“Law practice, law teaching, and legal scholarship always run the risk of being in service to the unattractive, unethical sides of law: its use for the sake of power rather than for justice, its co-optation by the wealthy, its abuse by unscrupulous government officials.”
“Genuine lawyers, legal scholars, and law schools will make central – to their practice, their writing, their teaching – the project of protest against and change to institutions and actors who disingenuously hold themselves out as acting in accord with and on behalf of law.”
So, according to Professor Feldman, a law professor is not a “genuine” academic unless he or she uses their writing and teaching to “protest against and change to institutions and actors who disingenuously hold themselves out as acting in accord with and on behalf of law.” That not just calls for classes and courses to be used for advocacy and activism but suggests that faculty members or faculty candidates who do not make a similar commitment are “lawless” and “rogue.”
Professor Feldman’s public diatribe shows why conservative and libertarian faculty have virtually disappeared from many faculties. Most top law schools only have a small percentage, if any, such faculty members. Faculty members often find a myriad of reasons to reject such candidates, including dismissing them as not being intellectually “rigorous.” At least Professor Feldman is more honest and would just declare them lawless and unacceptable because they do not share her views.
Feldman and her colleagues show why polls reflect a rising level of intimidation and self-censorship by both faculty and students on campuses. A recent poll found that 65 percent of students feel that they cannot speak freely on campuses. Another poll at the University of North Carolina found that conservative students are 300 times more likely to self-censor themselves due to the intolerance of opposing views on our campuses.
In order to avoid disfavored treatment, many remain silent in the face of such open intolerance and intimidation. Schools reinforce this chilling effort in various ways, including creating a hostile workplace for those with dissenting views.
This extends to student editors and student government leaders using their positions to retaliate against the exercise of free speech by other students with the support of faculty. We have seen student governments move to block speakers, fellow students, or groups at schools like the University of Illinois, Stanford, Iowa State, Skidmore College, Cornell, Harvard, and other schools. Student columnists have been formally condemned at schools like Georgetown and both faculty and students have sought to eliminate whole publications at schools like Dartmouth as “incubators of hate.”
I support faculty participating in protests and advocacy. I also subscribe to a robust view of academic freedom in protecting even extreme views of faculty members. However, Professor Feldman is seeking to pressure colleagues to use their classes and courses for this purpose. Indeed, she is declaring that faculty must seek to change institutions and “actors” if they are to be considered “genuine” academics. Notably, there has yet to be any widespread condemnation of her intolerant views at Georgetown. Professor Feldman is attacking the very essence of higher education as a place for pluralistic and diverse viewpoints. Yet, there is comparative silence from the ranks of her colleagues. That silence speaks even more loudly than Professor Feldman’s screed.
Here are Professor Feldman’s tweets:
Heidi Li Feldman@HeidiLiFeldman
With an actively rogue Supreme Court, U.S. lawyers, legal scholars, and law schools have to reckon with how to practice, teach, and understand law without falling into complicity with lawlessness. 1/
Replying to @HeidiLiFeldmanLaw practice, law teaching, and legal scholarship always run the risk of being in service to the unattractive, unethical sides of law: its use for the sake of power rather than for justice, its co-optation by the wealthy, its abuse by unscrupulous government officials. 2/
Heidi Li Feldman
Heidi Li Feldman
Heidi Li Feldman
Heidi Li Feldman
Heidi Li Feldman
Feldman is typical of this whole ideological segment of society. I can only conclude she is simply a stupid person with limited cognitive ability but many are afflicted with the same syndrome.
Funny, John B. Say our resident right leaning “intellectual”. Uses that kind of reasoning all the time. He’s quite fond of the lawlessness claims.
Again – libertarian, not republican not right leaning.
As is typical – your post is entirely a weak attack on the person – not an actual argument.
Lawlessness is a testable proposition. a claim of lawlessness is either true or false.
There are many kinds of reasoning – but the critical attribute is the logical validity of the reasoning, not the kind.
John B. Say, you’re definitely right leaning. Your views on economics are on free market values which the right embraces. Low taxes and small government are also values held by the right. Most tellingly are your criticisms which are overwhelmingly about the left than the right. It’s not an attack. It’s an observation that is factually correct.
The contest over economics ended before I was born. Free Markets beat EVERYTHING.
The freer the better.
This is not a right/left thing.
It is again a question of FACT.
The evidence that standard of living rises faster where markets are freer and where government is smaller is incontrovertable.
That you think this is right/left is idiocy.
As I REPEATEDLY remind you – some things are FACTS, some things are TRUE, some things are KNOWN,
That is only right/left to the extent that it is the left that still thinks that socialism works.
The Right is NOT some ferverent advocate of free markets – they are just opposed to socialism.
The right particularly Trump is protectionist.
There MAY be national security reasons for protectionism. There are NOT economic reasons.
Trump is complex – he frequently says some very economically stupid things – but does not do them.
“ The contest over economics ended before I was born. Free Markets beat EVERYTHING.
The freer the better.
This is not a right/left thing.”
Oh, but it is. Because it’s a foundational staple of the right. You’re just deflecting from the basic point that you lean right on almost all of your views. Hence you lean…right.
“ Trump is complex – he frequently says some very economically stupid things – but does not do them”
That’s just a nice way of saying Trump is an idiot. He’s “complex” alright.
“ The Right is NOT some ferverent advocate of free markets – they are just opposed to socialism.”
That’s a distinction without a difference.
So your argument is that the left is economically ignorant and the right is not ?
My interest is in facts. Not right or left. I lean to the facts – heavily.
If the right has chosen to be correct on some facets of economics – good for them.
The left should join them then there would be no controversy.
But AGAIN the right is not ingeneral good on economics, they are just better than the left.
I do not lean right on economics. Many republicans lean libertarian on economics.
John, you lean to the right…heavily. No amount of semantic gymnastics is going to change that fact.
Only if you define “right” as “correct”
Th problem you are having is that over the past 20 years – particularly the past 10, the Left has been moving rapidly further and further left.
The rest of the country has moved very little.
A moderate is now ‘far right” according to those on the left.
So lets go over some core items that we KNOW.
Socialism underperforms free markets. The difference is so dramatic that the best of socialism underperforms weak free markets.
Whether you like it or not, that is a FACT that is easily established by comparative economics using data from the past 150 years – or more if you wish.
This FACT is a subset of a bigger generalization – With a limit somewhere between 3% and 19% of GDP more government spending – bigger government, statism means a slower rate of increase of standard of living.
You can rant and moan, but these are all FACTS or as close to FACTS as is possible in economics.
Over the enitre OECD – over the past 40 years or any period longer for every additional 10% of GDP government spent rise in standard of living declined by 1% – down to government at 19% of GDP which is the lowest values we have for developed countries in the 20th century.
If we go into the 19th century the point at which create spending causes economic harm appears to be between 3-8% of GDP.
Both republicans and democrats should and could know this.
Republicans pay lip service to it. Democrats do not even pretend.
We also know that the country with lower trade barriers does better than one with higher ones.
Once upon a time Republlicans and some democrats knew this.
Today neither party is particularly good.
In the past democrats have been better on issues of individual liberty than Republicans. But that has not been true for atleast a decade,
and it is getting worse all the time. I did not move on this – democrats did, and increasingly republicans are the advocates for individual liberty.
Regardless, democrats and the left moved – I did not.
Every US president since Reagan has started some kind of foreign conflict – EXCEPT Trump.
Up until Trump the Republican party Foreign policy was dominated by Neo-Con’s – the Chenney and Bolton Types.
Republicans have been slightly worse at starting unnecescary foriegn conflicts or getting us involved were we we have no national interest at stake.
But Trump has MOSTLY changed that. The NeoCons are returning to the democratic party, and atleast since Trump republicans are moving towards only using US troops where our national interest is at stake.
There are myriads of online political identity tests.
I come out 99% libertarian in all of those.
On average Libertarians – when they do not vote libertarian, vote republican about 60% of the time and democrat 40%,
On issues I tend to find common ground with Republicans about 70% of the time and democrats about 30%.
But that has declined because democrats are increasingly bat$hit crazy.
I support equal rights under the law for all. I have supported homosexuals and transsexuals in the past. But I am angry with many of my gay friends as SOME of them have become vindictive and abusive of the rights of others when they escaped from persecution themselves.
Racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism are all problems in this country today. They are problems that will never entirely go away.
but we currently live in the country with the least of all these problems, and at the moment of time within that country where they are all at a minimum.
If you are black, gay, trans, or a women the least of the obstacles you face is discrimination because of your identity.
‘Frankly it is now the left that i actively engaged in wreaking havoc on women.
Even where the left was once correct – they have gone bat$hit crazy and I am more likely to find real tolerance from a “Focus on the Family” evangelical than from a typical graduate of an ivy league school.
To the extent that my hostility to the left has increased – that is because the left has gone crazy.
It used to be democrats that were anti-war.
It used to be democrats that sought equal rights.
It used to be democrats that wanted people judged by their character not the color of their skin.
It used to be democrats that were suspicious of the FBI, the CIA, the “deep state”.
It used to be democrats that were advocates of free speech and opposed censorship.
It used to be democrats that supported protesting government.
It used to be democrats that opposed the police murdering protesters.
It used to be democrats that opposed the use of law enforcement for political purposes.
……
I did not change – you did.
I am no more right wing than I was decades ago when I was marching – often with you for these things.
“It used to be democrats”
It used to be that the same hard leftist group that wished to savage America were Democrats and are relatively unchanged today. Many “conservatives”, “right-wingers,” etc. fought against them and were accused of being authoritarian and many things, when they weren’t. Looking at those same people today that fought the hard left, I find many redeemed because they saw the threat of the hard left and tried to protect the nation from them.
Things are not so black and white.
Here you and I may be different.
I have leaned left or right at various times in my life.
