army of pro-life protestors circling her home.
                      This is a slam dunk.

                      Is it actually constitutional – despite being a near free speech absolutist – I strongly think so – and far beyond just judges.

                      Government MUST allow protest of government, and it MUST allow it where the decisions being protested are made – the capital, the supreme court, ….
                      Those are protests in government provided public forums. NOT the private homes of government actors.

                      J6 protests at the capital are protected speech – but not at Senators homes.
                      Prochoice protests at the Supreme court are protected speech – not at the justices homes.

                      It is particularly ludicrous that prochoice protesters claim abortion is protected by the right to privacy, yet they clearly will violate the right to privacy of others.

                      Typical of the left – contradictions all the way down.

                    3. I disagree with yoiu. There are numerous videos of reporters questioning protestors and eliciting the response that they want Roe v Wade to not be over turned. Plus there are numerous speeches – including elected Democrat officials – recruiting and instructing people to protest. And finally, signs do not lie. There are numerous signs clearly indicating intent of the holder of the sign.
                      Once again, we see the Democrat left misrepresenting opinion as fact.

                    4. Bill, saying “I want X” is not the equivalent of “I’m trying to influence a SCOTUS Justice to change his mind about X.”

                    5. That’s up to the trier of fact.
                      It certainly presents a prima face case of jury tampering.

            2. Just to be clear – I think this is bad law.
              It bars more than protest at a judges home.
              As I recall it bars protest at the courthouse.

              I have no problems at all with a law that bars protests at ANYONE’s home.
              But anyone should be able to protest in front of a court.

              But you are deceiving yourself if you think this law does not make the current protests a crime.

              Except that this is DC it would be far easier to prosecute this that most of J6.

              The capital is a clear public forum – the most significant one in the country.
              The J6 protests were political speech – the most protected form of speech.
              Anyone can go to the capital and loudly demand that congress do something that is blatantly unconstitutional.

              There is no requirement that a protestor make demands that are popular or correct.

              But it is increasingly aparent that the protestors were RIGHT – the election was rife with fraud.

            3. ATS doesn’t care about the truth. What he says is BS.

              Anyone, picture yourself as Sam Alito with that crowd outside. Do you think they are there for anything other than intimidation? Unless you think they were there to make nice, nice, you know ATS is full of it. As one Supreme Court Justice said about pornography, “You know it when you see it.’

  5. Turley– “It is manifestation of our national rage addiction. Academics are not immune….”
    +++

    They would not be. Academia is the fountainhead for much of it. They are disease vectors.

  6. (OT)

    “Attorney John Eastman urged Republican legislators in Pennsylvania to retabulate the state’s popular vote — and throw out tens of thousands of absentee ballots — in order to show Donald Trump with a lead, according to newly unearthed emails sent in December 2020, as Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to subvert his defeat. This recalculation, he posited in an exchange with one GOP state lawmaker, “would help provide some cover” for Republicans to replace Joe Biden’s electors from the state with a slate of pro-Trump electors, part of a last-ditch bid to overturn the election results. …”
    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/10/eastman-emails-pennsylvania-legislators-biden-00031668

    Marcy Wheeler:
    “Evidence Eastman billed CO for travel to a Zoom conference (and tried to bill for flight Internet) where he violated the Constitution,” after agreeing to follow the US and CO Constitutions as part of his employment:
    https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1524298231974400000

    Will Turley break his silence about Eastman’s actions and the fact that he’s been referred to the bar for possible disbarment?

    Will Eastman and Trump and others eventually be charged in a conspiracy to obstruct the Vote Count Act?

    1. ATS, you are talking about a falsehood that you created.

      We now have tangible evidence that the left and Democrats engaged in ballot trafficking (see the documentary 2000 Mules). The documentary has reasonably proven that Biden lost the election. Trump’s basic statement was validated 100%.

  7. at what point do we consider breaking this country up into two or three separate countries to self govern ourselves. We are heading in that direction with people on the left calling for violence against people on the right and the majority of those on the left supporting it or at leat condoning it with their silence. it’s time for:
    “Liberal United States ” for the left coast
    “United States of Common Sense”” for middle America
    and ” The Wacko United States of Self Destruction” for the for the Northeasten Blue States. I am all for the divorce as long as the liberals don’t come crying to the Common Sense United States when they bankrupt themselves and Cartels control their streets.

  8. @anonymous

    I could care less who “secedes”. Would prefer it peaceable but you won’t let us go in that manner. It is your side which is instigating the current violence. It is leftists who control most corporate, educational and media institutions in this country. No one to the right of Lenin would have been allowed to burn down American cities in the summer of 2020. Sorry, I mean ‘mostly peaceful’ protests.

    Do you condemn the firebombing of the pro life clinic in Wisconsin? Bet you don’t.

