A Constitutional Thanksgiving: Why We Should All Give Thanks for the “Least Dangerous Branch”

As families gather this year for our annual holiday feast, there remain many things for all of us to give pause and thanks for in our lives. Our friends, family, and faith remain central to this holiday. So is our freedom.  Despite economic, political, and social problems, we remain a free and prosperous nation committed to core values of individual rights and self-determination. Indeed, more than any year, there is particular reason to give thanks to the most besieged and resilient part of our constitutional system: the courts. Despite attacks from the left and right, our court system remains a bulwark against political impulse and excess. The Supreme Court in particular has faced unrelenting attacks ranging from a reprehensible leak to an attempted assassination of a justice to calls for court packing. It has stood its ground just as James Madison and other Framers had hoped in their original design of our constitutional system.

This week, former President Donald Trump became the latest politician to level a broadside against the Court after it refused to block his tax records from being handed over to a House Committee:

The Supreme Court has lost its honor, prestige, and standing, & has become nothing more than a political body, with our Country paying the price.  They refused to even look at the Election Hoax of 2020. Shame on them!

I have repeatedly criticized the former president for such attacks on the integrity of judges when he disagrees with their rulings. This was the correct ruling. It is true that these justices have ruled against him in some cases, including his own nominees to the Court. They have also ruled for him in other cases when the law was on his side. That is the definition of integrity.

Chief Justice John Roberts declared this year that the Court will not yield to “inappropriate political influence” as it faces the difficult questions before it. The Court has proven faithful to that sworn duty.

The Trump attack parallels the attacks from the left. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and others stood in front of the Supreme Court to announce a court packing bill to give liberals a one-justice majority.  Likewise, Sen. Richard Blumenthal previously warned the Supreme Court that, if it continued to issue conservative rulings or “chip away at Roe v Wade,” it would trigger “a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain numbers of votes to strike down certain past precedents.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren called for raw court packing after denouncing the Court as an “extremist” body.

For her part, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. questioned the whole institution’s value if it is not going to vote consistently with her views and those of the Democratic Party: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”

Even law professors have joined in calls for radical change. In an August New York Times column, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for our founding charter to be “radically altered” to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton call the judiciary “the least dangerous branch” with “no influence over either the sword or the purse…neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment…”

It is a thing of wonder. Despite lacking both the sword or the purse, the Court has prevailed throughout our history. It is designed to stand against everyone, if necessary, in defense of the Constitution.

At a time when the other two branches in our tripartite system have operated on an entirely dysfunctional basis for years with “snap impeachments” and unilateral presidential proclamations, the courts have remained steadfast.

Despite such dangerous legislative and executive fits, the courts have maintained a consistent and coherent role in balance in our system. That does not mean that we agree with their judgment. Many have good-faith objections to the constitutional interpretations in cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. However, the justices followed their long-held jurisprudential views in rendering such opinions in both the majority and the dissenting opinions.

Even when we disagree with decisions, we can respect and support the courts that render them. For example, recently a Fulton County judge overruled the state on when early voting can begin in the Senate runoff election.  Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger initially supported the earlier voting date but then concluded that the state law required a later date after a review from staff attorneys.

I agree with Raffensperger that the state law appears clear on the question. I felt that ignoring such plain language would usurp the authority of the legislature. However, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas A. Cox Jr. ruled in favor of a filing by the Democratic Party and U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock’s campaign.

As I wrote at the time, I still disagree with the outcome but I felt that Judge Cox made some compelling arguments based on the removal of key language from the law by an earlier legislature. The Georgia Supreme Court yesterday upheld his ruling. That should be the end of the matter. This is a credible reading of state law and the state courts have spoken. While I felt that the default on such questions should have gone to the legislature, I respect the ruling and the fairness of the review.

As citizens, we are not just living in an age of rage but a crisis of faith. Our leaders have lost faith in the core constitutional principles that define us from free speech to the separation of powers. That is most evident in the attacks on our courts and the men and women who serve on the bench. We live in a time when lawyers throw Molotov cocktails and law professors call for “more aggressive” protests targeting justices.

So this holiday, I will be giving a special thanks to those who are willing to don the robe and seek to do simple justice. Despite threats and even violence, they have continued to hold that thin black line in our constitutional system. For that, we should all be grateful.

