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).
Given the post-modern bent of Marxist ideology in higher education (and, by extension, the so-called “expert class), there is no reason to trust in anything they say or do.
Government controls via big-money interests (for everything from scientific research to humanitarian aid) have corrupted the entire system. You don’t get a research grant, run a lab or fund a startup, if you don’t compromise yourself for the money. On this basis alone, there is no substantive “professional class,” only different categories of vassals.
It’s not ‘post modern Marxist Ideology’ that so corrupts ‘higher education’ (and, by extension the so-called expert class). .. or the pillars of American justice.
Justice Thomas is a product of that educational system, and could never be confused as holding a post-modern Marxist ideology. .. as a Supreme Court Justice, he has accepted more free ‘gifts’ than all the Justices combined x2.
As the Most American, I have my finger on the pulse of America .. . and I’ll be the judge of any so-called expert testimony.
“he has accepted more free ‘gifts’ than all the Justices combined x2”
Care to back up that slander? Preferably from a source that is marginally reputable. Try not to use overly expansive definitions of “gift” that includes things such as sharing a friend’s house. Related, do shady book contracts count, or do you give a pass to the leftists on the court?
“As the Most American…”
You’re such a overbearing bore. Go troll somewhere else.
Iirc, the current standard for SCOTUS is anything valued over $415.00 is considered a reportable ‘gift’.
*go look up ‘reportable gifts’ to SOTUS Justices .. . ain’t got all day to fool with you Anonymous ding bats.
Ad hominem, lame. Like someone say Galileo once stole a candy bar so he must be wrong about astronomy.
Non-responsive. I didn’t suggest Justice Thomas’ extensive free ‘gifts’ clouded his judgement. .. and, certainly, Galileo was not dissuaded by a candy bar.
*iirc, the Pope locked Galileo up in the Vatican and he still didn’t repent!
*btw, with due respect to Galileo and scientific achievement .. . it was the Arabian Prophet, in 673ad, who first said ‘the sun moves in a fixed place’.
I didn’t see an apology for your unsubstantiated slander in that disgorge. Care to try again?
But it’s fine if other lib Justices do right…
FAIL
“. . . the Arabian Prophet, in 673ad, who first said ‘the sun moves in a fixed place’.”
Lots of people made that assertion. (And he was not the “first.”) Asserting that is *not* a scientific achievement.
*Proving* it, as Galileo did, is a scientific achievement (by a genius).
So, no proof then? Got it. Thanks for playing.
“current standard”
The first word there is undoubtedly doing a bunch of heavy lifting. What was the standard in the past, when these terrible transgressions by Justice Thomas occurred? Has he violated the new standards when they were actually applicable? We can only assume from your dishonest representation that he has in fact broken no rules.
Gifts and NO law was broken.
Try again
dg
Really. Using a movie to make a point. Talk about lame!
No. No, NO. Thomas is not a product of today’s substandard (Marxist) educational system. He’s a product of a long-PAST educational system in which Marxist thought was disseminated for the purpose of historical knowledge and counterpoint, not the fulcrum (of it)! Listen, Thomas may have a record of receiving gifts, but his status as a jurist was never bought and established with these gifts, as he’s always been a “stalwart” conservative. We can say that the gifts may have come in appreciation after the fact, not before.
“As the Most American, I have my finger on the pulse of America .. . and I’ll be the judge of any so-called expert testimony.’ This makes no sense. [?]
“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.”
****************************
“I can find you an expert to conclusively find a pulse on a corpse.” ~Anonymous lawyer friend of mine
ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM:
“Everyone knows”
“They say”
“It’s common knowledge”
“People are saying”
“The public believes”
“It’s widely agreed”
“All rational people understand”
“They’re all saying”
“No one disputes”
“The word on the street is”
(add your favorite here ____)
These phrases are effective in public discourse because they exploit the audience’s assumption that widespread belief equals truth, often bypassing the need for concrete evidence or rigorous analysis.
