The warning was stark. At issue was a privileged class that has long dictated policy despite countervailing public opinion. At issue, the luminary warned, is nothing short of democracy itself. No, it was not the continued rallies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., VT) to “fight oligarchy.” It was Justice Clarence Thomas rallying his colleagues to fight technocracy, or government by experts. He warned against allowing “elite sentiment” to “distort and stifle democratic debate.” Yet, the story is even more profound of an elite class which succumbed to the Icarian gene and fell to Earth due to hubris and excess.
In his concurrence in United States v. Skrmetti, a case upholding Tennessee’s ban on adolescent transgender treatments, Thomas called for his colleagues to stand against an “expert class” that has dictated both policy and legal conclusions in the United States.
The reference to “experts” is often used to insulate an opinion as self-evidently true on a given question when they speak as a group. It distinguishes the informed from the casual; the certifiably authoritative from the merely interested. Yet, what constitutes an “expert” can be little more than an advanced degree, and the “overwhelming opinion of experts” can be little more than groupthink.
Thomas warned his colleagues that “[t]here are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance.”
Indeed, those “good reasons” have become increasingly obvious to those outside of the Beltway. The public saw experts line up during the pandemic to support mandatory uses of surgical masks, shutting down schools, and requiring the ruinous six-foot rule of separation. Many of these rules were later found lacking in scientific support. At the same time, dissenting experts, including the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, were blacklisted, censored, or fired for challenging these views.
We have seen the same orthodoxy on issues ranging from gender dysphoria to COVID measures.
In his concurrence, Thomas lashed out at the virtual mantra in court papers and the media of an “overwhelming medical consensus” in favor of transitioning children. This is often cited as the conclusive judgment of experts as opposed to citizens who overwhelmingly oppose treatments for children, including castration or surgical removal of genitalia. Thomas insisted that “so-called experts have no license to countermand the ‘wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.’”
For decades, citizens largely identified the government with bringing modern approaches to programs eliminating long-standing social ills from poverty to illiteracy to inequality. Roughly 100 years ago, the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt transformed the government’s role in American life. A generation of experts brought new ideas of electrification, education, and economics to the country.
This veneration was furthered by Kennedy’s assemblage of “the best and the brightest” and Johnson’s “Great Society” reformers.
The courts later followed with greater and greater deference afforded to these experts, including the establishment of the “Chevron doctrine” insulating agency decisions from substantial judicial review. The Supreme Court ruled that courts were poorly equipped to second-guess the expertise of agency experts.
The Reagan Revolution challenged those assumptions. Reagan famously told voters that “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
Over the years, the mystique took on a more menacing aspect for many in the country as they watched academic and scientific groups become more advocates than experts. There seemed to be a shift from making for a better life to making us better people through progressive social agendas.
The result has been a dramatic change in trust for higher education and, by extension, the supremacy of the expert class. According to Gallup, only a third of Americans today have great confidence in higher education and roughly the same number have little or no confidence. That is a drop of over twenty percent in the last ten years.
Other polling shows drops in the trust for state and local public health officials as well as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The decline of the expert class can be traced to the changes in higher education over the last couple of decades. As I discuss in my book The Indispensable Right, an orthodoxy has taken hold of most universities with a purging of conservative, libertarian, and dissenting faculty. Within these ideological echo chambers, appointments, publications, and grants often seem to turn on conclusions that favor political agendas.
Over the years, dissenting faculty members have been forced out of scientific and academic organizations for challenging preferred conclusions on subjects ranging from transgender transitions to COVID-19 protections to climate change. Some were barred from speaking at universities or blacklisted for their opposing views.
As shown during COVID, many of the exiled experts were ultimately proven correct in challenging the efficacy of surgical masks or the need to shut down our schools and businesses. Scientists moved like a herd of lemmings on the origin of the virus, crushing those who suggested that the most likely explanation is a lab leak (a position that federal agencies would later embrace).
Scientists have worked with the government in suppressing dissenting views. At the end of last year, The Wall Street. Journal released a report on how the Biden administration suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab leak theory, as dissenting scientists were blacklisted and targeted.