But my core was always libertarian.
I am not “anti-war”. But I have opposed many of the wars we have been in.
I supported going into Afghanistan, deposing the Taliban and leaving – even leaving a mess.
The afghan people are responsible for their own government – so long as it is not conspiring to perpetrate acts of war against us.
I opposed the Iraq war, and much of the Nation building Bush engaged in that he attacked Al Gore for during the 2000 campaign.
I did not vote fr Obama – but I hoped that his presidency would get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead we ended up in Libya and Syria, and …..
With specific respect to the Use of Military Trump was very close to my “ideal”.
He used force to advance US interests – not as the worlds policeman. Trump got us out of military entanglements that we either never should have been in or should have exited long before.
The positions on many issues that I STILL hold today, are positions that some or most democrats – sometimes the MOST left of them held years or decades ago.
Democrats today under Biden are a reflection of the WORST of positions that were often held by republicans though the past – though not all at once.
You say far more stupid things that Trump.
Regardless, I am mostly more concerned about what people do than what they say.
Biden said a near infinite amount of stupid things.
The problem is not what he says, but what he does.
“That’s a distinction without a difference.”
Nope economics is not a binary choice between socialism and free markets.
The right choices is free markets, But that is not the only non-socialist choice.
Republicans tend to be protectionist – and int he past democrats have been too.
Economically that is stupid.
To a significant extent the modern world has devolved to socialims and free markets – because the other choices which dominated in the past have both failed and do not offer statists the levers of power that socialism does.
“Low taxes and small government are also values held by the right.”
Only some of the Right.
While Biden is responsible for most of the current inflation and the resulting recession that we are likely already in,
Trump’s covid spending Started it.
If you think I trust Republicans on taxes and spending you are an idiot. I have been clear about that.
But where Republicans are the economic equivalent of delusional Potheads, Democrats are fentanyl addicts living in a tent and shitting in the street.
“Most tellingly are your criticisms which are overwhelmingly about the left than the right. It’s not an attack. It’s an observation that is factually correct.”
I am quite open about the FACT that the threat right now is from the left.
In the late 20’s in Germany – should I have been attacking Hindenburg or Hitler ?
In the early 20th century should I be attacking the Bolshevicks or the aristocrats ?
In the 40’s in China should I be attacking Chiang Kai-shek or Mao ?
At any moment in time there is a primary threat.
There is no obligation to be balanced when the most consequential problems are on one side.
But if you need – I will be happy to lambaste Bush and even more Neo-Con’s – like the Chenney’s.
While they are not the threat that the left is. They have been a disaster through the entire 21st century.
Bush Ran AGAINST the Gore/Clinton nation building – and then got us into more messes throughout the world than any prior president.
Obama promised to get us out – and was coopted by the same powerful forces seeking permanent war.
Trump atleast actually tried to get us out of much of this – and did succeed more than Obama – but left us in Afghanistan when we left.
Biden is an incompetent fool who botched getting out of afghanistan – but did go through with it.
He also botched energy policy making the Russian invasion of Ukraine much more likely.
I am terrified that Biden will botch Ukraine too, and I am in conflict with many republlicans on Ukraine.
SO FAR I think Biden has done a good job in Ukraine – despite mistakes that triggered the invasion.
Nor do I think the supposed Gaffes regarding Ukraine and Taiwan are actual Gaffes.
I think that the Administration is WISELY sending a confusing message to both Putin and Xi.
At the same time ALL of this is very dangerous, and it is unlikely that this would have occurred with Trump.
Fortunately at the moment Neo-Con’s are on the wane – atleast within the GOP.
But they have been a serious danger in the recent past.
“ Low taxes and small government are also values held by the right.”
Only some of the Right.”
Nope. It’s the majority of the right. Only some of the right don’t agree with that view.
“ While Biden is responsible for most of the current inflation and the resulting recession that we are likely already in,
Trump’s covid spending Started it.”
Biden is not responsible for most of the current inflation. That’s just a consequence of COVID and what it did to the economy. He had no control over the disruptions in supply chains and sudden demand for goods. Remember, it was Trump who imposed trade barriers just prior to the pandemic.
“ If you think I trust Republicans on taxes and spending you are an idiot. I have been clear about that.”
I never said that. Don’t get ahead of yourself. However you do seem to ascribe to their views on the economy more than the democrats.
“ I am quite open about the FACT that the threat right now is from the left.”
Thankfully it’s only your opinion.
“ Obama promised to get us out – and was coopted by the same powerful forces seeking permanent war.
Trump atleast actually tried to get us out of much of this – and did succeed more than Obama – but left us in Afghanistan when we left.
Biden is an incompetent fool who botched getting out of afghanistan – but did go through with it.”
They didn’t botch anything. Obama knew pulling out of Afghanistan was much more complex than his detractors claimed. Trump was all talk. Biden was left with the dirty job of getting out knowing it wasn’t going to be easy. Trump did want to do it because he didn’t want to be blamed for the risky choice to pull out. At least Biden acted on it rather than just talk.
Biden didn’t trigger the invasion. Putin wanted to annex Ukraine for a long time. Remember, it was Trump who was messing around with military aid to Ukraine so he could blackmail the Ukrainian president into doing his dirty work against Biden.
If what you claim of he right were true – then we would have small government with extremely low tax rates.
I wish the right WAS as you claim them to be. They are not.
It is possibly true that many on the right pay lip service to classical liberal values.
But they do not act as if they believe them.
Covid did nothing to the economy.
We destroyed the economy ourselves.
The government response to Covid has caused damage far greater than the disease itself.
To some extent Republicans and Trump bear part of the responsibility for that.
But the lions share of the blame falls on democrats.
You wish to blame the impacts of policies on Covid itself.
But the economic and other policy driven impacts are not uniform – because the Polices were not applied uniformly.
You can pretend that bad statist policies attempting to do the impossible and defeat a highly contageous respiratory disease had some beneficial impact in terms of deaths and hospitalization – though the statistics do not bear that out,
but there is no pretense that the policy impacts were damaging and did not occur in places that did not implement those policies.
The economic decline experienced in the US – through the start of he pandemic to now was only about 1/3 as bad in red states as blue ones – because they did not engage in the same draconian and stupid covid policies.
Whether it is economic carnage, or the damage to children, or the spikes in anxiety, and depression and the consequent suicides and drug abuse, these are not uniform – not in the US, not in the world. They are worse in places that had the most draconian policies.
“ Covid did nothing to the economy.”
Oh yes it did. To ignore that particular fact is to deny reality.
There wouldn’t be a government response if it wasn’t for COVID.
Your bias against the democrats is clouding your judgment.
“There wouldn’t be a government response if it wasn’t for COVID.”
What’s wrong, you don’t want to name that “response?”
Statist politicians cratered the economy via shutdowns and lockdowns. The primary villain is, of course, Fauci.
Covid did nothing to the economy.
The fact that Government CHOSE to respond badly to Covid and destroy the economy and more importantly spend and then monetize $6T dollars – THAT destroyed the economy.
Your claim that the Government response was necescary is not merely rejected by the facts as we now know, but was known to many and knowable at the time.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of Covid deaths are in people over 65 means MINIMAL economic impact.
Not only did the government policy impact damage the ecomnomy – it damaged PEOPLE.
It was self evident then that schools and universities never should have closed down. The impact of Covid on young people is negigable.
There are Few if any Covid deaths under 20 of people who did not have multiple comorbidities. And even counting those the death rate under 20 was much lower than even the flu.
We do not shutdown because of the Flu. We do not engage in $6T in spending over the flu.
While the lions share of the blame for the idiotic covid response belongs with democrats – Republicans are complicit too.
Trump pushed the First unnecessary economic stimulus, and the first lockdown of the country.
Regardless, NONE of the government responses or spending related to Covid delivered any benefit.
And nearly all of it came at great cost.
We have had “pandemics” before – even the Spanish flu which was much worse had far less significant economic impact and far shorter lived.
There is not a single epidemic or pandemic ever in the past that has brought about significant inflation.
The European plagues were worse – and did have massive economic consequences – but they killed off 1/3 of Europe.
Not a maximum death rate of 0.285%
You should strike the word “deny” from your vocabulary as you clearly do not know how to use it.
Total covid deaths – if they were entirely in employed people from 18-65 were not great enough to cause a significant economic impact.
Total Spanish flu Deaths were about the same as Covid – but the US population was about 1/3 what it is now, and the death rate for the spanish flue was high for people from 20-40 – the group most important to the economy.
The actual direct impact economic impact of Covid was negligable.
If you have allegeries and you take a shot gun and blast your foot off – are the allergies responsible for your stupid choice ?
My primary “bias” is against top down central planning.
There are very very very few situations in which it works,
Covid was not one of those.
Atleast initially BOTH parties made the stupid mistake of beleiving Covid was within the ability of govenrment to manage.
That was always false, and was knowably false from the start.
There were plenty of ACTUAL experts – most outside of government telling us – democrats and republicans that Covid could not be managed by top down central planning.
But very few listened.
It is absolutely true that central planning appeals more to democrats and leftists that republicans.
Though plenty of republilcans did stupid things or bought idiotic claims by public healthcare experts that were knowably false.
The R0 rate of the Wuhan Strain of Covid was 2.8-3.5. No one has ever successfully by ANY means mitigated a respiratory virus.
The Flu has an R0 of 1.4 and we can not put a dent in it. It was insane to think that we could do so with Covid.
I would note that higher spread rates are EXPONENTIALLY harder to stop. So 2.8 is not twice as hard to stop as 1.4 it is 10 times as heard to stop.
The latest BA.5 has a spread rate higher than any natural airborne virus ever.
Regardless it was trivially knowable from the start that we were not going to stop Covid.
And yet we wasted Trillions doing so and crushed the economy deliberately to attempt to accomplish the impossible.
