Below is my column in the New York Post in response to the attack this week by Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe. I am honestly saddened by the ad hominem attacks that have become common place with many academics like Tribe. There was a time when legal disagreements could be passionate but not personal. The use of personal insults and vulgar trash talking were avoided in our profession. Now even law deans have called Supreme Court justices “hacks” to the delight of their followers. I have always said that there are good-faith arguments on both sides of the 14th Amendment theory despite my strong disagreement with the theory. The public would benefit from that debate based on precedent rather than personalities.
Here is the column:
This week, CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront” offered what has become a staple of liberal cable news: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe assuring Democrats that they are justified in an unconstitutional effort while attacking opposing views as “nonsense.”
I was singled out on this occasion for Tribe’s latest personal attack because I voiced a legal opinion different from his own.
Being attacked by Tribe as a “hack” is not as much of a distinction as one might expect.
Indeed, it is relatively tame in comparison to Tribe’s past vulgar and juvenile assaults on others.
Tribe has attacked figures like Mitch McConnell as “McTurtle” and “flagrant d**khead.”
He attacked former Attorney General Bill Barr’s religion and thrills his followers by referring to Trump as a “Dick” or “dickhead in chief.”
Tribe often shows little patience for the niceties of constitutional law or tradition.
He has supported the call for packing the Supreme Court as long overdue.
He has also supported an array of debunked conspiracy theories like denouncing Barr as guilty of the “monstrous” act of shooting protesters in Lafayette Park with rubber bullets to make way for a photo op — a claim found to be utterly untrue.
Some of Tribe’s conspiracy theories are quickly disproven — like his sensational claims of an anti-Trump figure being killed in Russia.
Nevertheless, Tribe remains the “break the glass” academic for Democratic leaders when political expedience requires a patina of constitutional legitimacy.
I have long disagreed with Tribe over his strikingly convenient interpretations of the Constitution.
We crossed swords decades ago during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, when Tribe argued that it was not an impeachable offense for Clinton to lie under oath.
Even though a federal court and even Democrats admitted that Clinton committed the crime of perjury, Tribe assured Democrats that it fell entirely outside of the constitutional standard of a high crime and misdemeanor.
However, Tribe would later say that Trump’s call to Ukraine was clearly and undeniably impeachable.
Indeed, Tribe insisted that Trump could be charged with a long list of criminal charges that no prosecutor ever pursued — including treason.
Tribe even declared Trump guilty of the attempted murder of Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021.
Even though no prosecutor has ever suggested such a charge, Tribe assured CNN that the crime was already established “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt.”
That is the key to Tribe’s appeal: the absence of doubt.
Every constitutional road seems to inevitably lead to where Democrats want to go — from court packing to unilateral executive action.
Take student loan forgiveness.
Even former Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged that the effort to wipe out hundreds of millions of dollars of student loans would be clearly unconstitutional.
However, Tribe assured President Biden that it was entirely legal.
It was later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Tribe was also there to support Biden — when no other legal expert was — on the national eviction moratorium.
The problem, Biden admitted, was his own lawyers told him that it would be flagrantly unconstitutional.
That is when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave Biden the familiar advice: Just call Tribe.
Biden then cited Tribe as assuring him that he had the authority to act alone.
It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional.
Even Democratic laws that were treated as laughable were found lawful by Tribe.
For example, the “Resistance” in California passed a clearly unconstitutional law that would have barred presidential candidates from appearing on the state ballots without disclosing tax records.
Tribe heralded the law as clearly constitutional and lambasted law professors stating the obvious that it would be struck down.
It was not just struck down by the California Supreme Court but struck down unanimously.
Likewise, California Governor Gavin Newsom pushed for the passage of an anti-gun rights law that was used to mock the holding of the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling in Dobbs.
Yet Tribe declared the effort as inspired and attacked those of us who stated that it was a political stunt that would be found legally invalid.
It was quickly enjoined by a court as unconstitutional.
In an age of rage, the most irate reigns supreme.
And there is no one who brings greater righteous anger than Laurence Tribe.