53 thoughts on “A Constitutional Thanksgiving: Why We Should All Give Thanks for the “Least Dangerous Branch””

  1. The smallest common denominators in society is the foundation our founders set in motion, and to preserve at all costs.
    The individual, the community standard of moral behavior, America completely decentralized.
    The ACLU with massive funding has used our court system to destroy morals by destroying the authority of the community.
    Every criminal act is immoral, brought by the ACLU, wholly owned subsidiary of the democrat party.

  2. Americans must recognize the threat to their lives that exists in communism.
    Because that threat is omitted in the education system the political system which sees the threat must drive the threat from existence.
    The stakes are that high.

  3. Another fine example of Turley showing his unmitigated BS on how much the American people love the SCOTUS. Turley writing to the totalitarians that is the republican party now, who could care less about checks and balances and a impartial justice system is moot. Mainstreaming right-wing propaganda is what Turley gets paid for and like their Dear Leader, Turley knows his marks.

    1. What party is it that keeps demanding more ? That keeps imposing more rules ? That keeps restricting freedom more ?

      What party is it that pushes censorship ? Cancellation ?

      Republicans are flawed – but it is democrats that are the threat to liberty.

      1. When the democrats take over state houses with demands and storm the nations capital demanding something that does not exist, let me know. When democrats threaten local, state, and federal officials to the point where they go into hiding, let me know. When the real republican party members throw out these nutcases that believe everything trump does and says, let me know.

        1. Everything you claimed democrats do not do – happens all the time.

          Democratic protestors took over the WI State capital for almost a week to prevent a vote
          They committed multiple acts of arson against a federal courthouse in Portland.
          Blinded Police officers threw rocks, and bombs,
          Throughout the summer of 2020 they committed arson, burning and looting and murdering – destroying police stations, and even taking over parts of the country and seceeding, throwing molitov cocktails at police,

          Just recently they/them shot up a gay night club on Drag queen night.
          A LGBTQIA+/BLM drug adicted left wing nut illegal alien bopped Paul Pelosi with a hammer – and idiots like you persuaded half the country he was MAGA.

          We have Left wing nuts attempting to assassinate subpreme court justices.

          We have left wing nuts assaulting Senators in their homes, Shooting up Senators and Reps practicing Baseball.
          We have left wing nuts committing arson and violence against pro-life clinics.

          Absolutely we have a problems with Domestic Terrorism – and as it has been through all US history – 99% of it is from the left ?

          How many protestors were killed in “the 2020 Summer of Love” ? How many cops ?

          How many protestors were murdered at the Capitol on J6 ? How many Cops ?

          If some drug addict overdosing on Fentanyl is your hero because some police office kept him on the ground for a few minutes.
          What havent you cannononized the women beaten in the head repeatedly with a billy stick ? OR shot in the neck ?

          George Floyd had many chances – he died high as a kite on Fentanyl after swallowing his stash and that of his dealer, after passing a counterfeit 20.

          Rose Boyland and Ashli Babbet has no criminal record. Boyland was not even inside the capital. Both were engaged in legitimate assembly, protest, and petitioning government.

          Both were involved in POLITICAL expression – the MOST PROTECTED constitutional rights.
          Floyd was trying to get high, by cheating a local store.

          And you think there is some parity between the right and left ?

          I have not even touched on myriads of instance of left wing violence.

          I have not mentioned the Trans mass shooter at the Colorado HS, or the Black Kid that just shot up a wall mart – Do you think he was Ultra MAGA ?
          I have not mentioned the Eco-Terrorist mass shooter in TX,

          I have not mentioned the growing anti-semitism – nearly exclusively BY THE LEFT.
          I have not mentioned the numerous attempted Hate Crime HOAXES by the LEFT.

          You have made heros today of left wing nuts from the 60’s who bombed the Police and others murdering people.
          who remain completely unrepentant.

          I can go on an on and on about left wing violence.

          You complain that violent rhetoric causes actual violence – LOOK TO YOUR OWN HOUSE,

          It is the left that is constantly ranting about Hate – demonizing any who dare to disagree with them, and making them targets for actual violence.
          MTG has received threats of violence in congress while the capitol and offices were closed to the public and only accessible by representatives and staff.

          People get hurt and building get burned if people you do not like speak at a college.

          The right is far from perfect, and there are a few rare actual instances of violence by some on the right, but the overwhelming political violence today is from the left.