Gordy, in other words….common sense overrules the experts. Common sense has it’s place, but not in eveything.
Please learn to read with COMPREHENSION: Gordy did NOT refer to his list as factors of “common sense,” but as the common and too-easy EXCUSES used by the mainstream media to lie and obfuscate via references to nebulous sources that don’t even have to exist. He’s referring to the professional sounding, but common, practice of hearsay passing for news.
A century ago the ‘experts’ told us that the application of eugenics would ultimately solve the problems of the human race. This originated in academia and was embraced by many well-meaning folks who forgot that when humans assume the role of God it never ends well. Eugenics was the ‘scientific’ basis for the Nazi’s “Super Race”. Today’s advocates of gender ideology will be viewed by future generations in the same way we now view the proponents of eugenics.
a few short decades ago the ‘experts’ told us we were going to enter an ice age..;; now the experts are telling us you will be able to fry eggs on a rock in the sun in Antartica. .
“a few short decades ago the ‘experts’ told us we were going to enter an ice age”
I’m glad at least one other person recalls the Ozone Hole/Coming Ice Age hysteria.
Superb comment Professor Turley.
Turley: “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.”
I stopped reading anything in JAMA when a comment declared that race is a social construct.
How stupid do they think we are?
Excellent commentary by Mr. Turley!
“None of this means that courts or the public should disregard science or experts. Indeed, many experts still adhere to the core principles of unbiased inquiry and discourse. However, good science requires open inquiry and a diversity of viewpoints. Citizens are increasingly rejecting science through plebiscites and self-authenticating petitions where academics purport to speak for an expert class.
This situation is quite rich. It’s the constant attacks from the right against experts and science when they disagree with the outcomes or proposals. Turley is just as guilty of engaging in these attacks, as he is no expert on gender dysphoria or medicine. He mirrors the Catholic Church’s views from the Dark Ages, claiming to be the only authority on everything, asserting that they are the experts because they represent the one true religion and understand the Bible better than anyone else.
This issue isn’t about experts losing their objectivity; it’s about the conflict between religious authority and science. Turley undermines the credibility of experts by sowing doubt due to a few misconceptions and unproven hypotheses. This type of thinking has contributed to public health crises, such as the measles outbreaks in West Texas and their continuing spread across the country. Ignorance and religious dogma have always hindered human progress and innovation, fueled by irrational fear and a desire to maintain relevance in beliefs that are constantly being challenged by reason.
Historically, it was once incomprehensible to see slaves as human and not property, as the Bible condoned slavery and continues to do so in various interpretations. It is similarly unfathomable for some to accept that poor people are being helped by the government because certain Evangelicals have a distorted interpretation of the Bible that serves to protect their dominance and moral authority, ignoring Jesus’s own words. This is why they despise ‘experts’ who contradict their views; they cannot bear being wrong. Admitting to being wrong is an affront to their claims of moral authority and divine right.
This is why they fought so hard against racial integration and mixed-race marriages until rationality prevailed. Now, they are doing the same with same-sex marriage and transgender rights. Many still long for the days of racial segregation and prohibited interracial marriage. Even now, some Republicans are shocked that a Muslim won the New York Democratic primary simply because he is a Muslim. The Young Republicans Club has gone so far as to demand that Trump strip Mamdani of his citizenship and deport him after he was chosen as a candidate for mayor.
Racism is deeply rooted in the Republican psyche, and they wonder why they continue to be associated with that label. The reasons are self-evident.”
who are you quoting, george?
He does not realize that all of other the voices in his head are also him
yeah, notice the closing quotation marks at the very end, so he puts the entire comment in quotation marks. At first I thought it was just error in not closing the first paragraph quote from JT. But the LAST quotation mark at the end made the whole thing funny. You’re right, maybe George is quoting George the Expert.
Common sense dictates it’s just a typo anonymous. I’m sure you’re smart enough to figure it out, but I have my doubts.