    And you had better tread lightly in your name calling and caricature of me! I am Hispanic, a member of a recognized victim group. And if I were a leftist, b@@tch and moan one, you’d be sucking up about now.

    antonio

    antonio

    1. “Do you condemn the firebombing of the pro life clinic in Wisconsin?”

      Of course I do. I already condemned it on the 8th: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/08/mcconnell-federal-abortion-ban-is-possible-if-court-strikes-down-roe-v-wade/comment-page-2/#comment-2182068

      “Bet you don’t.”

      You’d rather believe in your caricature of me, right? So much easier than dealing with a liberal who wants people on both sides to abide by the law (with occasional exceptions on both sides for peaceful civil disobedience and jaywalking when it’s safe, if someone wants to do that).

      “you had better tread lightly in your name calling and caricature of me!”

      I haven’t caricatured you; in fact, more than once I’ve explicitly rejected your own “deplorable” labelling. And the only reason that I’m calling you a s@@tslinger is to parallel your own name-calling. I asked you if you were a s@@tcon, and you said you’re not a conservative, so I’m not calling you that, did you notice? When you stop your own name-calling, I will likewise stop.

      1. What ATS expresses verbally is not always true. He is deceitful and wishes to look like he supports American democracy. He doesn’t.

        1. You, Allan S. Meyer, are a troll who frequently posts anonymously and is the one and only Anonymous the Stupid / ATS.

          One of your favorite ways of trolling is pretending to read someone’s mind, insisting that they don’t believe what they’ve said and insisting that you know their beliefs better than they do. You are so hate-filled that you invent reasons to hate the people you disagree with.

          You are too hate-filled to accept that I want everyone to abide by the law (with occasional exceptions on both sides for peaceful civil disobedience and jaywalking when it’s safe, if someone wants to do that), so you simply deny my actual beliefs. That’s quite a strong psych denial mechanism you’ve got.

          1. Like I am doing here, I post my alias to those posts that have value. Most of my posts to you are not imparting information except that information providing you to be deceptive and a liar. They don’t need a name, and that makes it easier for those that trash en block all anonymous posts at one time.

            I don’t read your mind. I read your words which contain your deception and lies.

            “You are so hate-filled”

            No. I actually prefer to love this country and hate people like you trying to destroy it. You are similar to a Stalinist, Nazi or Maoist in your attempts to deflect from the truth, deceive and lie. Those countries killed around 100 million people just so their leaders could remain in power. You are not all that different.

            You do not wish to be honest, so you use your generic anonymous icon. Your icon proves my point.

            1. “I … hate people like you”

              As I said: you’re hate-filled. And you will lie about my beliefs in order to justify your hate, in an effort to group me with others you hate.

              “You are similar to a Stalinist, Nazi or Maoist in your attempts to deflect from the truth, deceive and lie.”

              YOU are the one who — when I said that Josh Stern’s comment that it’s a “Pity that Chafetz’s ancestors didn’t have a better seat at Kristallnacht” is “disgusting” — responded “it isn’t.” Again Chafetz is a Jew, and if you think Josh’s comment isn’t disgusting, that places you a whole lot closer to Nazi beliefs.

              “Your icon proves my point.”

              My actual words prove you wrong.

              1. What I said was, No. I actually prefer to love this country and hate people like you trying to destroy it. I think that is pretty clear. You act like a Nazi, Stalinist or Maoist, wrecking freedom with an attitude that leads to death. I should hate you. Everyone should hate you. You are a threat to the nation and everyone’s family that wishes to be free.

                You have proven that repeatedly. Listen to your comments on Ashli Biden, not just the statement where you called her a “stupid woman.” Look a the number of lies you have amassed on this blog. Look at your disdain for Jan6 non-violent people who were denied bail and kept in solitary. Look at your approach to the safety of the Supreme Court Justices. Look at your attitude involving intimidation.

                We saw your type of person in the likes of the middle managers of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia. Look at your lies and deception. You are a horror.

                I do not know what you are talking about concerning “Chafetz’s ancestors.” There is too little information to recollect my comment if I made one. Keep digging. When you search, we generally find something wrong about you, not about others.

                Your words prove my point, and your anonymous icon demonstrates that you are unwilling to stand up for your ideas because you recognize yourself and are forced to deal with your ugly side. You want to blend with other anonymous persons to hide what you are from others and yourself.

          2. You keep talk of being targeted.

            You do not seem to graps that when you post as anonymous there is no “you” – there is no identity.

            Some anonymous posters put a signature on the end of their post that atleast suggests some connection between posts with the same signature. Though even signatures can easily be faked.

            You are free to post anonymously – but when you do you surrender the entire concept of an identity.

            When you then write of being targeted – you just make yourself look the fool.

            With respect to insulting others – it is unfortunate but all of us do it.
            But not all of us do it the same.