        2. Why shouldn’t people beleive Trump ?
          He either delivered or tried hard to deliver nearly all his promises.

          There is no “If you like your doctor you can keep them”

          He increased the standard of living of working class families by $4500 over 4 years.
          Biden reduced it by 3500 in 22 months.

          Those like you on the left have LIED constantly about Trump – and been caught.

          You also have double standards. Clinton never conceeded in 2016. She and other democrats attempted to alter the votes of electors – and succeeded in some. She with the aide of Lawrence Tribe created the plan that Trump followed in 2021 to try to get Congress not to certify the election. Stacy Abrahms has not ceded 2018 much less 2022 which she lost by something like 10pts.

          There is nothing that Trump has done or said that high profile democrats did not do first.

          Why should Republicans purge the GOP ? AOC, Ilhan Omar, Swallwell, Schiff, myriads of other Democrat nutjobs are still in the democratic party. Look to your own house. You have far more than your quota of racists, antisemites, and lunatics.

        3. It is hard for me to think of a more heinous group on the right than the West Boro Baptist church.

          Their rhetoric is repugnant. They are disgraceful enough to protest a military funeral.

          But they are not violent. Nor do they incite violence.

          A significant portion of christians believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that sinners should repent, come to god and sin no more.
          They hate the sin but love the sinner.

          Whether right or wrong – they are NOT as you describe full of hate for gays, blacks, women, …
          Right or wrong – they actually love those they are at odds with.

          Not YOU. YOU are busy spewing hatred all the time.
          It is not the darkness in the hearts of those you disagree with you should be concerned about.
          It is the darkness in your own.

          WE have had numerous protests at abortion clinics Post Dobbs.
          All peacefull – typically sit ins. For which this government has sent out SWAT teams.
          Why are people who protest peacefully EVER so dangerous that you need a SWAT team ?

          BTW MTG has been SWATTED 5 times now.

          Yet since Dobb’s there have been over 100 acts of violence against pro-life clinics – including nearly a dozen arson’s.

          We have a tidal wave of political violence today – FROM THE LEFT.

        4. Your foot is so far down your mouth I can see your toes coming out your ass.

          What actually possessed you to make such an idiotically stupid post ?
          Are you that totally blind to the real world ?

          1. “Your foot is so far down your mouth I can see your toes coming out your ass.”

            John, did it ever occur to you FishWings was born with that anatomical feature?

  4. In 1900 the average lifespan in the United States was 47. Many of those years were spent in misery. Today the average lifespan in our nation is 78.7 years. I’m thankful that we live in a nation that rewards innovation. That we live in a nation that rewards men like Edison and Elon Musk and gives them the power to reach their full potential without the iron fist of government on their back. I am thankful that we can resist the iron fist because God said that all men are created equal.


    I hope the good professor allows this rebuttal out of his typical respect for the freedom of speech. I presume this piece was written as an act of diplomacy and in support of the furtherance of a useful platform. It could not be more wrong. As to the courts, the doctrine of Judicial Review was established is 1803. It was enacted but one time by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney who simply read the Constitution, as can we all, and made it clear that Lincoln was wrong on the suspension of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court without any logic or coherence allowed all of Lincoln’s other unconstitutional, travesties: The denial of fully constitutional secession, commencement of war on the soil of a sovereign foreign nation by the executive branch, the confiscation of private property, the failure to comply with extant immigration law and compassionately repatriate people who were precluded by law from obtaining naturalization, etc. Lincoln had the correct position on slavery but the constitutionally wrong methods as to its termination. Everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional and the constitutionally adverse effects persist to this day. His successor improperly ratified “injurious” and antithetical amendments under the duress of brutal, post war, military occupation and oppression, which is clearly counterintuitive to the intent of the Constitution.

    Abraham Lincoln was Karl Marx’s “…earnest of the epoch…” leading America toward the “…RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.” Lincoln espoused the principles of communism in 1837 and his administration was committed to Marxism, disciples of which had evaded prosecution in Europe by migrating to New York and Illinois.

    “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”

    – Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837

    “Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”

    – Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848

    “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

    – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

    “The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”

    – Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864

    Americans can be thankful for communism because that is precisely what they have: Central planning, control of the means of production (regulation), redistribution of wealth, and social engineering. One example is that government is deliberately destroying the energy industry and Americans will soon be compelled to buy an electric car and solar panels; how many points in the Constitution does that violate? Americans have now lost most of their freedoms due to the failures by courts to adhere to their sworn oaths to support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution. Start here, apropos of nothing, Obama and Harris will never be eligible for the presidency or vice presidency because they did not have two parents who were citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth – the Framers had the Law of Nations in hand as they wrote the Constitution. Obamacare is irrefutably unconstitutional and Roberts deliberate and illicitly commingled the definitions of the words “state” and “federal” to approve unconstitutional Obamacare “exchanges,” as he committed an actionable crime of high office.