Just to be clear there is plenty of blame to go arround regarding Covid.
Neither Trump nor Republicans can escape responsibility for unforced and knowable errors.
They are just dwarfed by those of democrats – with few exceptions who got it right from the start, the difference between republicans and democrats is that it took far longer for democrats to grasp government can not fix Covid.
But it can avoid Fing up the economy.
“However you do seem to ascribe to their views on the economy more than the democrats.”
Close. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to on occasion be close to correct understanding of economics.
No one “owns” the truth. The truth is not partisan.
But the extent to which one group or another adheres to the truth is different.
“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena”
Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman and on of the top 4 economists of the past century.
The direct cause of the current inflation is the Federal Reserve Monetizing US Debt.
First Trump then Biden spent Trillions that we do not have, which they had to borrow,
The Federal reserve bought that debt essentially printing money to do so.
Between March 2020, and March 2021 The Fed Dumped 6T more than it would have otherwise.
And it did so in an environment where we had been monetizing debt for more than a decade.
This not only was predictable – it was predicted.
BEFORE Biden’s stimulus, there was a consensus that we would see inflation and a recession.
But the expectation was that it would be mild and not until 2023.
Additional spending made the Inflation larger and the impact much sooner.
“The direct cause of the current inflation is the Federal Reserve Monetizing US Debt.”
Spot on!
And Biden’s production-destroying regulations fueled that inflation. More fiat money chasing fewer goods. His Green New Deal zealots abet the crime of inflation.
Pulling out of Afghanistan Was NEVER complex.
I did not support going into Iraq. I did support going to afghanistan – deposing and destroying the Taliban and LEAVING IMMEDIATELY.
The future of afghanistan is up to the Aghan people – NOT the US.
All the Complexity that you reference is associated with the pretense that you can control the outcome when you leave.
That plus the fact that leaving afghanistan ran afoul of the “deep state” – so that Bush and Obama did not have the balls to do so.
Why didn’t Obama leave afghanistan ? Because he would have been a 1 term president had he done so. Obama would have faced the same leaks and back stabbing leaks from the IC and DOD and State dept as Trump did.
I was honestly surprised when Biden went through with the withdrawl. It is one of few things I credit him with.
God, you are clueless, Trump was not “all talk” – I can list everything he did – but it is well documented in the press, including his war with DOD to get out of Afghanistan.
I hold Trump accountable for not completing it during his term – that would have been difficult but not impossible.
I am not prepared to say that leaving would have gone better with Trump – it probably would because he was leaving in April not August and the Taliban would have been weaker at the time.
Regardless, The Afghan government did not actually believe we were leaving. The US military and IC did not beleive it and did not want it.
And they would likely have sabotaged Trump as they probably sabotaged Biden. Though I suspect Trump would have handled them better.
He would have fired people who got in his way.
Biden was not left with anything. He could have stayed. I fully expected he would.
It is one of incredibly few Trump decisions he did not reverse thoughtlessly.
Biden had a choice. I think he made the right choice and I credit him for that.
But it was still a choice not something he had to do.
Trump failed to get out, because he got hoodwinked by “the Generals” early in his term into giving them one more year to get results.
Which they did not. Trump negotiated a deal with the Taliban and to a lessor extent the Afghan government, to withdraw.
That deal resulted in an april 2021 date for full withdraw.
Everything went according to schedule through to Biden taking office.
Biden chose to delay, as noted I expected him to delay, delay, delay, and then back out of the deal.
But he delayed and kept the deal – over serious opposition from DOD, State and CIA.
Nut the delay made the withdraw more dangerous.
Of Course Biden triggered it. Do you think it is an accident that All of Putin’s military invasions occurred when the US was weak.
The invasion of Georgia occurred during the financial crisis and the 2008 election.
The invasion of Crimea occurred in the midst of Obama’s political problems arising from Benghazi,
Russia has attacked a neighbor during every presidency since the fall of the USSR EXECPT Trump.
The MSM – including the left wing has confirmed that Trump threatened Putin with bombing Russia if he invaded Ukraine.
Further Trump’s energy policies significantly disempowered Russia. The reason that Russia did not invade Ukraine in 2021 is hat it needed Biden’s energy policies to have an impact. He needed oil and gas supplies to be tighter so that he had much more political leverage. and was much more resistant to sanctions. Gas prices had risen – meaning supply was constrained BEFORE Putin invaded.
BTW the “sanctions” that the left likes to impose have ultimately been ineffective. Putin has faced them so many times he has sanction proofed his economy. They are hurting the west more than Russia.
Finally every one of Russias incurrsions corresponded to western efforts to bring russian neighbors into western orbit.
Russia was happy with Ukraine having a pro-Russian government. Hillary fomented a coup and destabalized the region.
The invasion of Crimea came the last time that the west talked about bringing Ukraine into NATO.
The invasion of Georgia came when the west talked about bringing Georgia into NATO.
Whether you like it or not – though not for the same reasons most credible experts do not beleive Putin would have invaded if Trump was president.
Nor do most of the american people.
We now face a similar danger with Tiawan.
I would note I do not think that Biden’s supposed Gaffe’s regarding Ukraine and Tiawan are actually Gaffes.
I believe he is deliberately and wisely sending mixed messages to Putin and Xi. Biden is saying the US absolutely will defend Tiawan, while the whitehouse is saying that our policy has not changed.
I think it is highly likely that if Xi beleives Biden will not intervene that he will invade Tiawan shortly.
There are a large number of military political and economic reasons – some very unique to current conditions in china that this is Xi’s best oportunity and that he gains politically from doing so. This fall – right before US elections is the best oportunity that China will have possibly ever.
Again you can look at China historically and note when they engaged in military adventures in the past.
The US navy is in the midst of a massive change in weapons systems. US naval forces are likely at the most vulnerable they will be for years to come right now. Very shortly we will likely be far better able to handle China’s ballistic anti-ship missiles.
“ Russia has attacked a neighbor during every presidency since the fall of the USSR EXECPT Trump.
The MSM – including the left wing has confirmed that Trump threatened Putin with bombing Russia if he invaded Ukraine.”
Of course that “threat” was accompanied by a wink and a nod.
Trump was enamoured with Putin. Putin knew trump was an idiot. Putin didn’t invade Ukraine while Trump was in office because he was waiting for trump to get re-elected. That didn’t happen and he had no choice but to do it with Biden in office. Clearly putin underestimated the reaction from the western powers. Not just Biden. The fact that NATO expanded which is not what Trump wanted and would have helped Putin is not a sign of weakness.
“Of course that “threat” was accompanied by a wink and a nod.”
You are really dumb. Did you see the wink and nod? No, you are a fool and repeat what sounds good to you. What you do not know is that in the Middle East Trump killed Russian soldiers. Putin recognizes strength. He also recognizes Biden’s weakness and Stupidity. You are in the Biden camp.
“Of course that “threat” was accompanied by a wink and a nod.”
And yet Putin did not attack anyone for 4 years.
“Trump was enamoured with Putin.”
So ?
Trump said many stupid things about Putin.
Trumps policies were still in the US’s interests even where that harmed Russia.
“Putin knew trump was an idiot.”
Still mind reading.
“Putin didn’t invade Ukraine while Trump was in office because he was waiting for trump to get re-elected.”
And what would that have changed ?
The US would still be one of the largest oil producing and exporting countries in the world,
and Putin STILL would have far less leverage should he start something.
Left wing nuts keep claiming that the war drove gas prices up. And it did – about 25%.
but prices went up 50% before the war – and that is incredibly important.
It is the higher oil prices – and what they mean that enabled Putin to invade Ukraine.
The price of A commodity goes up based on the laws of supply and demand.
The lower the supply the higher the demand the higher the price.
Rising US oil prices were the direct consequence of Biden’s policies.
That is NOT a secret – many on the left openly admit they want higher energy prices.
Higher energy prices have global consequences.
They increase the price of food,
they destablize the Mideast.
They embolden Russia.
They weaken Europe and the US.
“That didn’t happen and he had no choice but to do it with Biden in office.”
Of course he had a choice. This is a stupid claim.
Putin always had a choice.
“Clearly putin underestimated the reaction from the western powers. Not just Biden.”
Correct,
No one expected the Ukrainians to defend their country as vigorously and successfully as they have.
This administration, most of the experts, much of NATO expected Ukriane to fall in 86 hours and Putin to install a Russia friendly puppet regime.
That did not happen because:
The Ukrainians are clearly not the afghans. They have lots of problem, corrupt government, but they are willing to fight for their freedom, which the Afghans were not.
Since the end of the 2014 annexation of Crimea, the US – first under Obama then under Trump and finally under Biden has been providing Ukraine aid and training. Us Special forces have been in Ukraine from 2014 through to February 2022 training the Ukraines to fight the Russians with the weapons that Ukraine had available to them. Since Trump took office that Aide to Ukraine included Weapons.
I would note that while Biden and NATO have talked about – and even agreed to additional military aide to Ukraine. it is only very recently – the past few weeks that consequential military aide has reached Ukraine. To be clear I am not blaming Biden or anyone else for the delay. It si not possible to air drop a howitzer into Ukraine overnight and train ukrainine forces to use it.
There are specific ways in which Biden is to blame.
First is his entire energy policy which has disempowered the US and NATO and empowered Russia.
Biden is in Saudia Arabia begging for oil again. He would not need to do this had he not stopped the KeystoneXL expansion which would have allowed significantly more Oil from Canada and the west to get to market. The Pipeline is probably the biggest single item as the existing Keysone XL is operating at capacity. There has been fights over leases and permits. But those are inconsequential unless the additional oil can get to market.
As noted it takes a long time to deliver and train for weapon systems like Howitzers and Himars. That could have started months early when there were clear indications Putin was invading. Instead Biden thought exposing evidence of Putin’s plans and sanctions would stop him.
