We often use the end of the year to do a quick review of the state of the blog. In 2022, the blog exploded in size — often doubling or tripling the monthly traffic. We will soon pass our 66,000,000 view mark and our community continues to grow rapidly around the world.
As always, I want to offer special thanks for Darren Smith, who has continued to help manage the blog and help out folks who encounter posting problems. I also want to thank our editor Kristin Oren, who continues her amazing work proofing posts on a daily basis to remove my embarrassing typos. Finally, I would like to thank our regular readers who alert me to typos or any violations of the civility or copyright policies on the blog.
The growth on Twitter this year has been astonishing. We are now passing 400,000 followers. We also have 6,000 people who have signed up for alerts by emails.
This week, we passed 21,000 posts and roughly 1,230,000 comments. To give you an example, December was the best month in the history of the blog with an increase of 300 percent over prior years. Since December can be a slow month with the holidays, the numbers were particularly gratifying.
So here are the annual figures. Over the last year, our ten biggest international sources for readers came from:
- United States
2. Canada
3. United Kingdom
4. Australia
5. Germany
6. Netherlands
7. France
8. New Zealand
9. Mexico
10. India
The top five posts in terms of readership in the last year were:
- Six Degrees from James Baker: A Familiar Figure Reemerges With the Release of the Twitter Files
- Durham: Five Witnesses Connected to the Clinton Campaign’s False Russian Claims Have Refused to Cooperate
- “Preserve the Narrative”: The Public Rejects the “Insurrection” Claim in New Polling
The success of the blog continues to amaze me. As we have discussed in the past, Res Ipsa was created well over a decade ago during a family vacation to North Carolina. The blog was created by family members who heard me on a call resisting a request to blog on the site of one of my newspapers. I was entirely unfamiliar with blogs. They simply presented me with a new blog and Res Ipsa was born.
We are now routinely ranked with the top legal blogs in the world. We have also attracted our share of accolades, including the ABA Journal for its blog Hall of Fame. That is due in large part to our regulars who add perspectives and passion to the issues that we discuss.
In these trying times, it is nice to have a place (even a virtual place) where you can go to discuss the issues of our day from the momentous to the simply odd. I hope that you continue to find this to be a site worthy of your time and your contributions.
So, here’s hoping for a great year to come for our country, our families, and, yes, our blog in 2023.
Professor Turley,
Congratulations on the success of your blog. It is refreshing to still find places where free speech and individual rights are cherished.
Happy New Year, thank you for your well-reasoned posts despite the fact you voted for Hillary.
‘State of the Blog: Looking Back at a Banner Year in 2022″
– Professor Turley
_______________
And whatever is the state of the theme, the essence of the Turley Blog?
What is the state of the form of self-governance established by the men depicted at the top of the Turley Blog page?
Is there not a monumental contradiction?
The American Founders and Framers established freedom and self-reliance under severely limited government to “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….”
Today America is enslaved by Marx’s motto: “From each according to his ability [to pay confiscatory and punitive taxes], to each according to his [dependent and parasitic] needs,” and unfettered central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth and social engineering – pejoratives, one and all – not to mention an unrelenting foreign invasion commencing in 1863, when naturalization law was arbitrarily and illicitly abrogated, and continuing at flank speed to this day, to this hour.
Today is the 9th day of Christmas, 9 ladies dancing day.
Wishing you all a wonderful, safe and prosperous New Year, and thank you all for the tremendous service and enlightenment that you provide us “little people”!
God Blessed You, Mr. Turkey!🙏
I would rate your blog a failure, not a success, because it actually does not promote or entertain discussion! What you have instead is a one sided essay by you on a topic followed by comments by want to be experts who routinely bash the opinions of others they do not agree with, including personal attacks on people’s intelligence and character.
This is a shame really, because the infrastructure for a forum for discussion is here, and with the addition of an active moderator who can keep the discussion on the topic instead of the commenters, who in many cases have absolutely no understanding of the opinions and ideologies they are repeating. The other problem is there is no response to comments from you or from a credible source who can add context and cite resources for their positions and interpretations on subjects.