    Elections have been corrupted for 100 years. Illegal immigration has corrupted the voter roles. The Constitution requires voters to be entitled by states, identified, certified and present at a polling location, and elections to be held at a “place,” that is, one, fixed, geographical location, and on a “day” which is one 24-hour period, and cannot be accomplished in the number of days it takes to deliver the unsecured U.S. mail. Vote-by-mail is corruption-by-mail. Of course, the courts illicitly and unconstitutionally modify this and other areas of the Constitution by “interpretation.”

    The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

    Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use. If the right to private property is not absolute, there is no private property, and all property is public.

    Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.

    Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

    American freedom persisted for merely 71 years. Americans have no choice. Americans must be thankful for the enslavement of communism, which has been supported, against its sworn oath, by the Supreme Court since 1860.

    Please excuse any errors as this was written in the cheerful, noisy Thanksgiving atmosphere of festive parades, football games, kids and grand kids.

    Happy Thanksgiving!

    I’m certain Karl Marx and “Crazy Abe” send their blessings also.

    1. George. In Russia marshal law still exists today. According to your philosophy the use of the national guard to prevent a riot on Jan 6 should not have been allowed. On this point you and Nancy Pelosi agree. I’m waiting for you to break out in song. “The night they drove old Dixie down.” Just like your daddy taught it to you.

      1. Thank you for the brilliant word salad, comrade.

        Please allow me time to “martial,” nay, marshal, an array of oppositional concepts.

        Happy Thanksgiving, Einstein!

        1. C’mon George sing it out. “The night they drove old Dixie down and all the people and George were singin.” And all the bells were ringin.” George thinks that Lincoln should have allowed the south to secede from the union so slavery could have lasted another one hundred years. George thinks it would have been just fine if the south would conspire against the Union with the British to end the existence of The United States of America. C’Mon George sing it out. 🎵 and all the people were singing gotta keep them darkies in there place. And all the the proud boys were singin 🎵

    2. “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”

      Abridged quotes can be very confusing, so I am quoting Lincoln by expanding on George’s quotation. I don’t how George involves Karl Marx in it, so perhaps he will provide a bit more information past the period that didn’t end the quotation. It was a comma. Does George like to pay the fiddler so other people can dance?

      ” It is an old maxim and a very sound one, that he that dances should always pay the fiddler. Now, sir, in the present case, if any gentlemen, whose money is a burden to them, choose to lead off a dance, I am decidedly opposed to the people’s money being used to pay the fiddler. No one can doubt that the examination proposed by this resolution, must cost the State some ten or twelve thousand dollars; and all this to settle a question in which the people have no interest, and about which they care nothing. These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people, and now, that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people’s money to settle the quarrel.”

      George disagrees with Abe, but Abe is not crazy.

    3. Thanks, George. I see the attacks have already begun on your wonderfully cogitated remarks. You are on target and here comes the flak. The attacks will be personal because there is no debating what you say.

  6. I am thankful that we live in the information age. Just imagine that we still lived in a cave where only MSNBC, CBS, the Post and the Times were the only ones allowed to cast their shadows on the wall. We now have information at our fingertips. Just twenty years ago this was not the case. I am thankful that in the information age attempts at autocracy can be shown to be what they are. Freedom up!

  7. There are posters on this blog who write that Professor Turley never criticizes Trump. This post is one of many examples in which he does criticize Trump. Just another narrative gone poof.