Common sense (along with reading comprehension and context) dictates that we’re just having a little fun with your self-proclaimed expertise, George. Get over it.
Evil is as evil does. But in your case george, evil sees as evil wants to see!
You think your much speaking (or is it much cut-and-paste) that you make pithy points, but the whole diatribe is one big cesspool of various stock hatreds….
In the context of this particular article/discussion-thread, there is no need to drag Jesus and the Bible into it, except to say that in the last days people like you will be coming out of the woodwork to scream, from the top of their lungs and the bottoms of their black souls: evil is good, and good is evil.
So Dianna, what you are saying is you have no answer with substance. Instead you chose to belittle. Bless your heart.
Sometimes “answers with substance” are simpler than you think: those who [now] pass good for evil, and evil for good are the epitome of “resistance” in our culture today. It’s a description of the moral downfall of which extreme-leftists are crashing our union and culture; belittlement has nothing much to do with the sad fact of this matter.
“Historically, it was once incomprehensible to see slaves as human and not property, as the Bible condoned slavery and continues to do so in various interpretations.”
Dianna, as you suggest, George’s pithy remarks are a cesspool of hate, magnified by ignorance, falsehoods, and a profound lack of comprehension. What he says today may contradict what he says tomorrow, and his hateful rhetoric is built on only a faint and often distorted glimpse of the subject.
He hates religion in part because many of his own actions are disgraceful. Consider his rants about elementary school children and his insistence that they should have proximity to pornography in public libraries.
Let me offer just one example of what the Bible says about slavery, which, while accepted in its time, was subject to strict limitations:
“If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave and destroys it, he must let the slave go free to compensate for the injury” (Exodus 21:26–27).
There are numerous other passages that point toward a forward-looking approach regarding slavery and its eventual end. For instance, the Book of Job reflects moral clarity when it states that both slave and master were formed by the same Creator, equal in soul and worth before God.
These examples reflect an unmistakable recognition that slaves were seen as human beings and were to be treated humanely. Physical abuse was not permitted. The Bible goes further than this in establishing ethical boundaries, but George, an ignorant and dangerous fool, has no grasp of this context. As I’ve said before, he has no place near children or schools and should not even be on this blog.
george
None of this means that courts or the public should disregard science or experts.
)))))))))))))))))))
Experts you say george. Like say get the shot and you won’t let CV, or how about get the shot and you won’t spread CV. Best one of all, stay 6ft apart and pull your shirt over your face to act like a mask. ALL were a lie.
Turley “mirrors the Catholic Church’s views from the Dark Ages . . .”
So first Turley is the reincarnation of Mao (see below). Now he’s the Church’s Grand Inquisitor.
What next? That he eats babies for breakfast?
Marcia McNutt recently published that science, done right, is neither red nor blue. She is President of the National Academy of Sciences. That’s the right message from the right place. Should we add deafness to the disabilities of recalcitrant “experts”?
For so-called “Originalists” many of the Founding Fathers were farmers. Many didn’t attend college.
That’s why the U.S. Constitution (ie: 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 9th Amendment, Article VI, etc) are easy to read and easy to understand by the common person.
The Founders didn’t want “experts” creating legalese not understood by common working class folks.
For example: today in 2025 nearly every government agency (local, state, federal) violate the 4th Amendment and even violate recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings defining the 4th Amendment – the clearest language of any constitutional right.
In 2025, there is virtually enforcement.
Could NATO play a greater role in stopping Russia?
If so, why doesn’t it?
They are smart enough not to start WWIII with a nuclear capable country.
“Could NATO play a greater role in stopping Russia?”
“Stop Russia” from doing what, exactly?
JT should be commended for this comprehensive takedown of the technocrat-class who have over decades succeeded in warping public opinion for ideological agendas. Hopefully the days of simply buying the “51 intelligence officials” Appeals to Authority logical fallacies are over.