When experts within the Biden Administration found that the lab theory was the most likely explanation for COVID-19, they were told not to share their data publicly and were warned about being “off the reservation.”
British pediatrician Hilary Cass published a review for NHS England that cast doubt on gender-identity treatments for children and young people. The research reportedly led to an aggressive campaign by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) to suppress the results.
The gravitational pull of social agendas has overwhelmed not just scientific judgment but common sense. For example, there has been a push to treat gender as a socially constructed myth.
A University of Pittsburgh anthropology professor declared that you cannot tell the gender of an individual from their bones – a widely ridiculed assertion.
The editor-in-chief of Scientific American Laura Helmuth made her own contribution to gender ideology by tweeting out a statement with a 2017 article in Audubon Notebook stating “White-throated sparrows have four chromosomally distinct sexes that pair up in fascinating ways. P.S. Nature is amazing[.] P.P.S. Sex is not binary.”
Various experts cried fowl and noted that her point was ideologically driven and scientifically absurd. (Helmuth later resigned after posting a profanity-laden attack on social media calling Trump voters “fascists” and bigots).
In many cases, dissenting views on social or political issues are treated as disqualifying for any research.
At Cornell, professors signed a letter denouncing “informed commentary” critical of violent protests as racist.
In 2020, Harald Uhlig, the senior editor of the prestigious Journal of Political Economy and the Bruce Allen and Barbara Ritzenthaler Professor in Economics at the University of Chicago, criticized Black Lives Matter and the movement to defund the police. The response was a campaign to remove Uhlig from the Journal. Writers like economist Paul Krugman insisted that he was now “yet another privileged white man” attacking the”less fortunate.”
The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center removed Associate Professor of Medicine Norman Wang from his position as Program Director of the Electrophysiology Fellowship after he wrote an article in a peer-reviewed journal questioning the use of affirmative action in medical schools admissions. (Later, the Supreme Court would declare such use of race as unconstitutional race discrimination).
Another controversy arose in 2024 just before the Supreme Court considered access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used for abortions by mail. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk relied on two studies that showed harm from the use of the pill.
The Sage journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology was widely criticized by abortion advocates for publishing the studies. One month before the oral argument, the studies were conveniently retracted and a review published that found the conclusions “invalidated in whole or in part.”
Justices and judges will often take favorable studies as gospel in supporting their legal conclusions. In her dissent in the University of North Carolina affirmative action case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson triggered a controversy in citing a 2020 study from a friend-of-the-court brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Jackson claimed that race-based admissions “saves lives” because having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood of the survival of high-risk Black babies. The claim of the brief and the flawed methodology of the study was shredded by critics.
The fact is that it is easy to produce near uniformity of experts since most universities now run from the left to the far left. The combination of biased hiring practices has left most departments with few or no conservative faculty members. As a result, the media can report that liberal positions are supported overwhelmingly by “experts.”
For example, it is now common for the media to report signed letters or petitions of law professors denouncing conservative positions or rulings. It rarely mentions that most law schools have only a couple of conservative faculty members. It is like getting a pro-papal petition from the College of Cardinals. Nevertheless, the coverage leaves the impression that opposing views on transgenderism, gun rights, or other subjects are absurd and rejected by virtually all “experts.”
Both the courts and the public, however, appear to be losing their awe for the expert class. The Supreme Court recently tossed the Chevron Doctrine and called for courts to resume their prior scrutiny of agency decisions.
None of this means that courts or the public should disregard science or experts. Indeed, many experts still follow core principles of unbiased inquiry and discourse. However, good science requires open inquiry and a diversity of viewpoints. Citizens are rejecting science by plebiscite, the self-authenticating petitions where academics purported to speak for an expert class.
The expert class lost the public when they replaced objectivity with orthodoxy. No matter how many experts claim that gender is a social myth, the public is not likely to dispense with reality. The rise and fall of the expert class is a story of the costs of arrogance and excess. Higher education has created a privileged class of social warriors who abandoned core principles of neutrality and objectivity in research. It is an Icarian generation of scholars who flew too close to the sun and fell to Earth in the eyes of the public.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court. He is the best-selling author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” and the forthcoming Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution (Simon & Schuster 2026).