  8. I hold the Supreme Court in greatest esteem even when they don’t agree with me. Which is sometimes hard for me to understand. I have come to realize that no one party and no one individual has all the answers. We hopefully progress over time if we understand that. Stealing from both sides is encouraged.
    I have also come to realize that a Supreme Court decision is still a court decision and can be reversed in time. It has happened more than once. A Supreme Court decision does not even necessarily mean that there is a new constitutional right that can stand against all attacks unless it is codified in a Constitutional Amendment. Even Constitutional Amendments have been reversed (Prohibition)
    Many of the Roe Vs Wade supporters ran around with their hair on fire saying it meant a constitutional right was abrogated when the Roe decision was overturned and returned to the states. The original Roe was based on a nebulous definition of a right to privacy and was not immediately codified in a Constitutional Amendment which would have rendered it sacrosanct.. The anti Roe crowd understood it was a court decision and spent 50 years working to change the decision. The anti Roe crowd should have paid attention to that fact but let their guard down and they lost. A victory, once attained, needs to be strengthened and fortified for the inevitable counterattack that will follow.
    As far as Thanksgiving is concerned, I regard Professor Turley’s blog each day to be a feast for the mind. I read every word and almost every comment (although I fall asleep sometimes with Svelaz)
    Blessings to you all, friend and foe alike

      1. GEB, remember that the same people that scream “you can’t overturn Roe”, stare decisis blah, blah, blah, also scream to overturn Citizens United.

  9. Today, and every day, I’m thankful for family, friends, work, a roof over our head, food on the table and the few intelligent bloggers I choose follow.

    Thank you Jonathan Turley for your efforts to educate others on hot topics.

    1. I’m also thankful that the anti-American hive-minded totalitarians dominating the modern 21st century political left haven’t been able to destroy the Supreme Court or the Constitution, yet. As long as these things are still there, there is still a chance that the totalitarians won’t destroy the United States of America.

  10. Jonathan: Practically everyone today has a beef with the Supreme Court. Even Trump attacks the Court for overruling him. He expected that packing the Court with 3 of his conservative acolytes would guarantee he would be protected. The public in general has lost faith in the Court–principally over the Dobbs decision that overturned 49 years of precedent. When Sam Alito testified at his confirmation he said Roe was sacrosanct and he would not vote to overturn. But when Dobbs came along Alito didn’t hesitate to overrule Roe. He said it was an “egregious” decision. Just a case of evolution in Alito’s judicial thinking? Get real. As a Conservative Roman Catholic Alito has always believed abortion was morally wrong. Many have said Alito lied to Senators about his stance on Roe and he should be impeached and prosecuted for lying to the Senate. Not much chance of that happening.

    This is just one of the reasons the public has lost faith in an impartial Supreme Court. Another is the conflicts of interest of Clarence Thomas. He continues to take part in decisions relating to Jan. 6. His wife, Ginni, was an active participant in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In the latest case Kelli Ward, the Arizona GOP Chair, appealed to the SC to overturn a lower court ruling she had to turn over her phone and text records to the J.6 Committee. The SC ruled 7-2 against Ward. Who were the dissenters? Thomas and Alito. No big surprise. The J.6 Committee wants Ward’s to see if she had any communications with Ginni. Thomas should have recused himself in the Ward case but he refused. So it’s pretty clear Thomas thinks judicial rules on conflicts of interest don’t apply to him. And that’s why the public supports a mandatory judicial code of ethics for the Supreme Court. Then we have the revelation in the past few days that Justice Alito was the leaker of his Hobby Lobby decision. And there is a working assumption Alito also leaked the Dobbs decision. You said “the Court itself has been hit with one of the greatest scandals in its history”.

    What is curious here is that you have chosen not to discuss the many conflicts of interest of Clarence Thomas or Alito’s role in leaking the Hobby Lobby decision. In your column on 5/6/22 you did address the Dobbs leak but you said “the assumption is that the individual wanted to pressure the court toto reconsider its purported path, and to push Congress to codify Roe”. You apparently wanted us to believe it was a liberal justice or clerk that leaked Dobbs. Can you make the same claim in the leak of Hobby Lobby or Dobbs today?

    If the rule of law is the foundation of our democracy, then central to it is the public perception that judges will rule impartially and interpret the law without susceptibility to outside influences. That’s not happening with the decisions of Thomas and Alito and principally why the Court has so little respect. And why this will not be a “Constitutional Thanksgiving” for me this year.

    1. Dennis McIntyre, once again you tell us that judge Alito leaked the Hobby Lobby decision to a couple named Wright. This is a big story from your MSNBC and the Huffington Post bible. Here is a statement by the Wrights saying that it never happened. I guess you missed this part. The Times said it corroborated Schenck’s account by reviewing thousands of emails and other records and interviewing a business associate in whom Schenck confided at the time. “The Times said Gayle Wright denied the allegation.” You rely on news organizations who have been proven to be wrong on multiple occasions but you give no credence to the voice of the supposed source of the information. I asked you to post the entirety of the story but you would not. You have jumped into every hoax feet first. The pile that you jump into doesn’t smell good but you do enjoy the odor.