Yuri Bezmenov would likely tell us the 20%’ers are a lost cause, but at least their insanity is sharply contrasted by even the most casual of intellectual curiosities. These 20’s are more like freak show attractions anymore.
Olly: “…the most casual of intellectual curiosities…” Great phrase.
👊 thank you lin.
OLLY,
I think they burned up all their credibility, like MSM did, promoting or defending the COVID narrative. I know I am skeptical about anything at the initial reporting. Wait and see what other evidence comes out to either support or counter the initial report. Not going to go into hysterics just because some yahoo says the sky is falling based off a bad computer model.
I think they burned up all their credibility, like MSM did, promoting or defending the COVID narrative.
Upstate, not only that, but when they collaborated with the censorship regime, that was the tell the technocrats were not speaking as “scientific experts.” They’ve been exposed and our country is better off for it.
OLLY,
Exactly. When “Two weeks to flatten the curve!” became months and months of lock downs but Wal-Mart and other big box stores stayed open while small businesses were shut down, when the “six foot rule!” was obviously preposterous to anyone with any degree of common sense, or the “COVID will get you if you are not masked up when walking into a restaurant but wont get you when you sit down!” it was quite obvious to all of us with common sense the experts and the technocrats were just making it all up.
Your reference to the 51 “intelligence officials” is spot on Olly as it was arguably the biggest public lie in American history. Although leaked unconfirmed “intelligence” reports that that our B-2 Bombers dropped Easter Eggs on Iran might be a close second. Just saying. Greg
skyraider,
I could actually see CNN reporting that.
I agree skyraider. I thought it interesting that the SecDef called out his former collegue at FoxNews’ Jennifer Griffin as one of the worst in her reporting on the Iran B-2 strike.
The
The same thing in law. Litigators go through the resumes, publications, and curricula vitae of “experts” and choose those whose Hx supports the desired outcome in testimony. Unfortunately, this is due to the owed advocacy in representation of their clients.
At least in litigation, there is the cross-examination. But when one side controls the release of contrary information, and the promotion of other information (e.g., the media), it goes from being confusing to being dangerous.
(Of course, litigators have the choice, -indeed a duty, to advise prospective clients that chances of prevailing are slim, and then can decline representation.)
“Unfortunately, this is due to the owed advocacy in representation of their clients.”
As a layperson, I’m not certain that “unfortunate” is the appropriate description there. That is an obligation required by our system of jurisprudence, which I greatly favor. But, as you also suggest, it is a bias that must be kept in mind at all times by the opposing attorney(s), the judge, and, most particularly, the jury.
Wow, I didn’t think Turley would go full Maoist, but here we are. Turley’s argument is no different than Mao’s point. Sowing suspicion on experts because they are experts for a reason sound an awful Marxist-like point of view.
Ironically he cites justice Thomas who is an expert in constitutional law based on his position. Why should we give Thomas’s opinions any credibility? What Turley is really saying is any experts who are democrats or liberal shouldn’t be given any credibility because of who they are.
The Chinese once had that same view towards experts, the elitists of their time, and promptly killed them or imprisoned them because they posed a threat to the collective. After decades of such purges they devolved into these proud third world countries. Until they discovered why experts are a necessity. Now China embraces experts and professionals and they are encouraging education and to be the best they can be at their chosen fields. Now they are on course to surpass the United States economically and militarily if they continue on this path.
This animosity towards experts comes from supposed experts themselves. The ones that don’t want any others to challenge their “expertise”. People like RFK Jr. and Lutnick are two total fools who rely on crackpots and conspiracy theorists to peddle ideas that have no basis in reality.
(Indeed, some of those “experts” do like to impose their dispositive positions right here on this blog…)
Suspicion of the validity of expert opinion is not Maoist. The suspicion of progressive expert opinion here is because many progressive experts have often been proved to be wrong in their “expert opinion”. Like COVID, the pandemic that those Chinese communist “experts” still claim did not originate in the Chinese government controlled Wuhan virology laboratory. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”.