Truly excellent piece. Thank you, Professor Turley. Our reawakening seems to have begun, let’s hope it continues apace. The covid lockdowns and everything that followed were simply a bridge too far.
(OT)
This is great. I love it when the administration goes on the offensive:
“Trump DHS sues *entire bench* of federal judges in Maryland district court over automatic injunctions.” (Emphasis added)
Great Article today. Extremely well put together and needs to be repeated every day. I also think Justice Thomas is to be commended on the clarity of his thought and the lucidity of his writing. As a retired physician I really hate that this column today mainly applies to medicine but it is correct.
Medicine draws some brilliant people to the profession but they can be as single minded and group thinking as any other group of people, experts or not.
There is a long list of medical errors over the decades where seemingly incredible outcomes were too good to be true and they were too good to be true and thusly not true.
The danger with medicine is that you have a conflict where you must weight the evidence and then institute the treatment. If you delude yourself into an error in either part of the process you may injure your patient.
The problem with medicine in this particularly problem with gender and medical intervention is that it is groupthink to a degree but a major part is political ideology coupled with financial interest.
Depending on how paranoid you are, you must ask yourself, did the ideology push the medicine here or was groupthink and financial interest captured and used by ideology for whatever reason to destroy societal norms.
Medicine can return to a place of trusted expertise but it’s going to require reform and openness and real discussion , again, of proper criteria for diagnosis and treatment.
I would desire both conservative and liberal voices politically and more openness medically with all voices heard backed up by verifiable science. Not easy. Physicians and physician scientists no more like to broadcast their failures than anyone else. And they can and will hide it.
“. . . did the ideology push the medicine here . . .”
*That* problem corrupts some of modern medicine.
Go to surgeon A (who has a prestigious academic affiliation). Get an unholy mix of medicine and WOKE propaganda. As a layman, in a distressed condition, how in the hell am I supposed to distinguish between the medical technicalities and the propaganda?
So then go to surgeon B (with no academic affiliation) for the same condition. Get straight medicine — no propaganda.
A patient should not have to be on guard against such corruption.
“A patient should not have to be on guard against such corruption.”
Perhaps a patient should not “have” to be on guard in that way, but I think some skepticism of medical (and all other) professionals is both reasonable and prudent behavior.
GEB: Sincere question. Do you still find “peer review”/publications valuable, or do you think this also is polluted with ideological “findings” and confirmations in their publications? How “objective” are the respective esoteric journals in choosing what to include?
Lynn, how can peer review be trusted when there is selectivity in choosing the peers.
The selection process in data selection often kills the science. The selection process of experts kill the truth.
Lin 9:50 AM-depends on the publication. There is supposed to be in-house peer review but that will depend on who is asked to do the review and whether the persons being asked to do the review have a wide spectrum of differing views. The editor of the Journal may select same thinkers or he/she may not. Also there should be online critiques and take them into account. I preferred to go to higher rated meetings, go to reviews of specific topics with several different faculty and ask the questions and assess the answers live. Tedious but far more informative and gave me greater confidence in the decisions I made. You also get a wide variety of questions and points of view from the audience
The masses are asses.
Is that a better alternative?
Fact in 2025:
Both parties in Congress are still operating black site virtual prisons inside the United States against native born U.S. citizens – both parties!
These aren’t protective programs since their false-prisoners never consented to it. These are Americans never indicted for any crime or any wrongdoing.
Any member of Congress loyal to their oath of office should resolve these post-9/11 war crimes!
Very well put.
“[T]he New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt [. . .] brought new ideas of electrification . . .” (JT)
That is hogwash.
FDR and his public-private cohorts socialized mass electrification, by stealing the methods and technology of mass electrification that had been created by *private* companies (e.g., in the Chicago area).
Socialism creates nothing. It begs, borrows, and steals.
I wonder if Turley is being factious with this post about experts.
If by “factious, you mean fact oriented, yes. “Fractious,” no. “Facetious,” also no.
It’s worse than ever, but not new. The Union of Concerned Scientists was just a leftwing, propaganda outfit (useful idiots) during the Cold War. Subsequent history proved embarrassing for them. Nobody remembers them now.