That is evident in arguably the most dangerous theory now being pushed by Tribe — and the source of his latest attack on me.
Democrats are pushing a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment that would allow state officials to bar Trump from the ballots — preventing citizens from voting for the candidate now tied with Joe Biden for 2024 election.
This is all being argued by Tribe and others as “protecting democracy,” by blocking a democratic vote.
Democrats have claimed that the 14th Amendment prevents Trump from running because he supported an “insurrection or rebellion.”
They have argued that this long dormant clause can be used to block not just Trump but 120 Republicans in Congress from running for office.
I have long rejected this theory as contrary to the text and history of the 14th Amendment.
Even figures attacked (wrongly) by Trump, such as Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, have denounced this theory as dangerous and wrong.
Tribe was set off in his latest CNN interview after I noted that this theory lacks any limiting principle.
Advocates are suggesting that courts could then start banning candidates by interpreting riots as insurrections.
After I noted that the amendment was ratified after an actual rebellion where hundreds of thousands died, Tribe declared such comparisons “nonsense.”
He asked “how many have to die before we enforce this? There were several who died at the Capitol during the insurrection.”
My comment was not to do a head count, but to note that (since Tribe believes that there is no need for a congressional vote) one would at least expect a charge of rebellion or insurrection by Trump.
Yet Trump was not even been charged with incitement.
Not even Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged him with incitement in his two indictments.
The 14th Amendment theory is the perfect vehicle for the age of rage and Tribe, again, has supplied the perfect rage-filled analysis to support it.
The merits matter little in these times.
You can be wrong so long as you are righteously and outrageously wrong.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
“Act of June 6, 1898, ch. 389, 30 Stat. 432 “The disability imposed by section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States heretofore incurred is hereby removed.”
https://constitutionalcommentary.lib.umn.edu/article/amnesty-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
Nonsense going on with all the scholars of constitutional law.
Great response, Professor Turley. I would wear any slander by Tribe as a badge of honor. Anyone with even a thimble full of gray matter knows he’s nothing more than a two-bit hack.
Great piece on Lawrence Dick-Tribe.
…and this guy is teaching our future lawyers?
Larry has a brain tumor and it shows.
It sounds as if professor Tribe is mentally disturbed as so many of those of the far left or woke culture are who currently make outrageous and incorrect, illogical, and misbegotten statements. Our age of inversion is made of liars. So sad!
Mespo– Thanks for that. I didn’t know Tribe actually had a brain tumor but checked after your post. Apparently true. Reflecting just on his behavior I had thought he was slipping into dementia or some other disease but your post about his tumor might explain a lot. Though it makes him a perfect cable news guest, not that I ever watch them. I cut the cord long ago. Too much trash in ‘news’ and ‘entertainment’. It’s all Bud Light to me and not worth the dime.
These shameless attacks on Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe must cease. They constitute attacks on our holy Banana Republic itself.
And Professor Tribe is the country’s foremost authority on Banana Republic Laws.
Attacking our holy Banana Republic can only lead to more acts of sacrilege, such as assaults on our precious Two-Tier System of Justice. We need Harvard Professor Tribe more than ever.
hahahahahahaha. Great post. LMAO
Professor Turley,
Is it undemocratic to bar 34 year olds from the office of the Presidency?
If not, why is this constitutional and self-executing requirement undemocratic while that one is not?
Prof. Turley is a legal scholar – Laurence Tribe is an activist with a legal education. There’s a difference.
The short answer to your question is that using the 14th Ammendment as proposed by Tribe would take anyone “accused” of insurrection off the ballot. As Turley notes, Trump has not even been accused, much less convicted.
Brandon should be removed from the ballot for aiding and comforting the Taliban!
Duh, because the minimum age of a President is written in the Constitution – thus it is Constitutional. Would you like an illustration perhaps in cartoons so you can follow along?
Well, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve read all day. Age is not subjective. Do you really believe that any large number of Republicans consider an unarmed demonstration with a few rioters to be “insurrection or rebellion against” the United States? I say it’s not. Tell me one Republican candidate who has been found guilty, much less charged, specifically with insurrection by either a court or Congress.