Yes, you may have many commenters, followers, and views of your essays, but it may as well be a soap box for propaganda and misinformation. Hopefully in the future you will concentrate on the discussion of topics and ideals, because that is what is missing today and is very necessary to understanding. A national discussion without partisan participation to block any real discussion is what we need, where all can express their understanding and discuss those ideals with others in a way that a true understanding can be reached collectively. Our government is FUBAR and there is no discussion of why or what is necessary to correct it, so we continue to wallow in ignorance and dysfunction which has resulted in a critical level of instability, and the result of instability is catastrophic failure, then we join the dung heap of history as the next failed governing system and society.
You obviously do not understand the First Amendment if you object to “a soapbox for propaganda and misinformation”. That is what free speech is! Also, I don’t know where the term misinformation came from but it appears to simply mean “an opinion I don’t agree with”.
You were the exact type of commenter I was referring to! You absolutely know nothing about the first amendment, yet you consider yourself enough of an expert authority to judge my comment without citing any sources to justify your opinion of my comment. And if it isn’t intuitively obvious to you that your response does not constitute a discussion, again you are the type of culprit I am referring to!
So have a discussion, make you argument.
If Mr. Conwell is wrong regarding free speech or the constitution – make your argument.
Don’t tell us all how smart you are, or how stupid those who disagree are.
Show us.
Just to be clear, I am replying to you, but I am not singling you out.
So often today misinformation means Truth I do not want spread.
So often today we are proving John Stuart Mill’s essay on Liberty correct,
If we do not allow those we disagree with not merely to speak, but to make their argument in the best possible way they can,
we will not find the truth.
When we silence “misinformation” – we make bad decisions.
We need to hear what we disagree with – even what we think is a lie, to know what is actually true.
What you are failing to understand is, that in today’s environment we don’t communicate ideals or discuss the validity of those ideas. I have responded to people on YouTube who say they are solving challenging mathematical questions which they solve totally incorrectly using what they call PEMDOS, I offered them a proof which totally discounts their incorrect solution methods and that still isn’t enough, they still believe that their interpretation is the correct solution, when the principles of mathematics are fashioned in a way that there can only be one solution, because every problem must be solvable by others and return the same answer or we could never communicate our solutions.
If we look the word “partisan” in the dictionary we find it means unreasoned allegiance to an ideology or faction, which includes political parties, that means people choose their experts and ideology, and even in the face of indisputable proof, they still will stick with what they believe from their experts. That’s why we have polarized government, we choose sides and as we become more equally divided the polarization increases to the point of total dysfunction.
With the constitution we have a huge problem, especially with the amendments, and what everyone is overlooking is that the constitution is an agreement between the States, everything in the Articles and the Bill of Rights relate to the States as the Union, so when we look at the first amendment we don’t find individual rights, what is established is the curtailment of the collective power of the Union when it is used against individuals to silence or make it impossible for them to fight against that unchecked power.
Political factions were precluded from participating in our government by the principles of assembly of a Republican Form of Government, our political parties are factions, so there should be no role for political parties in any of our governing institutions. Religious factions were pointed out in the First Amendment to make sure that we would not be making laws that are based upon religious doctrine, and no religion would be allowed to participate in our governing institutions as a mode to promote their ideology and doctrine, even though they too are precluded from participating by Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, and they didn’t want the States to use the collective power of the Union to control religious or other factions, but instead rely on the republican principle to only allow those factions the influence that is related to their true footprint in our society.
Long story short, “Congress shall make no law”, is what the first amendment is all about, and those areas where congress could make no laws, especially as they relate to the government or the curtailment of government, not for you to be able to say anything you want, the speech that the government cannot make a law about is that speech that is directed against the government, making the first amend the first whistle blower law. The united States, in congress assembled, the Union and Established Government Authority, must be related to every part of the Constitution of the United States, and the States have agreed to comply with the laws that they themselves make collectively, and only the States as the Union are bound by the agreement and the laws that they themselves make collectively.
This is a very easy concept to understand and prove with our founding documents, the people are not governed, the collective decisions making of the people collectively through their States is governed by legislative processes to reach a predetermined majority consensus of the States as the Union.
The constitution is about the collective nature of the Union and its people, not individuals or parties!
I do not fail to understand how things are.
What I am saying is that logic and experience tells us this will end badly.
Your claim that the constitution posits collectivism is both ahistorical and bunk.
Again read the declaration of independence – THAT is our founders exposition of the WHY of self government as opposed to the framework.
And the WHY is crystal clear – the protection of the rights of the individual.
That addresses the ahistorical problem of your claim of constitutional collectivism.
As to why it is bunk – that is simple – it does not work.