            I have difficultly getting past the incredible stupidity of some posts.
            I wonder how some posters here can manage to remember to keep breathing.
            I is beyond my ability to believe what some otherwise intelligent people can believe.
            One of the more evil things about leftist postmodernism is that it openly rejects grounding to reality.
            It is nihilist and it is destructive.
            Most of the left is not thoroughly versed nihilist post modern progressives.
            But ideas matter and their nihilist anti-logic has permeated to varying degrees the entire left.

            Bonhoeffer and others noted that the greatest danger is not evil people, but stupid people.
            He and others have noted that there is no correlation between stupidity and intelligence.
            That incredibly intelligent people can be incredibly stupid.

            If you and SM wish to waste space personally sniping at each other – no one is stopping you.

            But a post that is end to end bitter personal vitriole just reflects badly on the poster.

            I try to keep insults out of my posts. But it is difficult. Some claims are just stupid.
            I try to insult assertions, arguments, ideas, rather than people – but very few here
            are able to make that distinction.
            Finally some posters here are just bat$hit crazy and stupid.
            More on the left than the right – but still some on both sides.

            It is more common for leftist posts to be insulting and stupid – that is a direct consequence of
            the nihilst core of the modern left.
            An ideology that rejects the concept of truth, is just not going to argue rationally.

      2. Condemn – don’t
        The self evident FACT is that the protests of the left are qualitatively different from those of the right.

        The left nearly ALWAYS harrasses people at their homes, or at dinner or with their families or in churches, or at their businesses – oiften businesses unrelated to the protest.
        There is always atleast some violence and particularly ARSON and looting are involved.

        The right protests government – at government seats of power.
        They do not burn anything down. They break down doors to public buildings that are not supposed to be locked.

        I am actually happy that none of these laws are being enforced.

        It is showing the left for who they are.

        1. No, because the media keeps lying about it saying they have a right to peacefully protest AT THE HOMES OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. Jen Psucky Psaki psaid pso. Psaki psaid it was Biden’s “position” on the topic. Holy crap the Biden admin is one F’d up dangerous place for this country we still call America.

          1. Give Biden another 3 years and we will hardly recognize America as we now know it.

            Wake up people and get loud, get loud get loud! Do not back down. Do not sit back and silently accept this bullsh*t.

            1. For the most part, when protestors are surrounding your home, it’s an act of physical intimidation and threat. You cannot feel safe to leave your home or be in your home with your family. You fear for the safety and well being of your children. Your neighbors forced to endure the disruptions and intimidations. Yet Biden is encouraging demonstrators to show up at the homes of federal judges. Biden and AG Garland’s tacit support for this dangerous tactic is detestable.

  9. The left is involved in the “targeting of jurists and their families at their homes should be shocking but it is not.” Why should we be surprised. The left did widespread illegal ballot trafficking. Without that Biden would have lost.

    2000 Mules proves the illegal actions of the left. Now they wish to target the nine members on the Supreme Court.

  10. We need free rubbers to be given away at all schools in America and put an end to welfare checks for children. When s high school girl pulls off the guys rubber and days: I gotta get my check! It explains it all

  11. Protesting SCOTUS at the court building is one thing and is protected by the first amendment.

    Protesting at their homes is illegal. Barr has quoted the statute many times and its out there. Its a form of intimidation, which isn’t protected by the first amendment.
    (e.g. Hey justice vote my way or else… we know where you live…)

    Sorry Turley… but if they go to a Justice’s home… and are told to leave… if they don’t. They do deserve to be arrested.

    -G

    1. Protesting at their homes might be illegal, try convincing our current justice department that it is.

  12. This is the kind of crap filling young minds to the tune of, what is it now $30k a year? Only fools take out loans to outright pay good money to fill their brains with leftwing activist trash talk. The rest are on scholarships.

    Tax the endowments.

  13. This ignorant and under/miseducated big mouth hasn’t a simple notion of our constitution or the wisdom of our founding fathers. What gang or miscreants ever hired this person or allowed him anywhere near young people’s minds?

  14. Liberal totalitarianism is an indisputable fact of American politics now. There’s no point in arguing logically, in presenting facts, or in constantly exposing the left’s hypocrisy and double standards. That’s like repeating ad nauseam that zebras have stripes. We need to move on to the next step — organize to take back our culture, politics and economy.

  15. @anonymous

    You are dreaming if you think professor Chafetz would express the same sentiment regarding Sotomoyor protestors.

    As for calling me a “s@@tslinger”, your opinion of me means nothing, truly nothing. And I could care less if I am not invited to your weekend barbecue. Just remember, I am not some caricature of what you believe deplorables are. I am a professional in a demanding position and would appear as ‘woke’ as your other colleagues, if we were to meet. I might be in the office next to you, and you would have no idea. And there are many like me.