Just as Ukraine spent years preparing for this – Russia spent years “sanction proofing” its economy.
Finally – I noted that Putin has invaded neighbors under every recent president accept Trump.
Those invasions all share something in common. Open discussion of adding those nations to NATO,
Georgia was invaded when Bush/the EU started talking about Georgia joining NATO.
Crimea was invaded the last time there was talk of Ukraine joining NATO.
The current invasion was the consequence of recent talks of Ukraine joining NATO.
I would note Trump was NOT opposed to NATO expansion.
He was strongly in favor of NATO countries taking more responsibility for their own defense – and under Trump they did.
The problems Russia is having with Ukraine are tiny compared to invading Poland or Finland.
“The fact that NATO expanded which is not what Trump wanted and would have helped Putin is not a sign of weakness”
Adding Sweden and Finland to NATO was NOT under serious discussion. Trump would not have opposed. Russia could do nothing about Sweden and little beyond rattling sabres over Finland.
The NATO expansion that Trump put the Kibash on was adding Ukraine.
That Talk under Biden is what triggered Russia to invade.
I would suggest looking up one of John Meersheimers lectures on Youtube. Meersheimer has ben right about Russia for decades. and predicted every single invasion by Putin. He has repeatedly warned that loose talk of adding Georgia or Ukraine to NATO will result in Russian Military action.
“Biden didn’t trigger the invasion. Putin wanted to annex Ukraine for a long time. Remember, it was Trump who was messing around with military aid to Ukraine so he could blackmail the Ukrainian president into doing his dirty work against Biden.”
Massive historical rewrite.
There was significant evidence of the Biden family corruption when Trump asked Zelensky to investigate.
But all of this gets worse by the day.
Recently Hunter’s icloud was hacked and now there are texts and video’s
More evidence that Joe Biden was actively involved with Hunter’s business dealings.
And we now have Joe Biden paying Hunter Money that was used to transport hookers accross state lines.
Checks, and video.
And we have Joe Biden sending part of the SPR to china, and Hunter Biden brokering the deal and profiting – that is NOW.
Right now most of us wish Zelensky had delivered.
You spent enormous efforts trying to find something on Trump and found nothing.
More and more comes out on the Biden’s all the time.
And increasingly Joe is up to his neck.
Further it is increasingly evident that Democrats are scape goating Biden for the current disaster – Biden bears some responsibility, but he did not make this mess alone. The democratic congress was deeply involved.
There is no requirement to give equal time to criticism of each party.
My criticism is targeted at the largest threat at the moment.
John B. Say, speaking of lawlessness this article should interest you. The Supreme Court may decide on the administration’s ability to not enforce certain laws. It seems there is a strong case for prosecutorial discretion.
An excerpt,
“ no reasonable argument that Mayorkas does not have the authority to set enforcement priorities for ICE, and for other immigration law enforcement agencies. As noted above, a federal statute explicitly empowers him to do so, and the then-secretaries of Homeland Security issued similar memos setting enforcement priorities in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2017.
One reason why Mayorkas must set these priorities is that Congress has not provided the Department of Homeland Security with enough resources to apprehend and deport every undocumented immigrant in the United States even if it wanted to.”
That’s what my point was in a previous argument.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-trump-judge-seized-control-of-ice-will-the-supreme-court-stop-him/ar-AAZuIFU
Quickly skimming the case – law enforcement agents are NEITHER free to do as they please nor broadly subject to the priorities of political appointees.
As we have been discussing – they SWORE to uphold the law.
There should not be a conflict – because both law enforcement and the head of DHS are obligated to enforce the same laws.
All this case points out is the problems with “proprietorial discretion”.
I do not want CDP agents deciding what laws to enforce.
I do not want Myorkas to decide.
The LAW has already dictated.
“ As we have been discussing – they SWORE to uphold the law.”
The law allowed them the discretion of not enforcing certain laws. Congress specifically legislated that into law. They ARE upholding the law.
You may not want them to decide what laws to enforce and which not to enforce, but the law itself, one created by congress gives them the power to exercise that. They are following the law.
“The law allowed them the discretion of not enforcing certain laws. Congress specifically legislated that into law. They ARE upholding the law.”
Then you would be able to cite that law.
There is no such law.
“You may not want them to decide what laws to enforce and which not to enforce, but the law itself, one created by congress gives them the power to exercise that. They are following the law.”
Nope and that would likely be unconstitutional.
Stop making up arguments out of thin air.
Do not make up laws that do not exist.
If there is an actual law – cite it.
I would note, you would need a federal law and atleast 50 state laws.
Addressing this case more indirectly.
By the end of 2020 problems at the southern border were the least they had been in 40 years.
The actual immigration law was as close to being fully enforced as we have seen in a long time.
Today, we have the opposite situation. We have the WORST problems at the southerner border we have ever had.
Massive illegal immigration, massive illegal drug flow, rapes and violence, human trafficking, even national security problems.
If you want me to disagree with the Trump judge – though I have not read his decision and would not trust MSN’s spun version,
CBP is obligated to follow the law, and the directions of Myorkas, If they can not do both – they should quit,
They must uphold the law, and it they can not do so and follow the directions of superiors they must quit.
Just as Yates was obligated to quit when she claimed Trump’s immigration EO was unconstitutional.
Next, Myorkas should be fired, and if he is not impeached.
We can argue about all kinds of other things but it is indisputable that he has FAILED.
and that failure has harmed the country.
It is indisputable for many reasons – not the least of which is that he has made things dramatically worse than his predecessor,
even though the only actual difference is the leadership and their policies.
“ CBP is obligated to follow the law, and the directions of Myorkas, If they can not do both – they should quit,
They must uphold the law, and it they can not do so and follow the directions of superiors they must quit.”
He WAS following the law. You keep ignoring the FACT that congress specifically authorized the CBP the ability to exercise discretion on enforcement. There’s no failure here. He’s literally explained on paper to the court exactly why he’s not enforcing certain laws. Lack of resources is one, overwhelming caseloads in immigration courts. And judges being hamstrung by rules from the previous administration.
He was following the law as enacted by congress which gave him the authority to defer, not enforce, or stop processing in order to be able to manage a complex situation.
Are you denying the FACT that congress gave mayorkas the authority to not enforce certain laws?
“He WAS following the law.”
If that was the case – you could cite the law.
“You keep ignoring the FACT that congress specifically authorized the CBP the ability to exercise discretion on enforcement. ”
I do, because it is not a fact.
There are 6 claims in the lawsuit, The first 4 are that Myorkas did not comply with the APA – the administrative procedures act.
Left wing nuts successfully argued to vitiate Trump Executive orders for failure to comply.
The same standards apply to biden – and he has run afoul of the APA repeatedly too. Myrokas has an even bigger burden. Presidential executive orders have more latitiude than those of cobinet officers.
“In their Complaint, the States assert six claims. The first four involve the Memoranda’s alleged noncompliance with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”); contrary to law for failure to detain under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c); contrary to law for failure to detain under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2); arbitrary and capricious; and failure to follow the notice-and-comment requirements of rulemaking. (Dkt. No. 1 at 21-26). The remaining two claims include a violation of the the Constitution’s Take Care Clause and a breach of the purported Agreements between the States and the Government. (Id. at 26-27). ”
Ultimately the courts will decide the merits of the above issues. Maybe they will decide that Myorkas did not violate the APA or the law or the constitution. Though it is pretty self evident that Myrokas heads the DHS and DHS has FAILED to enforce the actual law.
Myorkas order NEVER trump’s law passed by congress or the constitution.
Asserting otherwise is absurd. Why would we have a constitution or pass laws if the executive was going to do as it pleased.
You can not manaufacture a crisis and use that as an excuse to not follow the law.
I have already stated my opposition to “prosecutorial discretion”.
And this is just one example of the problems.
You keep claiming something is a FACT without providing evidence it is. Congress does not routinely – or to my knowledge EVER delegate to the executive the authority to NOT follow the law.
Even in the current idiotic regime where Discretion is permitted – discretion is not a loophole to vitiate the law.
Discretion is supposed to be a means to manage resources efficiently to ACCOMPLISH the goals of the law.
4 years of Trump proved that CBP with current resources can do far better than it is now.
To the extent Myorkas might have discretion, that would be to change priorities to do BETTER, certainly not to do far worse.
I would note that like most creative lawless left wing nut arguments – this one is stupid.
Ultimately it is a lose-lose for the left.
If Myorkas can ignore the law and direct others to do so as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, then so can the next republican president.
Can a future HHS secretary ignore ObamaCare ?
Recently I compared the intelligence of those on the left to “deaf goats” – it is nonsense like this that is proof.
Do not make arguments that if you win, will be used to burn everything you care about to ash.
But we have seen this over and over from the left.
As best as I can tell this is a trial case that demonstrates what we have been debating.
Myorkas must enforce the existing Law,
he has failed to do so and that has created substantial problems,
He can not use that failure to give himself extraordinary powers.
The power of cabinet officials to direct their subordinates is limited to directing them regarding enforcing the existing law.
Not abusing that power to create new law.
If you want to debate this further – find the actual case, not an MSN article that appears to make up the issues.
Or a solicitor general motion that presents Myrokas’s claim – not the actual controversy.
If someone holds different opinions than you, that does not make them stupid.
No, but according to some here it does make them stupid.
Listening to Democrats is like being trapped in a room with a dozen whiny two-year-olds. “Me me, me” is their mantra, and their narcissistic application of law and “justice” has become predictable. The only reason their irrational rants get any mileage is because they have the media on their side. The partisan media provide the oxygen for these anti-Constitutional and hysterical voices, who thrive on delusions of victimhood. As for the trolls on this site, their personal attacks on Turley and others have become more strident and, well, just plain nutty. But at most, they’re an irritating echo chamber who perfectly mirror the cretins they constantly try to defend. You have to ask, Why would adults belittle themselves day after day with stupid, predictable and off-topic remarks that only bring ridicule? No self-respecting adult, either Republican or Democrat, would do that unless they were receiving a pat on the head from someone. It’s to Turley’s credit and integrity that these intellectually inferior trolls are allowed to speak their nonsense on his blog. They prove his point better than any article he could write.