Free will is what distinguishes humans from other species. That defining attribute is inherently individualist and anti-collectivist.
Humans are not ants, Mentally physically, genetically, by aptitude, and by nature we are the most individualist species ever to exist.
While we work together “collectively” – we do so completely differently from any other so called social animal.
You can not map the way humans interact or work together or form hierarchies to anything else in nature in anything but the most cursory fashion.
While other species have some individuality – none to the extent that humans do, and none at all where that individuality is inherent to the ways that we interact with each other.
Humans interact socially for their individual benefit. Not the other way arround.
You can not get to the structure you claim without fundimental changes in human nature.
I find it interesting that you go by “federalist papers revisited”.
Have you actually read the federalist papers ? Even just a few ?
While the antifactional theme you dwell on can be found in the expressions of our founders.
None of the rest of your themes are reflected in the actual constitution or the writing of our founders or the federalist papers.
Again you have three problems:
Independent of whether your thesis is correct or not, it is self evidently NOT the view of our founders.
Your thesis is not compatible with human nature.
History shows us It does not work.
You call what you are doing a discussion? You are trying to debunk my comments with your understanding of the current interpretation of our founding documents and the thoughts and motivations of our founding fathers, which is totally inappropriate, especially to a discussion, which is exactly what I’m pointing out about the failures of this blog. This is not a discussion, and as I pointed out, partisan means unreasoned allegiance to an ideology or faction, especially political parties, if you want to know Madison’s interpretation of a faction, then read Federalist #10.
Don’t even begin to think you have the necessary background, education and experience to rebut my comments and characterize them as bunk.
The three problems you identify are wrong with my assessment of our founding documents come without any supporting documentation, and if you actually read the Articles of Confederation you will find that my assessment is not the result of my own interpretation, it comes straight from that document which says, “in order to do this, we did that”, and I see that you have a Hillsdale view of the Federalist Papers and this insane idea of “Natural Rights”, especially where the Declaration of Independence is concerned.
To “constitute” means to form or assemble, and the only thing formed and assembled by The Constitution of the United States is congress as a legislative assembly of the States as the Union governed by legislative processes to reach a majority consensus of the States as the Union. When we review the preamble of the Constitution of the United States we find who wrote the document, why they wrote the document, and who they wrote the document for, and the document is no more or less than the blueprints and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to assemble and operate, which constitutes, the Union of the States in a Congress, the united States, in congress assembled, the Established Government Authority, as established by Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation, a document I know for a fact you have never read!
The preamble of the Constitution of the United States says, We the People of the United States, (in congress assembled), which is the Union assembled in a congress as specified as necessary to the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation by Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation, in order to form a more perfect Union, which means that they considered the Union as formed and assembled by the Articles of Confederation perfect in itself, do ordain and establish this constitution for The United States of America”, which is the name of the confederacy as established by Article 1 of the Articles of Confederation; “the style of this confederacy shall be, “The United States of America”.”
So you also question whether or not I have in fact read the Federalist Papers, which indicates you have not, because you don’t recognize the parts I have cited from those essays. To help you review those documents here is a key of the important papers to this discussion, if you call this a discussion:
Federalist #’s 9 and 10, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Violence and Insurrection”, Hamilton and Madison respectively, Hamilton discusses the States in their Collective Capacity, in either the democratic or republican form of government, and Madison discusses the People in their Collective Capacity as assembled in the Most Numerous Legislative Branch by the republican principle, and also the difference between a democracy and a republic, and how they are assembled and how they function.
Federalist #’s 52-58, “The House of Representatives”, Madison, who discusses how the House of Representatives is assembled and how it functions in a Confederated Republican form of government.
Federalist #’s 62-66, “The Senate”, Madison, Jay, and Hamilton, Madison discusses how the Senate is assembled as a legislative assembly of the States with equal suffrage to reach a majority consensus of the States as the Union and the Power of the Senate in the Republican Form of Government as established by Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which he was the principal author, Jay discusses the Article 2 power of the Senate when the States are assembled by the confederate principle as established by Articles 5 and 9 of the Articles of Confederation which were reiterated by Article 2 and 3 of the Constitution of the United States, and Hamilton discusses the Power of the Senate as a court for the trial of impeachments.
Federalist #’s 67-77, “The Executive Departments”, not the executive branch, Hamilton, who discusses the assembly and function of the executive departments in our system of government with a very explicit and pointed conclusion in the last paragraph of Federalist #77 which defines our system of government as legislative and the president as subordinate to the power of the States as they are assembled in congress as the Union.