Include your name in your posts, otherwise many might view you as a coward. If you want to change the minimum age for president, and other federal offices, then use the mechanisms provided for in the Constitution. The righteous protest at the Capitol on January 6th was hijacked by the factions controlling the federal government using agent provocateurs and then used as a propaganda tool to destroy the movement President Trump leads. The propaganda campaign didn’t work, so the evil Democrats are resorting to extra-Constitutional methods to end Democracy. You need to get on the right side who-ever you are.
Either a candidate is at least 35 years old or s/he is not. There is no “in-between.”
Regarding the 14th Amendment, the determination of whether the candidate has engaged in an insurrection against the United States is not that clear cut.
AOC, is that you?
The U.S. Supreme Court has played a major role in much of this cynicism and loss of faith in the American system.
The high court’s role is to interpret the Letter & Spirit of existing written constitutional law, then apply the U.S. Constitution to modern times cases and controversies.
Although honest mistakes are sometimes made by the court (which they shouldn’t be faulted for), other times the court bypasses the “constitutional amendment process” – not honest mistakes when those rulings were made.
Maybe “Plessy v. Ferguson” (separate but equal) was an honest mistake at that time, maybe some justices were naive at that time not realizing the harm those rulings would produce. Waiting decades to correct it wasn’t an honest mistake.
But rulings like “Terry v. Ohio” in 1968 blatantly gutted the Letter & Spirit of the Fourth Amendment – resulting in millions of Africans-Americans serving prison sentences for non-violent drug convictions. Prior to 1968, judges and juries would have suppressed much of this evidence as being illegally obtained, not admissible in court. Today the United States is the world’s largest jailer.
This created a slippery slope. The George W. Bush administration then exploited this loop hole, gutting of the Fourth Amendment justified by the 1960’s/1970’s so-called “War on Drugs” to invent the “Bush Preemption Doctrine” – giving the figurative death blow to the Fourth Amendment deeming it worthless – all without the legally required constitutional amendment process. Conservatives concerned about invasive gun registries, you can thank the War in Drugs gutting of the Fourth Amendment.
“Kelo v. City of New London” also bypassed the constitutional amendment process. The Bill of Rights were designed to restrain government authority. Kelo illegally amended the Fifth Amendment by allowing one private owner (not the government) to cite “eminent domain” to seize private property from another private owner – serving no government interest.
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed “Ronald Reagan’s Torture Treaty” (supreme law of the United States under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and federal law) to be totally ignored for more than 20 years now. Americans covertly blacklisted after 9/11 are torture victims protected by this treaty.
“Citizens United” was arguably the most frivolous ruling of all time. The court essentially ruled, that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution actually deemed “corporate-persons” as having more rights than “human-persons” under our Bill of Rights.
The top duty of the U.S. Supreme Court is to provide “constitutional judicial review” to the other two political branches of government. If they simply go along with the unconstitutional practices of the political branches, why do we need courts at all?
The U.S. Supreme Court bears much of the culpability for this cynicism and loss of faith in American government institutions. It took decades of illegally amending the U.S. Constitution to achieve this cynicism, so it won’t get fixed overnight.
“But rulings like “Terry v. Ohio” in 1968 blatantly gutted “
“Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that it is constitutional for American police to “stop and frisk” a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime.”
Responding to Anonymous:
Some constitutional amendments are ambiguous in their meaning, other amendments like the Fourth Amendment are very clearly worded in their intent or spirit of the law.
A first year law student could tell you that “warrantless Stop & Frisk” blatantly violates both the Letter & Spirit of the Fourth Amendment. Simply read the text of the Fourth Amendment.
If the Fourth Amendment is fundamentally flawed, then we amend the Fourth Amendment through a constitutional amendment process.
There are also alternative remedies that are constitutional. The Fourth Amendment prohibits “preemptive” and “warrantless” searches. Once an actual crime occurs, the officer applies to a judge for a warrant to perform the body search. In the computer age this can actually happen very fast.
There is also a Fourteenth Amendment violation for some warrantless “Stop & Frisk” searches. Some states have made it nearly impossible for larger cities to annex the nearby suburbs.