I’m sure I speak for a lot of us when I say Professor Heidi Li Feldman your opinion is of no consequence to anyone but yourself. But it does make you look like the authoritarian you are. Not very lawyer-like either but hey, it’s Georgetown. They don’t make lawyers; they make activists.
Turley is an activist. You seem to be on to something here. Good point.
Hardly.
Is that what the enslaved Chinese people call Xi Jinping, a kinder, gentler “authoritarian”?
This is more evidence that the horror of horrors is highly likely to take place in the next few years. Revolution – and an attendant purge of like-thinking left wing liberals – will be the order of the day during this time. Perhaps it won’t equal the Cultural Revolution, or the Great Leap Forward such as observed in China, but it will be nonetheless a true horror in the U. S. There will be blood.
Doubtful. The Left will scatter like pigeons on a freeway. What you’ll see (and start to see now) is a waning of influence as adults take over and the mob disperses. Typically, cultural revolutions fizzle in direct proportion to their silliness.* This one is particularly silly (“birthing people”). We’re to civilized for a bloody civil war.
*The bloody French variety died when Robespierre ascended a throne on a manmade clountain at the creepy Festival of the Supreme Being. Here’s how he closed out his speech that day:
“Frenchmen, you are fighting kings, and so you are worthy of honoring the divinity. Being of beings, author of nature, the stupefied slave, the vile henchman of despotism, the perfidious and cruel aristocrat insults you by invoking you. But the defenders of liberty can abandon themselves with confidence within your paternal breast. Being of beings, we don’t have to address you unjust prayers. You know the creatures who have come from your hands; their needs no more escape your gaze than do their most secret thoughts. The hatred of bad faith and tyranny burns in our hearts along with the love of justice and the fatherland. Our blood flows for the cause of humanity. This is our prayer, these are our sacrifices. This is the cult we offer you.”
He was executed by the National Razor less than two months thereafter. See!
Ooops, make that “too” and “mountain” although the manmade mountain did have clouds.
I fear what spencerhohan is describing as a real possibility.
The group ShutDownDC was offering money for the location of the conservative SC justices. I could see some zelot using that information to do harm to someone.
The citizens of Magog aren’t happy that SCOTUS chose life over murder.
Gog is up in arms, too!
Turley says:
“At the same time, the law school showed little support for (and effectively forced out) a conservative colleague, Professor Ilya Shapiro, due to a controversial tweet.”
Why has Turley thrown Trumpist John Eastman under the bus, so to speak, by refusing to come to his defense for being unceremoniously forced into retirement at his law school?
“How John Eastman got on Trump’s radar, ousted from Chapman University”
“On January 6, 2021, Eastman took the stage at the “Stop the Steal” rally near the U.S. Capitol, and made impassioned, false claims about election fraud and urged Vice President Mike Pence to reject the electoral college count.”
“A week later, Chapman University basically forces him to resign after an outcry from students and his fellow colleagues,” Gustavo says. Eastman kept a low profile after that, but emails have emerged showing that he asked Giuliani if Trump might be able to pardon him ahead of possible criminal investigations.”
https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/greater-la/water-restrictions-fire-prevention-election/john-eastman-chapman-university-trump
Similarly, Turley never complained about Trumpist Lou Dobbs being censored by Fox. It did not escape the notice of Newsmax which ridiculed its competitor Fox News:
“Have you seen Lou Dobbs?”
https://youtu.be/GnUW2dtjkts
Anyone got any idea why Turley did not protest Chapman’s cancelation of Eastman or Fox’s banning Dobbs? Anyone want to venture a guess for Turley’s silence???
Shorter Jeff: “Whatabout dis? Whatabout dat?”
Jeff, There will always be a whatabout available as no commentary is comprehensive. That’s why whataboutery is not an argument.
He’s just pointing out Turley’s hypocrisy.
Uh huh.
No, he’s just pointing out what he would opine on if this was his blog.
Actually Jeff has a valid point. Eastman and Dobbs are victims of the very things Turley is always complaining about. The only distinction is both are conservatives ousted by conservatives and Eastman is obviously nuts when it comes to constitutional issues.
There are uses for comparison.
But arguments resting on mind reading about why someone has NOT spoken about something are vaporous.
Macroman,
I am simply exposing the fact that Turley is hypocritical. He will not fault Fox News for doing what he criticizes others for censoring.
Turley is not being hypocritical. He is discussing the law and what the press is omitting.You are being stupid.
Now you are demanding the rest of us engage in mind reading ?
Is it possible for you to understand that we do not all share exactly the same values ?
My daughter is adopted from China – I can not see a “save the children” commerical without getting my heart ripped out.
I donate to charities that provide aide to children in $hithole countries throughout the world.
There are plenty of children in the US that experience bad conditions – does the fact that I do not choose to focus on them rather than even worse conditions worldwide mean I do not care about the bad conditions some children see in the US ?
There are infinite problems. None of us can address everyone.
Turley can not address every instance of censorship or cancellation in this country.
Each of us picks and chooses what we are going to focus on,
and what we choose to focus on says nothing about what we do not focus on.
There are infinite reasons Turley could choose to not mention other instances of cancellation or censorship.
It is error to presume you know why. It is nearly always error to speculate about the reasons people DO something, much less the reasons they DO NOT do something.
“ There are infinite reasons Turley could choose to not mention other instances of cancellation or censorship.
It is error to presume you know why. It is nearly always error to speculate about the reasons people DO something, much less the reasons they DO NOT do something.”
Obviously, but given the fact that Turley puts down his thoughts in writing and shows his obvious biases it doesn’t take any “mind reading” to see what he’s doing.
It’s not about presumptions. It’s about Turley’s deliberate choices when it comes to his criticisms. It has nothing to do with “infinite reasons”. There are just a few and they are plainly obvious why he doesn’t mention the issues that pertain to conservatives and republicans doing the very things he claims are attacks on free speech. No speculation is needed when it’s that obvious.
Turley does not put ALL his thoughts in writing, or even most of them.
It is STILL error to presume to know what others are thinking beyond the SPECIFICS of what they have said.
“ Turley does not put ALL his thoughts in writing, or even most of them.”
Yes he does. He puts them here, on The Hill, Fox News, sometimes on other conservative publications, Twitter. He puts the majority of his thoughts pretty much on everything. Books too. He has said a lot which makes it pretty easy to presume exactly what he thinks.
Svelaz,
What’s it like having John B. Say on your tail? Flooding your inbox with his incoherent and illogical streams of consciousness?
If a post is illogial you should be able to easily demonstrate that.
But you do not.
Your posts are nearly always ad hominem, bad appeals to authority and other logical fallacies.
such as “incoherent and illogical streams of consciousness”
Fallacious assertions are not arguments.
Insults are not arguments.,.
John,
“ If a post is illogial you should be able to easily demonstrate that.
But you do not.”
Actually he does demonstrate it. The problem is it’s either ignored of deflected instead of being addressed directly. That’s not saying it’s done all the time, but most of the time.
“Actually he does demonstrate it. The problem is it’s either ignored of deflected instead of being addressed directly”
Nope, very very few people posting here make logically valid arguments. that is a bigger problem on the left that the right – both in frequency and in consequence. The right is not trying to change the world, the left is, “boldly going where no one has gone before” is incredibly dangerous with a high probability of failure. It is something you are free to do yourself. It is not something you can force others into.
You can find 95% of almost every post made here listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
A fallacious argument demonstrates nothing.
“The problem is it’s either ignored of deflected instead of being addressed directly.”
Hillarious.
I dissect most of the posts I respond to point by point, sometimes word by word.
That is about as far as you can get from deflection or a failure to address.
The detail in which I dissect posts often irritates people. I am aware of that.
claiming that I deflect or do not address is obviously false.
Jeff, John is just an interesting commenter. His views and philosophy are intriguing and just engaging in discussion is a good way to challenge your own views. Sometimes, rarely he does have an interesting point. He’s an absolutist. Which is what libertarians are often known for. Nothing wrong with that. But they do, like everyone else, have their flaws in their philosophy. They just don’t like to admit it.
Svelaz,
Better you than me. I can’t make sense of most of what he says. It’s like he says things thinking without thinking.
The hierarchy is as follows, from bottom up.
Low IQ: Svelaz doesn’t understand and gets almost everything wrong
Borderline IQ: You don’t understand and you know nothing
Higher IQ: The population that has some knowledge of what they are talking about.
Nothing I say is very complex.
If I was posting without thinking there would be many obvious conflicts between my own posts and with actual facts.
It would be trivial for you to point that out.
You don’t.
It is those of you on the left who post without though.
And you get irritated when I point out the facts that show that.
When you accuse others of what you actually do yourselves – that is called projection.
And those of you on the left do that all the time.
One of the wisest comments I have heard from you.
Libertarians tend not to be absolutists so much as generalists.
There are a few specific problems to classical liberal philosophy, but they do not apply to anything argued here.
It is much like Newtonian physics – provably wrong, but still incredibly close to perfectly correct for 99.99998% of conditions on will encounter on earth.
““ Turley does not put ALL his thoughts in writing, or even most of them.”
Yes he does”
Really – then please cite his thoughts on black holes.
Your remark was incredibly stupid.
Even you attack him for not taking positions on some subject you care about.
“ Really – then please cite his thoughts on black holes.
Your remark was incredibly stupid.
Even you attack him for not taking positions on some subject you care about.”