Federalist #51, “The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments”, Madison, where Madison discusses first why the different departments cannot be established with the necessary power of self defense, and that in a Confederated (compound) Republic, which is what the United States is as established by Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, the legislative authority necessarily predominates, and the Senate, the discrete democracy of the States as the Union, with the power of concurrence, has power over all aspects of our government and how it functions to make the collective decisions of the States as the Union.
You might try to read some of these documents I have cited, especially the Articles of Confederation which formed the States as a Union and empower that assembly, the united States, in congress assembled, as the Established Government Authority, which was reiterated by Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, and yes “All legislative powers” means “All decision making authority” governed by legislative processes in a congress if the United States assembled in a congress, “the united States, in congress assembled”, which again was established as the Established Government Authority by Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation.
This is the United States of America, not the United Parties, and not even the United People, because the People are assembled as a representation of the people of the United States, and there is a huge difference between a “representative” and a “representation”, a representative is someone you hire to advocate for your interest, a representation is an exact copy of the original, only smaller. By the republican principle, the people participate in the general councils of government through representation, the People in their Collective Capacity, assembled as the Most Numerous Legislative Branch by per capita apportionment based upon an enumeration, a census, to participate through representation as if they were present in person to participate and vote themselves to reach a majority consensus of ALL THE PEOPLE, not just a plurality of those who participate with universal adult suffrage.
Now if you actually want to discuss this topic any further, I would suggest you cite our founding documents; The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution of the United States, The Journal of the Senate, the first 100 years, and yes, the Federalist Papers, as they were written by the same people who wrote the Constitution of the United States, I would expect they would know why they wrote it and how it was to function to assemble the States as the Union.
By the way, the united States is the Union of the States assembled in a congress, “The United States of America” is the name of our country, which is a confederacy, a discrete democracy of the States as the Union!
Still not interested in your mind reading. I am not interested in your beating straw men to death.
Rather than reading my mind. Try actually reading the federalist papers, or pretty much anything else by the founders.
It is Not my opinion that you are full of schiff. It is what they wrote.
I am not interested in your claims of your own self importance.
I have read the articles of confederation.
It has not been the law of the land for 250 years.
And if you have to add words to the constitution to make your point you have already lost the argument.
Do not tell me what you THINK the federalist papers say, or what you THINK the constitution says.
Cite the actual text. I am not interested in your mind reading of Jay, Madison or Hamilton either.
Your not very good at it.
Quoting YOU
“Now if you actually want to discuss this topic any further, I would suggest you cite our founding documents; The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States,”
You did not do that. You wasted lots of ink telling us all what you THINK they say – not what they actually say.
Nor could I find an argument in the parts of what you wrote that I bothered to read.
Some of what you wrote may be correct. But it was not an argument.
Professor Turley -a true beacon of free speech, a guiding lighthouse for those squandering in a sea of media and social propaganda. He lets the naysayers say, -and lets the rest of us sort it out: a true marker of “speech” excellence on a forum such as his.
And what would we do without Darren’s dry wit? I wish only the best for you both.
Above the Law has an excellent piece on Turley. Below is just the opening paragraph:
Rating Jonathan Turley’s Wildest, Thirstiest, Most Embarrassing Bids For Attention In 2022
2022: A Year In Disingenuity
By JOE PATRICE
onDecember 30, 2022 at 3:15 PM
“Everywhere you turned this year, Jonathan Turley was there.The George Washington University law professor continued his all-consuming passion to stay relevant with countless cable news hits, a flurry of vacuous articles in The Hill, and an unfiltered string of Tweets and personal blog posts. Wherever a far-right talking point needed the imprimatur of a fading scholar, Turley jumped at the opportunity to spout all manner of nonsense to get another taste of that sweet, sweet attention.
He’s the legal equivalent of a down-and-out doctor writing oxy scrips in exchange for the hard stuff that he really craves.”
The piece goes on to detail how Turley does just what some of us have criticized him for: ignoring pieces about Trump and his criminality, except to try to spin the facts, serving as an echo chamber for Fox, stirring the culture wars, attacks on Democrats, attacking those who oppose right-wing speakers on college campuses, and defending Dobbs, among other things. There is also a link to a piece published in Slate containing similar criticisms of Turley and his lack of objectivity.