Not only to strengthen the tax base of large cities but non-annexation is a Jim Crow tactic. Non-annexation creates two separate police departments. Usually one police department patrols poor African-American neighborhoods that practice illegal warrantless Stop & Frisk searches, while the police department 10 miles away patrols richer white neighborhoods doesn’t search equally. This makes it harder to file 14th Amendment lawsuits since it’s separated.
According all credible experts (Republicans, Democrats and police chiefs) illegal marijuana use has been near equal in both inner-cities and their suburbs. A kid living in a richer suburb is highly unlikely to ever receive a warrantless Stop & Frisk body search (small risk of conviction), even though there is near equal law breaking just 10 miles away.
Under the same police department and same prosecutors, the inner-city kids could also challenge these illegal searches under 14th Amendment grounds (unequal treatment under the law), in addition to 4th Amendment grounds of an illegal search.
A great read is the dissenting opinion in “Terry v. Ohio” 1968. The dissenting opinion, warning the court made a mistake, explicitly warns that by skipping the constitutional-amendment process – the United States was taking a large step down the totalitarian path.
Bush exploited the court’s mistake in 2001 with his “Bush Preemption Doctrine” and today we do indeed have a totalitarian warrantless search system – just like the 1968 dissent warned about.
There is no question the policy can be abused, but that doesn’t make it unlawful.
“unreasonable searches”
Based on the quote above, ” a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime.”
what makes it illegal?
Responding to S. Meyer and OldmanfromKansas:
Not disparaging our brave police officers and prosecutors. Most are great public servants with good intentions.
Arguably the most important part of the Fourth Amendment may be were the officer (or federal agent) has a healthy risk of legal penalty for falsifying a search warrant request. In the computer age, warrants can be obtained very fast with today’s technology.
Judges normally allow great leeway to law enforcement officers if they are pursuing legitimate past crimes with legitimate evidence – even when they make mistakes. So judicial warrants don’t slow down legitimate cases.
Most of us probably don’t want a system that allows officers or agents to spy on their ex-spouse, their neighbors, their daughter’s new boyfriend or legal 1st Amendment comments. Judicial warrants minimizes these abuses of authority.
Today there could be up to 1 million persons subjected to unconstitutional searches since 9/11 with 90% having no ties to crime or terrorism (based on government records). There is also almost no electronic paper trail of judicial warrants.
This electronic paper trail is vitally important because these innocent people can’t get removed from from these grossly inaccurate blacklists that destroy families, income, reputation and can result in premature death. Judicial warrants provide that electronic paper trail to challenge these inaccurate lists.
Former FBI Field Agent, Michael German, that specialized in domestic terrorism for over a decade, largely agrees with this view. By making the figurative “haystack of suspects” gargantuan in size – investigating and punishing the wrong people – it makes it far harder to locate the real bad guys and makes Americans LESS safe. Focusing on a smaller group of evidence based individuals is better and doesn’t squander tax dollars as much.
The Bush Administration falsely claiming “exigent circumstances” convinced the FISA Court to create an “after-the-fact search warrant”. In a ticking tick scenario, officials could perform the search first without a warrant, as long as they filed the warrant affidavit immediately after the search. This is illegal under the 4th Amendment but the court allowed it.
Bush officials performed the unconstitutional-searches then never filed the “after-the-fact warrants”. So there was no electronic paper trail of the search warrant.
After 20 years of Freedom of Information Act requests, we now know many of the Bush era searches had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. They wanted that authority all along for non-terrorism cases.
Why do we need civil rights at all, since it ties the hands of cops?
You discussed a lot of things including FISA, but what you left out was, what makes it illegal if it is not an unreasonable search?
A reasonable question would be how pervasive is the FISA court abuses a result of an out of control FBI? With the DoJ so corrupt how can the courts be held accountable for systemic abuses by the DoJ? The Durham report made it clear that anyone with any knowledge of the process was failing their oath when they did not place the entire FBI management team under arrest for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution and for rampant perjury.