John. You’re the one who asserted that Turley doesn’t put ALL his thoughts in writing. You of course are being literal as meaning ALL, everything. Surely you’re not THAT daft.
Turley has been writing for years. He literally has put enough out there to know how he thinks, what his views are, and how his political and legal views have changed. No mind reading necessary, none.
Turley is literally telling everyone thru his writings and interviews exactly what he’s thinking and saying. That requires absolute no mind reading at all.
“ Even you attack him for not taking positions on some subject you care about.”
It’s not an attack. It’s a criticism. There’s a distinction. Just like many conservatives conflate criticism with censorship. And it often involves around the clear hypocrisy that Turley engages in. Especially with free speech issues, because Turley OBVIOUSLY is passionate about it as he has told all of us by writing his THOUGHTS. Pointing out a clear attack on free speech by conservatives when it’s literally all over the news pretty much shows he’s being selective about his criticisms hence the hypocrisy.
You are correct – I added the word ALL to a statement that you made that assumed ALL
I also highlighted it to make it clear.
Regardless, the argument that you know what Turley thinks is stupid, but you are obviously going to continue.
Nor is this only about Turley – those of you on the left think you know what everything thinks.
As I noted – I read Turley and make my own judgement regarding what he thinks.
His subsequent posts and you confirm two things.
That I am often mistaken, and that you and most of the rest of those on the left are even more mistaken.
But I am wise enough NOT to make claims about what is in Turley – or most anyone else’s mouth.
Finally – even if you were good at guessing what Turley thinks. It would still be an invalid fallacious argument.
In fact doubly so.
Whatever the distinction between attack and criticize – much of the lefts “criticism” or Turley is also an attack, and usually not merely a fallacious one, but one ignorant of many facts.
“Just like many conservatives conflate criticism with censorship.”
Some might – the difference between might and do is examples – in this case LOTS of examples, as you have made a very broad claim”
Regardless, so conservatives on occasion confuse criticism with censorship.
I don’t.
If you silence people from any forum you control that is censorship.
If you do so with inconsistent standards that is immoral.
If you do so as government – that is unconstitutional.
I here far more whining here from those on the left about Turley censoring them.
In fact I do not think I have ever heard a complaint from someone not on the left.
I had one post blocked by Darren long ago. He explained why, and how this blog is filtered and I have never had a problem since.
As I recall there are two things you need to avoid.
The first is words in WordPresses spam and unacceptable word list.
The 2nd is long passages beyond fair use from the work of others that would get Turley in trouble for republishing.
Yet, there is alteast one left wing nut bemoaning Turley censoring them in every couple of hundred posts here.
Are you not smart enough to avoid running afoul of well known and simple rules ?
It is rarely possible to prove a negative.
I can’t prove that you can not read Turley’s mind – or anyone else’s.
Nor should i have to. Pretending to do so is fallacious on multple levels.
You pretend to read my mind all the time – and you are not very good at it.
And that despite the fact that you have far more than enough information to accurately predict my position on most anything involving government.
Just knowing I am libertarian is enough.
Nor is it a complex or convoluted ideology like post moderns.
I hammer the same points over and over – and still you do not get them.
You are not required to agree, but if you can not predict the most predictable of ideologies
there is no reason to expect you understand Turley – or anyone else.
But that is pretty typical.
I am not a conservative – or republican – yet you keep confusing me with one.
Nor do you understand conservatives or republicans very well either.
It is fallacy and unwise to claim to read anothers mind.
And worse if you are not very good at it.
There are infinitely many positive claims that can be proved and infinitely negative claims that can be proved.
Perhaps if you knew more math and/or more logic, you’d recognize that “It is rarely possible to prove a negative” is false.
Ludicrously stupid claim.
WE have dealt with this and continue to deal with this with respect to the idioctic claims that Trump colluded with Russia in 2016.
Even the Mueller report speculated on ways that Trump MIGHT have colluded with Russia – begging the question of why he did not investigate those ?
The FACT which you do not grasp is that the real world is complex and even the past is not fully knowable.
It is not possible to prove that Trump or one of potentially hundreds of surrogates did not somehow have a back channel to Russia.
Just as it is not possible to prove that Clinton or Biden did not have a back channel to Russia.
With the collusion delusion nonsense we come as close as possible to proving a negative.
There is no evidence of actual collusion, and Trump and his campaign have been thoroughly if unconstitutionally investigated – by the FBI, by the SC, but an enormous and hostile press.
It is possible to claim that if none of them found anything – the odds that something exists is low.
It is not possible to prove that there was ZERO chance of collusion.
There is always things we do not and possibly can not know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Turley is not hypcritical about speech issues.
You said conservatives conflate criticism with censorship – but that is projection.
I have not seen that in the left. But constantly in the right.
There are Massive free speech problems in the conduct of government on J6
And you are blind to them.
I likely said this before – but I was at an event to restore the constitutions requirements for reasonable bail.
As I said – I am LIBERTARIAN – not conservative.
On this and many other issues I am more aligned with the left.
With the fundimental difference that the positions of the left are typically poorly thought out, and usually without regard for the means.
Most of those on the left were opposed to bail under all circumstances – except for rich white men.
Regardless, a black woman spoke, telling her story. And the story was a compelling example of the problems with our bail system.
She called 911 in a domestic violence situation, and when the cops tried to separate her, she spat on one and ended up in jail for 90 days because she could not make bail, even though the charges were eventually dropped.
More recently she was a speaker with a megaphone walking the streets during a BLM protest in my city that became violent.
The police arrested her for incitement, even though she did nothing violent, and bail was set at 250,000.
She was fortunate that a local group posted bail for her, and she is waiting trial.
Yet she ranted and raved about Trump inciting violence and the rioting at J6.
Completely oblivious that the only rights she can be sure of are those she would allow those she despises the most.
A substantial number of J6 protestors, most of whom would meet the lowest bail anywhere in the country but DC are rotting in jail subject to impossible bail.
The real goal is to break them, to get them to plead guilty, to punish them before any hearing or trial.
Regardless, the local speaker could not see these protestors as no less entitled to protest, and no less entitled to bail.
Those of you on the left see the only legitimate speech as Your speech.
If you are not prepared to defend the right of Nazi’s or the KKK to publicly march, speak, assemble, protest, petition government,
Then you are no different from Sen Joe MacCarthy. And you deserve to rot in jail next time you protest. Except I would be there regardless to bail you out.
Why should I trust your views on censorship ? You do not have principles, and your leftist religion colors your views on everything.
“Turley OBVIOUSLY is passionate about it as he has told all of us by writing his THOUGHTS.”
Nope, all you can know is the words he wrote.
“Pointing out a clear attack on free speech by conservatives when it’s literally all over the news pretty much shows he’s being selective about his criticisms hence the hypocrisy”
If you do not recognize that a significant part of J6 is about the violation of the first amendment rights of protesters then YOU are the hypocrite.
If you think you can protest in front of a justices home, but not inside the US capital – you are a hypocrite.
If you think you can protest a supreme court decision on abortion but not court decisions on elections – you are a hypocrite.
If you think you can ban someone from Twitter for using someone’s birth name, or for discussing a legal drug, or for presenting data that disagrees with the CDC or for reporting on the dealings of a presidential candidate and his son with shady foreign actors,
But you can not prevent teachers from reading pornography to toddlers, or barring pornography from school libraries – you are a hypocrite.
If you have actual examples of those on the right – and I am sure there must be some, restricting the ACTUAL free speech rights of others – by all means offer them. When they are real I will join you in protest.
I will further note that, many restrictions on speech are legal. Some of those are unwise.
Most restrictions on speech backfire. There is no right to have whatever books some teacher or librarian wants in a school library.
But banning books is so effective at getting students to find and read them that banning shakespeare might make him popular in HS.
As my HS football coach said – “When you Assume you make an ASS out of U and ME”
JBS l It’s pretty obvious to even a deaf goat that there is no error for it to presume that joeytaterhead has little capability to think and it’s utterly predictable what joey will say short of the gaffs/Freudian slips.
So many on the left do not have the aggregate intelligence of a “deaf goat”
John says,
“ So many on the left do not have the aggregate intelligence of a “deaf goat”
“ Fallacious assertions are not arguments.
Insults are not arguments.,.”—John B. Say.
Irony or cognitive dissonance?
It is obvious that you haven’t learned how to read. When you speak you reveal all types of ignorance.
I was not making an argument.
Are you on the left ? Can you demonstrate the intelligence of a “deaf goat” ?
If so, I apologize.
“Irony or cognitive dissonance?”
irony:the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning
Nope.
Cognative dissonance ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Nope.
Your comment is FULL of false assumptions.
Yes, there are infinite possible readings.
No you re not capable of mind reading.
It is possible that you guesses are right – but unlikely.
When you say plainly obvious when engaged in mind reading – you are near certain to make a fool of yourself.
I have my own assessments of what Turley likely thinks – but I do not voice them despite time proving them fairly accurate
I do not wish to be seen as the fool that you seem to.
All this of course ignores the fact that “appeals to Turley” are a fallacy.
“ Your comment is FULL of false assumptions.
Yes, there are infinite possible readings.
No you re not capable of mind reading.
It is possible that you guesses are right – but unlikely.
When you say plainly obvious when engaged in mind reading – you are near certain to make a fool of yourself.”
No mind reading is required. Turley provides exactly what is on his mind in his columns, articles, and tv interviews. It’s not a difficult concept. Even you admit to doing the same thing. “ I have my own assessments of what Turley likely thinks – but I do not voice them despite time proving them fairly accurate
I do not wish to be seen as the fool that you seem to.”
Your “assessment” is nothing more than what you claim to be “mind reading”. You’re just parsing semantics.