In case you read my comment the first time I’ll say it again. Evil sees as evil wants to see george! Yes, I’m referring to you george!
george
Why should we give Thomas’s opinions any credibility.
Simple answer george. Thomas is far smarter than you fool!
The “expert class” lost it for me when we were told to stay home from work, school, religious gatherings and even parents and grandparent visits and then told it is ok to be among thousands of people protesting their idea of racism.
Watching medical staffs, people that were everywhere doing PSAs about staying home, cheering on marchers protesting and even rioting was one of the most 2020 things that happened. When they realized how bad the optics were they responded by saying that racism was also a health issue that needed to be addressed. As if racism, a problem that we, and the world, have had for all of mankind’s history, is suddenly more important, even as it is less of an issue on our country than ever, is more of a health issue than a pandemic that the day before George Floyd’s killing was the deadliest event in our lifetime is laughable.
HullBobby,
Oh! Yes! It was rather ironic for them to tell us to stay at home, close schools, wear mask even while driving in your car alone but marches against racism? That is just like COVID will get you if you walk into a restaurant unmasked but cannot get you once you sit down!
Maybe receiving bribes like Winnebago campers and luxury vacations from litigants appearing before you is harmless, but we peasants aren’t experts!
I thought you Democrats had given up on this line of attack in your ill-fated attempt to force Justice Thomas from the court. You must really hate that uppity black man who refuses to think like he’s supposed to, so much that you keep coming back for more. Must be your inner Klan coming out.
This growing petrification of intellectual thought throughout the elite world of academia has been apparent since the mid 60s.
Why it took so long for most to notice was the timid character of reserved Republicans who would refrain ( as my mother would say) from saying sh*t even if they had a mouth full of it.
Finally we are choking on all of this sh*t and we may have a very difficult time cleansing academia and all that these ideologies have poisoned.
Again, we have only ourselves to blame for being cowards against bullies.
Kinda disappointed that “climate change” only gets a passing reference in this essay about the dangers of groupthink.
I think for most of us not contaminated with progressive ideology, all of their insane ideas are under one big umbrella and I, personally, always question anything emanating from academia or any progressive (I suppose we should now refer to them as regressives) and usually toss it in the circular file labeled yet another grift on the public from untested theories cooked in the sterile air of a faculty lounge.
Facts and education are the enemy of MAGA.
@Anonymous
It’s hilarious to me that there are people that think there’s such a thing as ‘MAGA’. Is ‘MAGA’ in the room with you right now? 😂😂
Facts and education are not our enemies. Groupthink and leftists indoctrination are. Fact, there are two sexes. Not 97. Fact, biological males should not compete in women’s sports. Fact, biological males should not be in women’s locker rooms or bath rooms. Fact, pornography in elementary school libraries is wrong. Fact, you cannot wake up one morning, decide you are of the opposite sex.
Common sense, logic and reason is the anathema of wokeism.
“Fact, biological males should not compete in women’s sports. Fact, biological males should not be in women’s locker rooms or bath rooms. Fact, pornography in elementary school libraries is wrong. Fact, you cannot wake up one morning,”
Those are opinions, not facts. Thx for demonstrating my point.
An opinion based on the fact that biological men are not women. Thanks for proving his point.
That is correct!
Women are a discrete class.
Transgenders are not a discrete class.
No foolish Anonymous, Upstate is right, they are not just opinions as the “experts” told us that we are harming kids if we don’t castrate them and or cut off their breasts. They told us that the kids will kill themselves if we don’t mutilate them for the ideas they have, were given by mommy and teachers, that they will outgrow 90% of the time.
HullBobby,
Well said!
WOW! You’re actually that f*cking stupid to even make that comment! Stupid is as stupid does! Yeah, that’s YOU!!
Really. So what did fools like yourself claimed about global cooling them warming. Plus NY would be under water by now??
Hmmmm.
Wrong every-time