    I mock the left because I have few other options and little power. People such as myself are the only ones who face ruin for expressing the ‘wrong’ opinion on a multitude of subjects, not those on the left.

    How about that divorce? Naw, I doubt you’ll agree, you want to rub our faces in it.

    antonio

    1. Antonio,

      I think *you* “are dreaming if you think professor Chafetz would” NOT “express the same sentiment regarding Sotomoyor protestors.” Ultimately, though, these are conjectures on both our parts. We will not know unless he says.

      On the other hand, I explicitly told you that “I certainly support the right of law-abiding protest in front of Sotomayor’s home, no double-standards on my end,” and you ignored it.

      “your opinion of me means nothing”

      Which is the same as your opinion of me. Welcome to the club.

      I don’t have “weekend barbeques,” but don’t let that get in the way of your desire to caricature — ironic, given that you claim “I am not some caricature of what you believe deplorables are,” despite my having told you more than once that I don’t consider you a “deplorable.” It would be so much more convenient for you if I did.

      Re: your claim “I mock the left because I have few other options and little power,” you have as much power as I do, and you have the option of NOT mocking people but instead choosing good faith discussion.

      I don’t know how you expect to carry out this “divorce.” You want the blue states to secede? Tell us your proposal.

  16. Another despicable armchair revolutionary calling out for violence from his faculty lounge. I wonder what goes through the minds of people like that when the mobs they exhort turn on them and hang them from light posts.

  17. A little OT, but relevant….Our new National Anthem!! Hard copies available upon request.
    (Proper way to sing it: hand placed over one’s wallet, instead of heart}

  18. ” . . . when ‘the mob is right.’”

    And *how* does one know when the “mob is right?”

    When it’s the “right” mob.

  19. Pity that Chafetz’s ancestors didn’t have a better seat at Kristallnacht ….perhaps he would better grasp the mob concept….

    ‘BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY’ should be reserved to cutting the restroom line. This smug sense of ‘rule by divine right’ by the flying monkeys of the Left is hilarious…Chafetz, Gruber, Moniz and the other pseudo- elites should be special guests at Nuremberg 2…How they are allowed to promulgate bat guano idiocy only shows how insidious the Petrie dish of failed ideas has been allowed to flourish by the silent good …Shame of Yale, Harvard, and Oxford for creating these Progressive Frankensteins

      1. It isn’t, because you wish to deny the left’s heinous actions of stealing an election and now trying to intimidate the Supreme Court Justices.

        This is not American Democracy. This is Stalinist or Maoist. The intent is to subjugate the American people in the same fashion.

        1. Meyer the Troll Liar, Josh Chafetz is Jewish, and you’re saying that you don’t find “Pity that Chafetz’s ancestors didn’t have a better seat at Kristallnacht” to be a disgusting view. You’ve said you’re Jewish and lost family in the Holocaust, yet you agree that wishing another Jew’s ancestors were there as “7,500 Jewish-owned businesses, homes, and schools were plundered, and 91 Jews were murdered. An additional 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and sent to concentration camps” (quoting the Holocaust Museum). Your response is disgusting too, it’s low, even for you.

  20. I wonder if the good professor Chafetz would express the same sentiment if a group of protestors showed up at Justice Sotomoyor’s house expressing disagreement with one of her decisions? Since I am limited as a deplorable, can some morally superior and intelligent s@@tlib please answer? My guess is that Chafetz would advocate for the DOJ to hunt down and prosecute those individuals but inquiring minds want to know.

    Of course, I expect no answer, just some leftist calling me a slur.

    And the irony is that s@@tlibs see nothing wrong with double standards. They are fighting for ‘social justice’ and we are evil ‘nazis’. In ‘wokespeak’ it goes something like this, “Your speech is violence and our violence is free speech.”

    I WANT A DIVORCE! And that divorce is coming. You can have your multicult Brazilian utopia, we can have something called America.

    antonio

    1. Is s@@tslinger a “slur” in your eyes? That’s what you show yourself to be, every time you use your preferred term for liberals.

      “I wonder if the good professor Chafetz would express the same sentiment if a group of protestors showed up at Justice Sotomoyor’s house expressing disagreement with one of her decisions?”

      I bet he would. As long as they don’t break the law, they have a 1st Amendment right to protest, including in front of Justices’ homes.

      I certainly support the right of law-abiding protest in front of Sotomayor’s home, no double-standards on my end.

      I don’t consider you a “deplorable,” only a s@@tslinger. If you stop slinging it, I’ll change my mind, but based on your comments to date, I doubt you’ll stop.

      1. “I certainly support the right of law-abiding protest in front of Sotomayor’s home, no double-standards on my end.”

        Do you really. We have seen the hypocrisy of the left and it is blinding. We watch criminals stuffing ballot boxes. Is that also part of law-abiding support?

Leave a Reply to Alank Cancel reply