“Turley provides exactly what is on his mind in his columns, articles, and tv interviews.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
“Your “assessment” is nothing more than what you claim to be “mind reading”. ”
Correct which is why I do not offer it.
You even quoted me
“but I do not voice them despite time proving them fairly accurate
I do not wish to be seen as the fool that you seem to.”
but clearly did not read what you quoted.
Speculation is error – even when you think it is obvious.
There is no problem with contesting the veracity of an election. After all the presidential election of 1800 where Burr and Jefferson tied on electoral votes and was handled politically in the House by the electors pledged to John Adams. If you do read your history it has been an issue for the entire history of the United States. 1800 and 1876 were large examples. Anyone here read about the administration of Samuel J. Tilden. That decision was very questionable and how it was settled. It was also a very contentious time. As well as 2000, 2016. So contesting an election is not overthrowing the whole system. You also had to prove it. So contesting an election did not bring on the Days of Rage.
The Tea Party and it’s antics pale in comparison to the antics of law schools, universities , students, school board and corporate America in their embrace of of the leftist ideals. It’s getting hysterical now and worse because there has been a major shift in the electorate brought on by Trump and his populism and Biden and his dementia and the radicalization of the Democratic party. A Party I once adhered to until it abandoned me and many others. The left sees the presidency slipping away, a likely disaster in the House and possibly the Senate in 11/2022, and now the federal court system is no longer reliable in passing radical programs that the populace would not allow thru the legislature. The Republicans have played the long game since 1994 when they took the House and Senate, focused on the states and their legislatures, governors and state courts. And now ethnic groups thought to be beholden to the democrats are deserting in droves.
GEB,
I’m willing to concede that Biden has dementia if and only if you are willing to admit that Trump is a pathological liar.
Is it a deal?
Biden is a potato and everyone can see it. He’s only coherent on public because they medicate him. He’s a visible embarrassment and a blight on the face of a once great nation. Grow a brain and stop defending the regime.
DT,
Trump?
Correction Mr 10% is officially “joeytaterhead”.
Jeff is willing to admit obvious facts if and only if you take a bite out of his red herring fashioned as a reply to a comment he didn’t understand. Just another day.
It’s a deal. Neither one of them should have been elected president. We can do much better.
You are saying Trump was as bad as Biden. You are saying Biden inherited our economy as it is today from Trump! So sad 😞.
Lou Stahl,
Amen, brother.
Only when JS acknowledges Biden, and all of the White House has lied more to this point in his administration, than Trump has in the last 10 years.
Biden lies, gets fact checked by the leftist media, and keeps the lie in the teleprompter for the next rousing, read from the script delivery.
Iowan,
Still can’t admit Trump is an inveterate liar.
Iowan doesn’t admit when he’s wrong.
No Trumpist does. That is why they are liars.
You are either stupid or lying. Choose one or both.
He will admit Trump lied when you provide a list of the significant lies you are talking about along with proof. You are the liar.
Why do you think these are dependent ?
Should I agree to concede that Traffic is backed up at the lincoln tunnel if you agree that Florida has a problem with giant snails ?
These things are either true or false.
They are facts or not – independent of our personal opinions.
They are facts or not – whether we agree on them or not.
How is this relevant to GEB’s post ?
Excellent post.
The increasing extremism of the left has substantially overshot the wishes of ordinary people
Yet, the democratic party increasingly embraces it.
They are losing the trust of even their own voters.
Any Georgetown Law student who wants a decent legal education might consider
transferring across town to GWU, which has apparently not (yet) gone hopelessly woke.
“At the same time, the law school showed little support for (and effectively forced out) a conservative colleague, Professor Ilya Shapiro, due to a controversial tweet.”
No, the school did NOT “effectively force” Shapiro out. It refused to fire him despite calls from some to do so, and he had a hissy fit and chose to resign.
Once again, Turley feeds the “age of rage” that he complains about.
I thought a law professor would turn to the law, to affect the social change she desires. But I see nothing but ad hominem, and personal attacks. Why would she not use the tools, her CV identifies as the law?
Spot on. How ironic (and irresponsible) for a law professor (in fact, so many law professors at “leading” institutions that have been thoroughly infiltrated and controlled as part of the left’s forced indoctrination machine) to be advocating lawlessness and anarchy — burning down the Constitution and applying laws selectively to benefit fellow travelers and punish enemies. To think Larry Tribe has been a perennial fixture on the short list of picks for SCOTUS…
Thank you Prof Turkey for being willing to call out Georgetown Law. Is it accurate to say that these professors and Georgetown Law believe exactly what they are saying? If so, on what data or information do they base their assertions? Is it fair to ask them to source their statements? Or do we accept their views as a First Amendment right and the fact they are law school professors is beside the point? Clearly, Prof Turkey associates what is being said by these scholars with their being members of the law faculty at Georgetown. My point is: if a different Administration penalizes Georgetown Law for nurturing these enraged professors, should we expect First Amendment arguments defending these remarks? Or are these scholars entering the political arena and should expect possible repercussions? I find their comments outrageous, unprofessional, and worthy of retribution. Keep on Pref Turkey
“ In the age of rage, calls for radical action from both professors and students have been particularly amplified at Georgetown University.”
And that includes Turley. He loves to feed the rage for his fans.
^^When you try to troll but just show your lack of reading comprehension. Pathetic.
Svelaz is right. Turley feeds rage through (among other things) his biased selection of column topics and cherrypicking of facts.
You realize there is no such thing as an unbiased selection of column topics, right?
“Of course Turley is feeding rage — THE SKY IS BLUE!!!!” Great point!
The bias could be significantly reduced, and Turley clearly doesn’t want to reduce it.
Using the word bias, when Our Host, is writing what he finds interesting. Unremarkable, that others, do have other interests. Those with other interests, and rational, move on to other content.
Yes, and one of the things he finds interesting is feeding the age of rage that he complains about.
He, of course, is totally free to feed the age of rage on his own blog. He can do whatever he wants on his blog, as long as it’s legal. But no one should be surprised that he’s called out for hypocrisy.
Svelaz says:
“And that includes Turley. He loves to feed the rage for his fans.”
I would not say that Turley “feeds the rage.” I would say that he is NOT even-handed in his condemnation of it. He ignores the rage provocateurs at Fox because he profits from them.
That is incontestable.
If you appear on ” The Reid Out” you are by definition an idiot.
“ Denouncing opposing views as “lawless” is merely a way to declaring that your view of the law as the only acceptable view. The support for the Constitution or its core institutions cannot be premised on others yielding to your demands or your values.”
Well, well, well… looky here. It seems Turley disagrees with John B. Say. He’s always arguing about lawlessness with twisted rationales for everything he doesn’t like. Turley’s description of that kind of attitude is spot on. Interesting.
More word games.
This is not about “opposing views”.
Everything is not an opinion.
The law exists. It was constitutionally enacted by our elected legislatures reflecting our wishes.
We are obligated to follow it or change it.
If you do not accept that – then you are after lawlessness.
Whether you like it or not, “the rule of law, not man” is a requirement for legitimate government.
Are we free to murder each other in the streets ?
Is it a FACT that we are not lawfully free to do so ?
Or is it an opinion ?
If we do not have super-majoritarian agreement on fundamental law – we have anarchy.
John B. Say, it’s an opposing view. It’s another way of saying it’s an opinion opposite of yours.
Everyone, and I mean everyone including you are lawless based on your absolute rationale.
You break the speed limit like everyone else, I’m sure you take advantage of loopholes and bend the rules when you think they are unjust or unfair. How do I know that? Because everyone does it.
Nobody follows the law to its strictest interpretation unless it benefits them and not others.
Government works because there is flexibility such as authorities choosing to ignore certain laws or “looking the other way”.
What you’re suggesting is more in line with what dictators do. And they don’t exactly have what you call free societies. In fact that’s how religious theocracies work. But when those allow ignoring laws that are inconvenient like eating shrimp and wearing clothes of two types of yarn or whatever.
Saying “the earth is flat” is an “opposing view” – it is also WRONG.
This is a common leftist fallacy.
Everything is NOT an opinion.
Nor all all opinions equal.
Most of us learn that before grade school.
“ Saying “the earth is flat” is an “opposing view” – it is also WRONG.”
Nope. Your opposing view of my opinion is just another…opposing view. This isn’t complicated, but you seem to be making it much more complicated than it is.
You are correct, it is not complicated.
Your own error is plain as the nose on your face in your own post where you quote the proof of your own error.
Most opinions are wrong. saying so is a statement of fact, not another opinion.
“Everyone, and I mean everyone including you are lawless based on your absolute rationale.”
Correct, and that undermines “the rule of law” it undermines trust in government.
You do not seem to grasp that there are atleast TWO LAWFUL solutions to enforcing the law results in arresting everyone.
1). Change the law,
2). Arrest people until they change behavior.
Ultimately ending lawless government will result in a bit of both.
The likely result will be changing speedlimits until they reach a level at which nearly everyone obeys them.
Passing laws that people do not obey is another form of lawlessness.
Failing to enforce them is more lawlessness.
“You break the speed limit like everyone else, I’m sure you take advantage of loopholes and bend the rules when you think they are unjust or unfair. How do I know that? Because everyone does it.
Nobody follows the law to its strictest interpretation unless it benefits them and not others.”
All of the above is just evidence that are laws are broken.
If a significant portion of us think a law is unfair or unjust – that law should not exist.
One way to accomplish that is to rigorously enforce it. When people MUST obey unfair and unjust laws – they are likely to change them.
“Nobody follows the law to its strictest interpretation”
The “strictest interpretation” – the NARROWEST should be the ONLY interpretation, and nearly everyone should follow it or change it.
Law/Government is the legitimate use of force.
Without super-majoritarian agreement which is a necessity for enacting law, the use of force by government is not legitimate.
If we do not have that agreement on the law – we do not have legitimate law.