If you are truly open-minded and want to consider both sides, you might want to look at Joe’s piece because it is enlightening. Of course, most of the disciples won’t bother. Turley is there to use his credentials to breathe life into Fox pieces, not to be objective.
Scott Greenberg at his Criminal Defense Blog, “Simple Justice” describes Joe Patrice like no one else can, which is because Scott is a liberal but honest lawyer
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2022/02/22/the-harmful-article/
The Harmful Article
Naturally, Joe Patrice, mustering his usual intellectual depth, championed the cause of the traumatized Duke Law students forced by their faculty advisors to include an article in the Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems.
After Jon Adler at Volokh Conspiracy pointed out that Patrice’s ATL post ran the gamut from vacuous to ad hominem he noted that editorial decisions at this particular journal were made by academics, and the academics did something that neither a group of Duke students nor Patrice could tolerate: They included an article that failed to adhere to the social justice orthodoxy…..
JDJournal has an excellent piece on Patrice and his limited skills. Below is just the title:
https://www.jdjournal.com/2015/08/07/what-is-wrong-with-above-the-law-and-joe-patrice/
Also, see:
“Patrice also dismisses critics of the ELJ (especially Professor Jonathan Turley, toward whom he appears to have a particular animus) ….
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2022/01/31/the-emory-law-journal-scandal-coda/
Perhaps that “animus” is based on a competitive envy of Turley’s success and reputation? After all, Above the Law has a whopping “44,166 viewers..and 4,839 Followers….” and has other notable members, like, you know, Elie Mystal?
(I can only post two links, so you will have to look up my source, sorry in advance….)
(My post above on JOE PATRICE)
GIGI – After reading this comment, I reviewed some of Patrice’s tweets at https://twitter.com/JosephPatrice. They start in late June, 2022.
On July 8, 2022, he ridiculed in two tweets Justice Kavanaugh and his family for fleeing “protestors” who were interrupting their dinner at a Washington DC restaurant: “WAIT. How did I not think of this headline? “Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Stand The Heat, Gets Out Through Kitchen” and “Alt headline for the Kavanaugh (sic) running away from restaurant story: ‘Man Who Forces Women To Go To Delivery Now Faces Lifetime Of Delivery’” These unamusing jokes came a couple of weeks after someone had been caught trying to assassinate Kavanaugh.
The next day, he continued on the same topic: “A lot of us made quips about the originalist problems with the right to dinner… but New Republic absolutely ROLLED with it! https://twitter.com/theglipper/status/1545845196537188353 ““ “ So, the Kavanagh family should be denied the right to eat in public because of the “bad” judicial philosophy of Kavanaugh.
On July 12, he reprinted an AP Fact Check that debunked a claim that the USSCt had voted to overturn the 2020 Presidential election. His comment: “Yeah. They haven’t done that since 2000!!!” This comment came in the midst of dozens, if not hundreds, of comments, ridiculing people who questioned the 2020 Presidential election. Like many doctrinaire leftists, Patrice is an “election denier” when it suits his purposes.
Also, on July 12, he turned his attention to JT, responding to a column where Turley claimed that ectopic pregnancies do not constitute viable pregnancies, and therefore cannot be barred by anti-abortion laws. Patrice was so “triggered” by this reasonable comment that he concluded: “Once again I’m torn as to whether Turley is a destructive attention-seeking grifter or a complete moron. Honestly, this question keeps me up at night.” Tough choice! How temperate is the rhetoric of this widely-respected left-wing legal commentator! Just to prove to his readers that he was willing to spout any kind of nonsense: he added in a footnote: “For the purposes of this article, we’re using the term “women” as that covers the majority [sic] of cases, but we recognize that this doesn’t actually capture the full universe of people capable of having an ectopic pregnancy.” Of course not.
Continuing on the anti-Turley theme, on July 14, he ridiculed JT for misspelling the HIPAA law as HIPPA. This flagrant sin “is a level of amateur-hour ignorance that really should disqualify him from future use of the title “expert.” Burn that law license!!
On July 19, he ridiculed Alan Dershowitz for complaining that he had been barred from parts of Harvard becuse of his defense of Trump. Per Patrice, such a complaint proved that he was a narcissist.