A first year law student could tell you that “warrantless Stop & Frisk” blatantly violates both the Letter & Spirit of the Fourth Amendment. Simply read the text of the Fourth Amendment.
Here is the text: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Can you point out where in that text it says warrantless searches are always prohibited? What the text does prohibit is unreasonable searches and seizures, so unreasonableness (not warrantless) is the constitutional prohibition . . . which raises the question of what constitutes unreasonableness. Your position is that all warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable, but that is a fanatical interpretation. If a person is aiming a gun at another person and threatening to shoot, it is totally reasonable for the police to seize the gun without a warrant. Requiring a warrant in that situation would itself be unreasonable.
As for your reference to a first-year law student, I take you have never been one? I have, and so I can say from experience that what you said about first-year law students is wrong.
So why not a 30 day ease on the 4th to collect up the fentanyl? How about a 30 day hold on the first for detente?
So what?
We need this so the coops can put away the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member.
Anyone opposed to “stop and frisk” is opposed to saving lives, especially black lives in crime-heavy neighborhoods. MANY blacks are dead because police cannot stop and frisk. BLM? What a joke.
http://archive.md/mgil3
Our Constitution rejects by every means necessary.
The high court’s role is to interpret the Letter & Spirit of existing written constitutional law . . .
Should have stopped at “letter” and left of “spirit” which is just a license to re-write the Constitution to fit the judge’s personal policy goals.
This is what’s wrong with America. Notable and respected figures should be replaced when they begin expressing their own opinions as fact like childish and clearly extremist Mr Tribe. His rabid, vociferous, inaccurate and dangerous statements remind me of extremists on the right who forget we must abide by the rule of law, the Constitution and civil society in our country. It is a disservice to President Biden, the American public and Harvard when he advises unlawful and unconstitutional positions simply because he believes his own demagoguery and would have us believe it too. He is a political opportunist who should be fired by Harvard because is imposing his extreme political views on students and our nation. It appears he has a job at CNN as a political pundit/hack.
Professor Turley, when there are no reasonable arguments as the basis for disagreement once civil societies turn to name-calling and lies. Thank you for exposing this hack and stating the truth in the face of his extremist positions.
Mr. Tribe losses all credibility when his job reference is professor at Harvard.
Staunton, you changed the subject from the outrages comments by Tribe to the Supreme Court. Do you support such conduct by Lawerence or not. My point is that a man like Tribe is the point man for the Democratic Party as attested to by Pelosi’s advice to “call Tribe”. It’s seems to me that you don’t want to discuss the point man that your party has chosen so you quickly change the subject. As I have stated previously this is not a junior high debate club where such tactics are common.
SMA says, “Citizens United” was arguably the most frivolous ruling of all time. The court essentially ruled, that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution actually deemed “corporate-persons” as having more rights than “human-persons” under our Bill of Rights.”
What do mean by corporate persons having “more rights” than human persons? As I understand CU, the Court determined businesses/corporations have the same ‘free speech’ rights as other groups of people, including labor unions, when it comes to spending money on political advertising. It’s possible I misunderstand the ruling. Is your contention that some groups of people do NOT have free speech rights and shouldn’t be allowed to practice their political speech (spending money on political advertising), but other groups, like labor unions, should?
Anybody attacking President Trump at this point in time must be assumed to be a communist propagandist and dealt with accordingly.
Professor,
This is one of the most passionately honest and compelling posts, written by you, one of the most honorable gentlemen in America today.
I am making it required reading for my grandsons, one of whom is considering law school.
I find it rather humorous how people in government like to pick and choose the Constitutional Amendment that best validate their views. To illustrate, look how people in government love to enforce the 16th Amendment. Why not also enforce the 2nd Amendment, and other Amendments equally? All of the sudden, now, the 14th Amendment is the “go to” Amendment. But to hell with the 1st Amendment, unless it can -also- validate some political claim against Trump LOL People’s incompetence in government amuse me. Thank you Turley for being a voice of reason.