The Argument you are claiming Turley has made is idiotic.
The only form of government you can have without broad agreement on the law is totalitarian.
This is not an opinion it is a fact.
The fundimental problem with the left – which Turley has not yet grasped is reflected in the statement you quote.
Absent extremely broad agreement on the law – we ARE lawless. That is not an opinion – it is a fact.
It is no difference from saying absent light we are in the dark.
The Law is what legitimizes the use of FORCE by government.
Without the rule of law – all government is totalitarian.
That is not an opinion it is a fact. Logic demonstrates that, as does history.
You are free to attempt to remake the world as you please through the use of force.
Your can beleive that will work. That does not change that it will not.
“ Absent extremely broad agreement on the law – we ARE lawless. That is not an opinion – it is a fact.”
Then the republican push for minority rule runs counter to your opinion since it is not based on “extremely broad agreement”
Again not a republican.
WHEN republicans actually push for “minority rule” – you would be correct, but that is relatively rare.
What we have right now is “minority rule” by the left.
Only about 23% of the country thinks that we are headed in the right direction.
On nearly every matter of governance super majorities of people oppose the polices of THIS administration.
With respect to “republicans” – I beleive that Dobbs was wrongly decided – but so was Roe, and the left is not likely to be any more enamoured of the constitutionally correct decision than of Dobb’s.
But Right or wrong Dobb;s is inherently democratic majoritarian.
Dobbs does not make abortion illegal or legal. It allows the MAJORITY of people through their state legislature or through congress to decide the issue. If as democrats claim abortion is actually popular – you will have no problem creating laws with the support of the majority.
I am personally not a proponent of majority rule.
“That government is best which governs least.”
att. Thoreaux
Legitimate law has several requirements.
ONE of those is super-majority public support.
Another is the least infringement on individual rights.
Another is accomplishing what the law promises.
Another is actually enforceable.
Another is understandable and consistent with the understanding of right andwrong of again a spermajority of people.
All those and more are required.
Fail to meet ON and the law is illegitimate.
Most everything that legislatures – right or left have done in my lifetime does NOT meet all those requirements.
I have not see a Republican push for minority rule.
I have seen that from democrats.
Regardless, I oppose it.
But that does not mean the majority should always or usually get its way.
The default is less, not more government.
Svelaz,
Bless you. You have diverted John B. Say’s attention away from me to you. Now he will stalk you. Thanks though I pity you.
jeffsilberman, OT: Mespo the Mouth stated on a previous day that he couldn’t find your name on various lists of lawyers. Maybe yiu are more sensible than to practice “the law”?
[you]
David,
I am glad I was trained as a lawyer whether I hang a shingle or not. I wish more citizens were well-versed in the law. It’s a travesty that people must be read their Miranda rights upon arrest. Everyone should know their rights and the basics of law after leaving high school.
jeffsilberman, your third sentence deserves further thought.
I should clarify that it’s a pity that people need to be informed of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights EVER.
There are many idiots who practice the law.
There are many people who are not lawyers who have important voices regarding the law.
Regardless, of the problems, and regardless of the idiocy of many of those in the field law is a noble and necessary vocation.
If we do not get more sane people in the law, as lawyers, and judges, who follow the law narrowly as written, and who leave their political advocacy regarding what the law should be out of the court room.
It is easy to avoid me.
Check what you write before you write is.
Do not post obviously erroneous stuff.
Do not make obviously false accusations.
Turley is attacking a left wing nut professor.
He is correct that her “view” is a problem.
But his argument is self evidently flawed.
The core Problem that Turley misses is
the lesson of the tower of babble.
We MUST be able to communicate or we can not have government, we can not have society.
We can not even disagree if we do not have a shared language.
The core problem is that those on the left are actively and thoughtlessly seeking to destroy the foundations on which all human social activity rests.
If we do no have broadly shared understanding of the meaning of words – all we are left with is FORCE.
We become cave men clubbing each other into submission.
We can not have families – much less tribes, towns, cities, and states.
Communication is necessary but not sufficient for all social activity.
We must also agree on the rules of conduct and when FORCE can be used to impose them.
That agreement and conformance to it is “the rule of law”
Without it we are lawless.
The problem with the remarks of the Professor Turley is attacking is that the left wing nut professor is correct – we MUST have the rule of law.
That only we can only legitimately impose by FORCE a near universally shared view of the law.
When we do not have sufficient agreement – we can not create new law.
We are not free to impose our will on others by FORCE.
We must have broadly shared common agreement to legitimately use FORCE.
Law that exists that has been created through that legitimate process must be enforced.
We are not free to change the law by trying to broaden its meaning.
We can change the meaning of the law or repeal it by the same process we created it.
All of this is Fundamental. It is a core requirement to the social contract.
We can not have a functioning society, we can not govern ourselves without it.
The problem with the left wing professor is not that she has a different view on the rule of law.
It is that she is undermining communication itself.
I suspect if Turley thought for a moment about his argument he would revise it.
Regardless – though Turley’s remarks do not mean what you claim,
They are still not well written.
The problem with the remarks Turley is criticizing is not
intolerance of different points of view – though the left is notorious for that.
It is that she is wrong in very fundimental ways that undermine “the rule of law”
and that doing so has already lead to chaos, and violence.
“ The problem with the remarks Turley is criticizing is not
intolerance of different points of view – though the left is notorious for that.”
So is the right. The right has a long history of intolerance of different points of view, so much so that they seek to banish, punish, or force others to follow their intolerance thru law or religious dictates.
The right prefers the order that dictatorship brings. They want to be led and castigate those who don’t conform to their views by demonizing their different views. The left isn’t the only group that has issues.
You are confusing the attributes of religious conservatives with the Islamists that are joined with the left.
“So is the right.”
At times, not especially now.
“The right has a long history of intolerance of different points of view,”
False, The right and the past are not the same thing.
Republlicans deserve oprobrium for the MacCarthy nonsense.
Most intolerance has come from progressives.
YOU think of the Puritans as conservative – but for their time they were PROGRESSIVES.
Early 20th century progressivism was Democratic, and faux scientific, eugenics originated on the left.
“so much so that they seek to banish, punish, or force others to follow their intolerance thru law or religious dictates.”
Be specific.
Wilson – a progressive democrat was the most racist president we have had.
FDR was an anti-semite, and ran concentration camps for the Nisei.
Conversely Coolidge was a conservative republican and had the first and only native american vice president.
Religion can be progressive or conservative.
“The right prefers the order that dictatorship brings.”
Because you say so ?
This is Ronald Reagan’s most famous speach.
“Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down – [up] man’s old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VBtCMTPveA
They want to be led and castigate those who don’t conform to their views by demonizing their different views. The left isn’t the only group that has issues.
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.”
— Barry Goldwater
Am I the only one that sees the connection between these people?
No !!!!
Democrats are fascists using every part of the media, government and businesses to destroy opponents….ignoring the rule of law!
Republicans need a TOTAL Overhaul of the DOJ/FBI…moving it to the heartland after cutting it in 1/2!
Dprec free or forever hold your piece. At Georgetown is your piece your gun or your weenie?
Professors? Help us out on this.
The lefties started with debate, moved on to canceling their opponents, and now start with the “lawless” argument.
I wonder if Robespierre would recognize the arc of progress?
We all remember what came after the revolution (hint, Napoleon and especially Fouche).
Actually it’s those on the right who started on the lawless argument. In fact it’s THE argument for some of those on the right when it comes to peddling debunked voter fraud claims.
Svelaz says: “Squirrel!”
of those on the right when it comes to peddling debunked voter fraud claims.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, has ruled on the evidence.
In the opinion issued Friday, Justice Bradley compared Wisconsin’s elections to contests rigged by dictators in Syria and North Korea and questioned whether past elections in the state had been legitimate.
“Thousands of votes have been cast via this unlawful method, thereby directly harming the Wisconsin voters,” she wrote. “The illegality of these drop boxes weakens the people’s faith that the election produced an outcome reflective of their will.
Judges are questioning the legitimacy of Wisconsin’s elections. Not just 2020, but previous elections, also,
Iowan,
Why has Turley NOT yet championed that Wisconsin SC opinion as a victory for Trumpism?
You think he has not heard about it? Perhaps, he is a slow reader.
Suppose he NEVER applauds it? What will you make of his silence? No doubt, you and every Trumpists here will feel betrayed by Turley just like he ignored the “proof” of election fraud in “2000 Mules.”
This guy is an idiot. Why should Turley write about things an idiot wishes to see? The idiot says absolutely nothing and uses the blog as a bathroom.
Do you — like these judges — confuse the meanings of “a” and “the”?
It was a faulty ruling.
Iowan2, there’s a big flaw in that opinion. The justices are saying the drop boxes were illegal, but not the votes. Having drop boxes is not proof of voter fraud. It’s the votes themselves that matter. None of the justices said the votes from those drop boxes were fraudulent. They were still valid. It’s just the location that they were dropped off that is the issue.
“ The illegality of these drop boxes weakens the people’s faith that the election produced an outcome reflective of their will.”
No it doesn’t. The only people complaining about the drop boxes were those who knew they were not going to benefit from its popularity. People liked the convenience of the drop boxes.
The justices are saying the drop boxes were illegal, but not the votes.
Ballots handled outside the legal structure to handle votes, are illegal.
I’m guessing if a Republican precinct captain showed up at midnignt with 20,000 ballots, you would call those ballots illegal.
The entirety of your comment is nothing but wild free flowing gibberish. you tether your words to nothing of substance. Not a single, law, statute, or governing principle.
Gibberish
The political battleground is over free speech and expression. The second amendment may be important, every amendment is important, but it’s the first amendment and our constitution as a whole that is under attack.
but the 2nd amendment is what guarantees the implementation of the constitution in whole. Without its deterrent implications, we are just subjects to a tyrannical government.