        1. Hullbobby, Dennis believes that when a Republican nominates a court justice its packing the court but if its a Democrat packing the court he’s all in on it. Like most Democrats when he doesn’t like it he wants to change the rules. He’s like a kid on the playground who thinks he should get four strikes. When he doesn’t get his way he takes his ball and goes home.

          1. Unless it does not matter whether a judge or justice is republican or democrat – i.e. the outcome is always the same.

            Then we do not have the rule of law, we have the rule of men.

            We should ALL be agreed that we need courts that deliver consistent and predictable results.

            If the law is not consistent and predictable, then we are lawless, we have chaos.

            To get the same results regardless of the ideology of the judge, court must reach conclusions based on well developed well understood rules that when consistently followed always produce the same results.

            To a relatively large extent we have had something close to that for about 150 years. We do not now.

            I will be happy to consider any set of rules for reading the constitutional that those on the left wish to propose.
            But that rules must:
            Produce the same outcome if followed carefully – regardless of the ideology of the judge.
            Produce the same outcome under the same facts 100 years from now.

            These are the requirements for the rule of law, rather than the rule of man.

      1. Thinkitthrough: So you believe the denials by Alito and the Wrights over the detailed allegations of Rev. Schenck in his June letter to Chief Justice Roberts? By the way Roberts has yet to even acknowledge Schenck’s letter. If Roberts believed there was no basis for Schenck’s allegations you would think he would have responded by now. The fact that he hasn’t is troubling for his authority over the Court. You can be sure that before publishing such an explosive article NY Times lawyers would have been all over it with a fine tooth comb. The Times does say there were some “gaps” in the evidence but “The Times found a trail of contemporaneous emails and conversations that strongly suggested [the whistleblower] knew the outcome and author of the Hobby Lobby decision before it was made public”.

        Now you tell me: “I asked you to post the entirety of the story but you would not. You have jumped into every hoax feet first”. First, I don’t recall you asking me to post anything. Second, why am I obligated to post the entirety of the Times article? Anyone can read it online. If you want to do it be my guest. Third, what is your evidence the Times story is a “hoax”? So, I put it to you. Either put up or shut up!

        1. DM – you are free to “beleive” whatever you want.

          What we have as Evidence – is someone 2 steps removed from a leak on the WRONG case.
          Making claims that he has no direct evidence of.
          With everyone else allegedly involved denying it.

          Is it possible that Schenk is correct and everyone else is lying ? Certainly.
          Is it likely – nope.

          I would also note that on rare occasions the Schenk claimed whisper down the lane has occured in the past.
          It is rare but not unherd of people in government and the judiciary occasionally hint at the outcome of matters they are involved in.
          Judges, justices, clerks, printers.

          A whisper here or there. And often the sources lie about their sources.

          But the actual leak of a draft opinion is unheard of, and certainly does not occur at a dinner table twice removed.

          1. John Say: Notice that Thinkitthrough has not responded to my Q to him to provide evidence the NY Times article was a “hoax”. He ,like many of you on this blog, don’t want to acknowledge unpleasant truths. So far now one has offered any evidence the story was a “hoax”. Now you claim Rev. Schenck (you misspelled his name) was “2 steps removed from the leak on the WRONG case”. What “WRONG” case? Schenck allegations involved the 2014 Hobby Lobby case. And he was not “2 steps removed” from the leak which, curiously, you now admit. Schnck says he had a phone conversation with Mrs. Wright who told him about the decision. Alito and the Wrights deny Schnck’s allegations and you accept them without Q. Parenthetically, Pres. Biden has denied many times he was involved in his son’s business activities. Prof. Turley and you reject those denials out of hand. Why the double standard?

            Schenck wrote his letter to Chief Justice Roberts back in July. Roberts has yet to reply. Roberts has had ample time to investigate. If he had evidence the allegations were false he should have replied by now. His silence speaks volumes about his lack of leadership of the Court. He now has 2 unprecedented leaks on his hands and he has yet to offer any explanations.

            Now the Senate Judiciary Committee has indicated serious concerns about these serious breaches of the code of judicial ethics. They might even call Schenck and the Wrights to testify under oath. Would that satisfy you?