BTW, I consider Paul Krugman to be the single most dangerous man on the planet, and that’s not hyperbole. Quantitative Easing has led to the biggest bubbles in history. China is suffering the unintended consequences of QE, but we won’t be exempt from those unintended consequences.
Of course, the “experts” will blame it all on Trump. Economic PhDs have become the biggest leftwing idiots of all–did not used to be that way.
Diogenes,
Ah! Yes! All those economic experts who declared the inflation was only “transitory!” See how well that went for them? Or Janet Yellen, who does her own grocery shopping, declaring the high prices on eggs is not that bad. Sure, for a woman with a net worth of some $20m it is not that bad. For that single mother of three, working two jobs, yes it is that bad.
Paul Krugman, he is a putz and no one should ever take his advice. Whatever he says, likely the best action is taking the opposite of what he says.
History will catch up with them. It always does.
Great column professor!
We can listen to experts, take their advice or not. In the end is it us to needs to decide if they are offering real expert advice or promoting an agenda or ideological view point. And, sometimes an expert can be wrong. The predominate COVID narrative and the countering Great Barrington Declaration proved that. Now, we might be that much more hesitant before listening to those so-called experts who promoted masks, shutting down the economy, society, schools and mandatory vaccinations.
Thanks for displaying what critical thinking looks like. Experts of a group think tanks avoid it. Honest minds inquiring need it. Our universities used to insist on it. You bring a breath of fresh air to the atmosphere of experts.
Prof. Turley is just noticing something that has been evident for many decades.
Many factors effect the quality of peoples judgement.
Education, professional recognition are among those
But centuries of experience have shown that the most critical factor indicating quality of judgements is “skin in the game”.
The “tyrany of experts” arrived in the US with Pres. Wilson, But was put on steriods with FDR and his “Brain Trust”.
Yet NOTHING FDR did ended the great depression – and many of his actions made it worse.
Harding and Coolidge dealt with a much worse economic collapse in 1920. They cut spending, cut taxes and otherwise did nothing and it was all over in 21 months.
One of the most fascniating examples of government failure was with the Oklahoma Dust bowl.
The government moved in to OK and tried all kinds of things to end the dust bowl – a few of which are now accepted farming norms.
Nothing worked. Arguably the dustbowl got progressively worse.
Ken Burns did an excellent documentary on the dust bowl – a documentary that was incredibly lacking in self awareness.
Burns praised the efforts of the government, and after several relentless hours of government efforts and failure, after a decade of drought,
Finally, the rains came and ended the dustbowl. We have NOT had a repeat of the Dustbowl since. And Technology is the driving force for that.
But not ANYTHING that experts came up with during the dustbowl, but the discovery of an Aquafer deep under the great plains. Drill down 400ft and there is plenty of water – even in times of drought.
A government by and for the people….is now a government to ENRICH the Democrats paid for by the people!
I would not dismiss ALL experts, but only those whose opinions have been corrupted by some subjective belief. We depend on many “experts” in our daily lives. The physician we see for our healthcare is an expert, as is the financial advisor who tells us when and where to invest our money. These people have specialized knowledge, and we rely on them to tell us the objective truth, not some personal viewpoint that may or may not be so.
My auto mechanic could charge me tons of money for unnecessary repairs, and the plumber I called to fix the faucet, likewise, could, if she wanted to, charge me for a new faucet and more. Hidden beneath the veneer of expertism in all these examples is the concept of honesty. These experts that I depend upon must be honest, or their expert opinions will harm me in some way.
So, I wouldn’t dismiss the so-called expert class. I would just demand more transparency and honesty, and who knows, maybe I’ll get it.
“I would not dismiss ALL experts, but only those whose opinions have been corrupted by some subjective belief.”
Dismissing “experts as a class” “dismissing all experts”. An “expert” must be individually evaluated on several criteria (including, but not necessarily limited to: alleged professional qualifications / source of the alleged expertise; past record regarding confirmed correct and incorrect judgements, demonstrated personal biases; affiliation with organizations promoting specific political and/or social points of view) before a decision is made on how much (if any) weight to accord the “expert’s” “professional opinion”. That requires a lot more effort than just blindly telling oneself that “oh, so-and-so is a Johns Hopkins graduate, an MD, a cardiac surgeon, and an AMA member, so his opinion on any medical subject (or even any subject specifically regarding the circulatory system) should be taken as the gospel truth”, but it is not optional if one wishes to make rational use of “expert knowledge”.