On July 21, he re-tweeted an anti-Turley comment from that well-known legal scholar Elie Mystal, which read: “Do we think Jonathan Turley prepares analyze [sic] these hearings by downing mushrooms staring at a picture of Mitch McConnell until he finds inspiration?” Apparently, misspellings don’t really bother Patrice that much. But even if Mystal’s spelling is corrected, it is childish.
On July 25, he ridiculed the efforts of Prof. Amy Wax, of Penn Law School, to raise money through GoFundMe to defend herself against administrative efforts by the college to sanction her for holding non-PC opinions about race. People who thought the dispute involved academic freedom were wrong! Rather: “It’s not about the First Amendment or academic freedom, it’s about rewiring society to believe that everyone is obligated to give a platform to fringe opinions. That’s not how this works.” Like a lot of writing by leftists, this text is almost gibberish. But it communicates the view that someone who holds unfashionable opinions about race is not entitled to hold academic positions, and should not be supported by good people.
On July 25, he also commented favorably upon efforts in Oregon “to get beyond the traditional bar exam.” In other words, the competency of law students will not be subject to any objective examination.
On July 27, he applauded the success of some GW University students to bring about the cancellation of classes by Clarence Thomas. Again, he opined that this disgusting, if not racist, act of censorship did NOT implicate academic freedom, because: “There’s nothing about Clarence Thomas that speaks to ‘the robust exchange of ideas and deliberation.’ His jurisprudence is a hodgepodge of inconsistencies unified by a results-oriented approach.” Of course, JT came in for ridicule too: “Now where will GW students go if they’re really interested in hearing comically disingenuous takes on the Constitution?” No need to think too hard. A picture of JT is provided.
On July 29, 2022, he ridiculed Andrew Yang for trying to form a new political party as an alternative to our two major parties. So, despite his outre’ rhetoric and positions, Patrice is really just another loyal foot-soldier for the Democrats.
Too numerous to pick out of these tweets were comments that celebrated legal troubles of MAGA Republicans and that ridiculed Elon Musk for trying to buy Twitter. At the time, his readers may have wondered why he was taking the side of Twitter against Musk, but subsequent revelations of comprehensive censorship by Twitter probably answers such questions. Patrice must have known about that censorship. Once again, he shows himself as an unprincipled defender of the Democratic Party and the Deep State.
So, after this brief foray into the unpleasant mind of Mr. Patrice, what can we say about his hatred of Turley? I think JT is hated for the same reason that Yang, Gabbard, and now Musk, are hated. For Patrice, supporting the Democratic Party is a religious duty. Turley is an apostate. We mst burn the apostates, for they are our true danger, not the inept Republicans.
Nice work Professor. You provide a service to many who are too busy to keep abreast of all of these interesting legal developments, together with a “take” on the developments which doesn’t toe the liberal-left line so prominent in today’s legal world. That makes your blog a breath of fresh air, IMO. Congrats!
Hear, hear! I check the Professor’s blog every day before I go to the news. I also enjoy the comments.
We are truly blessed to live in the age of Jonathan Turley. He’s an apolitical constitutional law anchor at a time when other experts are selling their souls for partisan purposes.
Olly……..Wonderful comment!
Thank you Cindy. Happy New Year!
Congratulations professor, Darren, and Kristin!
The popularity of Res Ipsa continues to grow. More people are better informed on differing topics you bring to light.
Well done.
Truly an island of sanity and veracity in a nearly insane world. My favorite blog. love the blog comments both those that I disagree with and those that I agree with.
Darren needs a pay raise to compensate him for putting up with us
Yes, double Darren’s pay!
Jonathan, you remain an informed voice of sanity in an increasingly unbalanced world. As a lawyer myself I value your careful legal analysis of the issues you confront. Live long and prosper!
As bad as 2022 was 2023 will be the year of Chaos as Biden and the “adults” take us to Nuclear War.
Not just suicide of America but suicide of the World.
“In 2022, the blog exploded in size . . .”
Congratulations, JT (and DS).
Kudos
This blog is a great site, I am a regular reader, a sometime commenter and a true fan of Jonathan’s take on matters legal and political. Especially legal!
There are three blogs I read regularly (yes, I am retired). Res Ipsa, Legal Insurrection by Bill Jacobson and Free Press (formerly Common Sense) by Bari Weiss. I learn a lot and from the comments even more. Yes, there are haters and trolls out there who comment, but we know who they are. Keep it up Professor. We need you.
Congratulations, all. It’s well deserved, and we are all so grateful. 😊