            1. “John Say: Notice that Thinkitthrough has not responded to my Q to him to provide evidence the NY Times article was a “hoax”. He ,like many of you on this blog, don’t want to acknowledge unpleasant truths. So far now one has offered any evidence the story was a “hoax”.”
              Convoluted way of falsely saying it is ThinkItThrough’s burden to proven Your unsupported assertions false.

              “Now you claim Rev. Schenck (you misspelled his name)”
              Do not care.

              ” was “2 steps removed from the leak on the WRONG case”. What “WRONG” case? Schenck allegations involved the 2014 Hobby Lobby case. And he was not “2 steps removed” from the leak which, curiously, you now admit. Schnck says he had a phone conversation with Mrs. Wright who told him about the decision. Alito and the Wrights deny Schnck’s allegations and you accept them without Q.”
              Schenck to Wright, Wright to Alito – two steps.

              So we have hearsay twice removed. Yes, absent evident to the contrary I am going to accept Alito and the Wrights over double hearsay.

              “Parenthetically, Pres. Biden has denied many times he was involved in his son’s business activities. Prof. Turley and you reject those denials out of hand. Why the double standard?”
              Because from the first 2015 NYT article there has been strong evidence to the contrary. No double standard. Just the same burden of proof.
              And evidence in one case and none in the other.

              “Schenck wrote his letter to Chief Justice Roberts back in July. Roberts has yet to reply.”
              Schenck is not owed a reply.

              “Roberts has had ample time to investigate.”
              What is he supposed to investigate – Alito has denied this, the Wrights have denied it. Do you have emails ? Voicemails ?

              “If he had evidence the allegations were false he should have replied by now.”
              Not how it works. Roberts is never going to reply to Schenck no mattter what.
              He may investigate, you do not know whether he has.
              There is very little here that can be investigated.
              Regardless, of what an investigation found there would be no reply to Schenck.

              “His silence speaks volumes about his lack of leadership of the Court.”
              NO it just speeks to the fact that he understnads the constitution and the process of dealing with an allegation.

              “He now has 2 unprecedented leaks on his hands and he has yet to offer any explanations.”
              There is only one Leak. There is no actual evidence there was a hobby lobby leak.

              There may never be an Explanation of Dobb’s – but it is near certain it was NOT Alito.

              “Now the Senate Judiciary Committee has indicated serious concerns about these serious breaches of the code of judicial ethics. They might even call Schenck and the Wrights to testify under oath. Would that satisfy you?”
              I do not need satisified. I beleive that actual leaks should be caught and punished. There is no actual hobby lobby leak.
              I would like to see the Dobb’s leaker caught and punished.
              I think it is unwise for the Senate to get involved. It is not their job. Further they have no impeachment power.
              The house must impeach.
              If you find ANY justice responsible for leaking a decision – I would support impeaching them.
              I highly doubt it was a justice. Increasingly I doubt it was a clerk.
              I do actually beleive Roberts wants the leaker caught.
              But you are free to beleive otherwise.

              Regardless, the hobbly lobby claim is double hearsay doubly denied, with no contemporaneous evidence.
              It is hard to get weaker.

        2. Did NYT check the collusion delusion before publishing it ?
          Did they check the Covington story ?
          Did they check the Hunter Biden laptop before publishing the Russian Disinformation nonsense ?

          There is a reason that the NYT and much of the formerly reputable press is no longer trusted.

          As to your claims or email trails etc.

          Those are inconsistent with your own story.
          And inconsistent with reality.

          Do you really think that NYT has emails from the Wrights ? From Alito ?

          Do you think Schenk has video from his dinner with the Wrights ?
          Do you think there is video of Alito’s dinner with the Wrights ?

          What is it that you think that NYT was able to do to confirm this ?

  11. I attend this Blog of Professor Turley every morning as I enjoy my Coffee and I am genuinely thankful that our Nation can promote such stellar persons such as the Good Professor.

    Professor Turley remains a Man of Principle when so many of his contemporaries are not and. he remains so despite the pressures and assaults he endures for doing that.

    Today being Thanksgiving it is right and proper to set aside political differences and all of us take time to contemplate our Blessings and be thankful for all that we have received.

    I head off to a family gathering this afternoon…..not my family as I have none close by….to enjoy the fellowship and love…and feel the warmth that brings to my Soul.

    I have no doubt there are other such gatherings today to include the Professor’s family.

    To all and each….I offer my greetings and pray your Day is bright and enjoyable and I hope you share in the that notion of what today is all about.