“Dismissing “experts as a class” “dismissing all experts”. ”
Dismissing “experts as a class” NE “dismissing all experts”.
Of course, the wonderful posting/rendering sw (WP or specific to this blog?) eliminated the “LT GT” symbol pair I originally posted to represent “not equal”. How friggin’ idiotic is that?
Yes. But. Few of us have the time to evaluate and screen all the ‘experts’ that serve us daily and upon whose skills we depend. Instead, we rely, as we must, on the institutions that produce these people. If an electrician claims to be duly licensed, we trust him to do a competent job because his skill has been ‘certified’; if the lawyer or physician is a Hopkins graduate, we assume that person is able by virtue of his education and training. In short, we have to trust our institutions to ensure that experts are actually experts. J. Turley summed it up: “The expert class lost the public when they replaced objectivity with orthodoxy.”
JJC – your post identifies without naming the key factor.
Individual free choice.
YOU trust your plumber and mechanic because time after time they have delivered good service at a decent price
They have Earned credibility.
That is the MOST FUNDIMENTALLY IMPORTANT aspect to free markets.
Everything is voluntary – if those your rely on do well – you benefit and you in turn voluntarily trust them more.
The common pattern in all the various failures of experts that Turley cites is that these experts are distant if not completely divorced from the discipline of the free market – the requirement that Trust must be earned and that those who over and over act honestly and with proven results are rewarded and those who do not fail.
Nearly always in the administrative state and increasingly within education success has little or nothing to do with producing testable real world results that people can trust.
The problem with the so-called experts in govenrment and education is that they are NOT subject to the discipline of the free market.
The free market is us – individuals excerising our own judgement about who we can trust
Massive amounts of data collected over centuries shows us that the more freedom we have to make out own decisions, the higher our standard of living.
The true test of peoples intelligence is who they put their trust in.
If you are still trusting those who have lied to you massively over and over – you are a moron, no matter what your alleged IQ is.
JJC, I think you are making the point here because the so called “expert class” looks down on and mocks the opinions of auto mechanics and plumbers. They may use their services, but they intuitively dismiss them as rubes when it comes to everything outside of the car or toilet.
HullBobby,
Well said. Oh, he is just a mechanic. Oh, he is just a plumber. Of course there are those who are not so dismissive and appreciate their skills as they know full well those kind of skills are beyond them. We had to take a good friend to the Emergency Department the other week. The staff was so great, real professional, we sent them a fruit basket in appreciation.
There’s an old joke about a guy who calls the plumber to fix a leak and the plumber charges him $350. The guy is in shock and says to the plumber, “I’m a lawyer and I don’t charge that much to talk with a client for 45 minutes which is all it took you to fix the leak.” The plumber answers, “Yeah, I know, I used to be a lawyer myself.” 🙂
JJC,
HA! Good one!
Is J. Turley an expert in anything, than just marketing himself for money?
His resume speaks for itself. You, on the other hand, are some loser on the internet, lashing out at people who wisely chose not to pursue a degree in basket weaving.
“His resume speaks for itself. ”
That claim is more than a bit ironic considering the subject of his column here, wouldn’t you say? Or do you have even a fraction of the intelligence required to recognize obvious irony?
“Or do you have even a fraction of the intelligence . . .”
The only lack of intelligence here is your inability to see the stark differences between a dishonest, “puffed” resume, versus one that accurately states a long history of professional success.
You appear to have missed my point almost entirely. First, let’s define terms. When the OP wrote “resume”, I took that to mean the ~50 word blurb shown in italics at the end of each of Turley’s columns published here (which is all that most readers here, even regulars, would have ready access to), not some more comprehensive abstract of his accomplishments that might be tucked away in another location. I respect Turley’s opinions (not that I always agree) and expertise as the result of regularly reading his columns, examining his logic. and double-checking his claims and citations when I have some doubt about those. I’m quite certain that every one of the “experts” that Clarence Thomas disparaged in his opinion would be quite capable of writing 50 words that describe their qualifications in equally glowing terms. That is what I was describing as “ironic”. I also thought it was an extremely myopic assertion, which is what engendered the admittedly gratuitous insult.