LAW-FARE (like warfare). My aunt who works in law predicted long ago that they would stop at nothing to get Trump. She predicted Clinesmith would get a hand slap. She predicted there would be no indictments for Hilary for destroying subpoena docs. She predicted Navarro would get charged. But – Holder ‘wouldn’t’ for the same thing. She predicted Judge Sullivan on Flynn case would flip the bird to the appellate courts decision. She predicted the open border. No jobs lost for the soldiers and pullout in Afghanistan. It’s getting easy to predict things. Pence and Joe on classified docs (while not even qualifying for any Presidential Records Act protection, but Trump? This is all part of the demise of a once great nation. Tribe can turn any constitutional argument into Play Doh. I’m trying to remember the name of that famous person 2000 years ago who said “ a kingdom divided against itself will not stand”. It’s twilight in America.
Abe Lincoln.
Actually Jesus of Nazareth before him (Matthew 12:25).
Abraham Lincoln, equivocating and attempting to lay the blame for his destruction of American freedom on constitutional and patriotic Americans:
“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
– Abraham Lincoln. Lyceum Address, 1838
According to Lincoln, America must have submitted to Lincoln’s communism, despotism, and tyranny or else; America must be subsumed by the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or else.
Violating the laws in a society of laws and destroying American freedom is precisely what Lincoln went on to antithetically, illicitly, unconstitutionally, and forcibly impose.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let’s be clear on the current status and condition of the United States of America as established and intended by its Founders and Framers.
Abe Lincoln was Karl Marx’s agent in America.
“They consider it…the lot of Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the reconstruction of a social world.”
– Letter From Marx To Lincoln, 1865
Abe Lincoln shredded the Constitution and ended American freedom after a mere 71 years.
Abe Lincoln was not an advocate for “integration.” He was clearly a racist and an advocate for “colonization” of former slaves and for illicitly and unconstitutionally denying the constitutional right to and freedom of secession to Americans; he was an unrepentant communist zealot who forced states to stay in a Union devoid of its Constitution and Bill of Rights. Obviously, Lincoln’s communist “successors” instituted the “reconstruction of a social world” per Marx’s letter and design.
The current American communist welfare state is a function and consequence of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s anti-American and wholly unconstitutional “Reign of Terror.”
“Crazy Abe” commenced the incremental implementation of the principles of communism in the “socially reconstructed” and “fundamentally transformed” United States of America.
Look around you at the burgeoning and irrefutably unconstitutional central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth, and social engineering.
Thanks, Comrade General Secretary Abe!
Lincoln’s communist legacy must be corrected with extreme prejudice.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/simply-great-parody-president-trump-sings-rich-men/
Tribe is senile. I hav3 seen clips of him displaying highly irrational and nonsensical statements. He needs to retire.
He’s become the hard left’s useful idiot on legal issues.
“Chinese nationals posing as tourists attempt to breach US military sites, according to FBI report”
They all carry envelopes with money they intended to drop off when visiting the White House.
Turley– “That is the key to Tribe’s appeal: the absence of doubt.”
+++
Tribe’s appeal seems more to be an absence of sanity.
Possibly fueled by entering into what was once politely deemed a second childhood.
Even when he was at his best he was thought to be a plagiarist.
All of which qualifies him for our pustulent news media.
Meanwhile, in the world of extremely important LAW — not to be confused with the world of petty squabbles between relatively unimportant law professors — an appellate ruling has come in on the significant case of Missouri vs. Biden:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67563473/238/1/state-of-missouri-v-biden/
And yet here you are!
Congratulations. That’s a PERFECT display of what kind of a GARBAGE site this has become. Turley must be SO proud of his creation. How much does he pay you?
Ralph,
It is an important case and I hope Professor Turley comments on it. If he does I expect that most of us will benefit. Meanwhile, though your notice of the case was great it is unfortunate that you also needed to provide another example of the decay of discourse he refers to in this article. You could have said all you needed to say very effectively without the personal remarks.
“. . . it is unfortunate that you also needed to . . .”
Two young boys were playing in the back yard. The parents had been giving all of their attention to one of the boys, who was building a small fort. The other boy looked over, hesitated, then threw himself into a screaming fit.
Hopefully you do a mirror or a kettle, you should again read what you wrote.