    I very much appreciate and enjoy the Professor’s teachings here at this Blog and am thankful he is free to engage in this very informative proceeding.

    Happy Thanksgiving Professor Turley…..love on those who mean so much to you and bask in the knowledge we are thankful you do what you do and for the being the Man of Principe you are.

  12. Thank you for your site Professor, and happy Thanksgiving to all. 😊

    I do, however, agree with other posters: the court can be corrupted too, the dems are actively striving to do that, and if successful, none of it matters. Even squeaking in one more radical activist judge over time would do the trick eventually. Make no mistake: they want permanent one-party rule, and it it is clear they will do just about anything to get it. It is naive to presume otherwise, at least IMO.

    I am grateful that thus far, the court has stood, intact. That could change quite easily with reticence or malfeasance, and we have never seen either in such ferocious quantity in our nation’s history. I am particularly grateful for all that shine a light on the chicanery.

  13. Dear Prof Turley,

    People say I’m a cockeyed optimist, but I don’t hold candle to you. You’re way too nice for this dirty business.

    So now you would give the Devil the benefit of law? I’m afraid most of the Executive Justice Dept. and all the purse strings of Congress are willing to tear down all the laws to get after the Devil.

    For example, over 50 top national security intelligence officials, and President Biden, still say the Laptop has all the classic hallmarks of Russian disinformation. I have detailed files. That’s their story .. . and they’re sticking with it.

    “The law is not a “light” for you or any man to see by; the law is not an instrument of any kind…. The law is a causeway upon which, so long as he keeps to it, a citizen may walk safely.” ― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

    *Snowden for President 2024 ‘Res ipsa loquitur’

    1. DgSnowden,
      “People say I’m a cockeyed optimist, but I don’t hold candle to you. You’re way too nice for this dirty business.”
      That made me laugh.
      Thank you!

  14. “For that, we should all be grateful.”


    When you attack America’s judicial system, you attack the uniquely Western notion of settling disputes by reference to arguments, evidence, reason. There is only one alternative to the Western method of setling such disputes: Guns at ten paces.

  15. On this wonderful day of Thanksgiving, it is ironic that those who should be most thankful for the freedom to speak freely given to them are among the most critical of our country and the first in line to censor the freedom of others. Is there another country in the world where truly stupid people are allowed free rein to spout their nonsense, much of it through the mainstream media? Happy thanksgiving to one and all!

  16. Professor Turley may be correct in stating that the SC was right in allowing te House Committee access to Trump’s tax returns. However, if the Committee was serious in its stated objective to study how the IRS handles tax returns of presidents, it should not limit its research to the tax returns of a single president, but extend it to presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton and also include the current occupant of the White House.

    1. If Prof Turley & the SC are correct in that it will not cause harm to Trump/Trump Biz to release his tax records the the SC should have ruled Everyone & all Tax filings should be made right along with Trumps.

      Anyone paying 1/2 attention knows for a fact that all info available has been used by DeepState to attack anyone they don’t like or that are in DS’s way.

  17. The Professor is absolutely correct on this, and I think we all know it. But a system that can come up with clunkers like Plessy v Ferguson and Roe v Wade is not perfect. In time, however, the ship does right itself.

  18. At present, the disfunction is the legislature. It has the power to overturn SCOTUS, but is perfectly fine, hiding behind the robs of judges. Letting the court make the hard decisions. Roe proved that.

  19. My problem with the Federal courts, is their interference in things never mentioned in the constitution. The Georgia voting ruling is just one of those. The court should never have accepted the case. There was nothing so substantive that they could not have just ignored it. IF, if, the people were so upset, they could have set about the change the law. Warnack failed to show any measurable harm. The courts seem to think, that once the people have expanded voting opportunities, it violates some right, to lessen the times available to vote. I cant find any legal or constitutional standard that supports judges getting involved.

    1. ” I cant find any legal or constitutional standard that supports judges getting involved.”

      Iowan, I hold the same feelings as you, but I believe that is the legislature’s fault. Each of the three branches holds power over the others. In the federal and some state legislators, the legislative body is too willing to cede authority to the judiciary and the executive. Legislatures can easily overrule the courts on many issues, but they fail to act.

  20. I am grateful for Professor Turkey and , although I am a conservative Republican, I wish he was on the Supreme Court. He is intellectual integrity.

Leave a Reply