And you’re an expert in what? Loser… lashing out, chose not not… You know all the key characteristic of being an expert. Why defend him when you obviously don’t know him or ever met him. Turleys’ so-called credentials wouldn’t get him a job as dogcatcher … anywhere.
The only thing that can be said about him, he’s just another blogger roping in dopes.
Okay, hear me out – you don’t actually have to read his stuff if you don’t respect his opinion.
The typical Karen response.
“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
– George Prwell
Sadly it took the deaths of 100’s of Thousands and the shredding of US Constitutional Rights from a Virus and an attempt at “One World Order” to wake up most Americans to these facts. “Experts” are nothing more or less than people with an opinion of their own agendas…………We are awake now!!!!
“Sadly it took the deaths of 100’s of Thousands and the shredding of US Constitutional Rights from a Virus and an attempt at “One World Order” to wake up most Americans to these facts”
Do you serious think that “MOST Americans” have been awakened, even on those subjects? I fervently wish I could agree with you, but that would be false optimism on my part. Certainly ENOUGH Americans began paying ENOUGH attention to deny Harris the WH and Democrats a Congressional majority in 2024. IMO that was almost entirely attributable to taking an upside the head battering from the COVID lock-down/vaccine mandate baseball bat in 2020 – 2022. That might be the most serious miscalculation made by politicians fronting an entrenched bureaucracy in a very long time. Unfortunately, history shows us that intelligent scrutiny of politicians, politics, and governance by American voters is not at all an enduring characteristic.
The dem-o-rats have even bigger issues.
____________________
Between 2024 and 2025 alone, Democrats experienced one of their most severe year-over-year losses, dropping 1.3 percentage points in registered voter share, according to a recent NBC News analysis of data compiled by Ballotpedia across 33 states and Washington, D.C. The trend reflects mounting disillusionment among Democrats and the turmoil within the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
DustOff,
It is not just the registered voter share losses. It is the funding losses too. A lot of those billionaires donors are not donating anymore. Note, this would be the same party who accuses the Republicans of being the party of oligarchs. It is just, their oligarchs are not as bad. /sarc
“The dem-o-rats have even bigger issues.”
I will reserve judgement on the long term effects of such things until the results of the 2026 and 2028 elections are tallied. Don’t forget that, at least in form, this remains a republic. Changes such as you describe *could* result in major changes of power reflected in Congressional and Executive power. Or, that could merely result in redder red and bluer blue states, with only a negligible to marginal change in actual power balance, even allowing for a slight shift in total number of representatives from blue to red. Any shift in that direction could be seen as beneficial, you will get no argument from me there. However, imo the hour is getting late, and we need a far greater magnitude of change than such minor power shifts.
Who lot of nothing
Excellent article. One of your best. If you would allow a few points.
1. Beware whenever the government is interested in some particular science. Distortion and convolution result.
2. Money controls science and scientists. Thus, a single person (e.g. Fauci) can control science by conferring money.
3. The public generally believes science is good, though they understand less and less.
4. Groupthink without common sense has become the norm. Groupthink is gaining strength everywhere.
Seems to me you present yourself as one of those “experts” Thomas refers to.
Fact is, you just some big mouth who thinks its smarter than the rest, also a characteristic of the “expert class”.
So who appointed you an “expert”?
Sounds like someone is upset that their masters degree in puppetry hasn’t yet translated into the big bucks.
Sounds like someone who gets upset easily and then throws a tantrum.
Like most libs do?
gdonaldallen is not presenting himself as a “expert.” That is your projection. What he is displaying is a degree of common sense based off the government backed COVID narrative. The same government who censored Americans who dissented from their COVID narrative.
Figures don’t lie but liars figure
Group think, mass hysteria
Correction: Bernie Sanders is (I, VT), not RI
Well said