The Harvard Club of New York is being accused of censorship after abruptly cancelling a book event featuring famed Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz. In a statement, Dershowitz says that invitations were sent out and the event was approaching when he was suddenly told that the Harvard Club would have none of it. He blamed his representation of President Donald Trump for the cancellation.
For a club that bills itself as offering “unique experiences,” it appears that hearing from opposing or different views is not one of them.
Dershowitz has been associated with Harvard for over 60 years and remains one of its best known law faculty members.
I only recently learned of the controversy and reached out to the Harvard Club of New York, which refused to offer any statement or explanation. It simply said that it does not discuss “events,” even apparently non-events, allegedly canceled for political reasons.
The news of the cancellation was deeply troubling for one of the country’s oldest clubs associated with an institution of higher education. Dershowitz is one of the most impactful lawyers of his generation with a long list of famous cases and influential publications. While he has been shunned by many of his former colleagues and friends for defending Trump, many admire him for not just his intellect but his grit and commitment to his principles.
The timing of the cancellation is equally troubling. Harvard has been under attack for its lack of intellectual diversity and its stifling orthodoxy.
As I discuss in my book “The Indispensable Right,” Harvard is not just an academic echo chamber. It is a virtual academic sensory deprivation tank.
In a country with a majority of conservative and libertarian voters, fewer than 9 percent of the Harvard student body and less than 3 percent of the faculty members identify as conservative.
For years, Harvard faculty have brushed away complaints over its liberal orthodoxy, including purging conservative faculty. It has created one of the most hostile schools for free speech in the nation, ranking dead last among universities in annual studies by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
Only a third of students at Harvard feel comfortable speaking on campus despite being overwhelmingly liberal at an overwhelmingly liberal institution. (The percentage is much higher for the small number of conservative students).
Not long ago, I had a debate at Harvard Law School with Professor Randall Kennedy on the lack of ideological diversity at the school. I respect Kennedy and I do not view him as anti-free speech or intolerant. Yet when I noted the statistics on the vanishing number of conservative students and faculty in comparison to the nation, Kennedy responded that Harvard “is an elite university” and does not have to “look like America.”
The problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent Republican.
The school itself has shown utter hypocrisy in firing one House dean (who, like Dershowitz, represented an unpopular criminal defendant) while retaining another who spewed hateful, racist messages against whites.
The Harvard Club of New York is a separate entity but has long presented itself as embodying the values of the institution. Unfortunately, it appears to be doing so all too well. If these accusations are correct, the Harvard Club engaged in the same intolerance for dissenting views that now characterizes much of the campus itself.
Despite recently declaring itself the victim of anti-free speech measures (including some that I have criticized), Harvard continues to show no evidence that it will address its own intolerance for opposing views. Indeed, this allegation suggests that this echo-chambered culture may extend to the Harvard Club of New York.
When accused of raw censorship, one would think that the Harvard Club of New York would owe not just Dershowitz but the public a full explanation. If Dershowtiz was not cancelled for his views or prior representation, Harvard Club of New York can say so and give the content-neutral reason for the change. If this was a case of content-based censorship, Harvard Club of New York should be public and honest about its censorship policies.
Of course, as Tom Lehrer explained after he “returned from his Scrabble Pro at the Harvard Club,” all Harvard graduates rally to the cause. So “Fight fiercely, Harvard” . . . but what exactly are you fighting for?
We need to reconsider how we pursue medical research in this country. Currently, our colleges and universities conduct most of the practical research and receive generous public stipends for doing so. Many university-based scientists pursue side hustles through self-directed LLCs. These are used to operationalize their “discoveries.” The schools have contracts with them to share earnings from licenses and patents for devices and drugs developed in school labs, often funded by government grants and stipends. The government shares nothing in the process. The government then charges the sponsor a small fortune to approve the device or drug. Sponsors are permitted to charge exorbitant sums for their discoveries on the theory that they must recover the development costs, including the money paid to the government for approval. And then the government, the biggest payer of Rx drugs, pays top dollar for something it helped to finance. Research is often underwritten by syndicates tied to Middle Eastern money barons. In return for investing, they get first dibs at the patent, rip it off, and make the drug or device somewhere else in the world, often in China or India. Does anyone see an opportunity for reform here?
Wow! Congress would have to unpack all of this in order to even begin to design a fair healthcare system. It would also have to analyze the current business models of the insurance companies that sponsor healthcare programs. Just look at the salaries of the so-called nonprofit organizations for a start.
I have read some of Alan Dershowtiz’s publications and have always found them interesting and also thought his presentations on talk shows and other events were quite insightful and often intriguing. I did not always agree with him but he always made a good case for his side of any discussion.. There was also much that I agree with him. The Harvard Club just shows small minds and poisonous perspectives and are a stain on the reasons for the foundation of Harvard in the first place.
Sad in so many ways. I simply could not support an institution that refuses even hearing an alternative. In medicine as in culture and law, there are often many points of view and I have never heard any person or group that had all the answers and I find that still true. Harvard and its representatives are slowly killing their institution. One day they will be the spurned party that is cast out like they are trying to do to Dershowitz.
Morning! MAGA just shows small minds and poisonous perspectives and are a stain on the reasons for the foundation of MAGA in the first place.
Perhaps the issue is not that Dershowitz is a conservative, or that he represented Trump.
Perhaps the issue is that he is just a thoroughly obnoxious little man.
Perhaps the MAGA mob is suffering from collective persecutory delusional disorder.
Commonly known as DDS – Democrat Derangement Syndrome.
The core principle of the Hah-vahdh Club of New York, as is that of the parent indoctrination center in Boston, is hypocrisy. Ve-ri-tas.
Harvard, that long time bastion of serious academic pursuit and critical thinking, is not so quietly slipping into irrelevancy as a historic institution. Sad to see, let alone say.
And sad to agree. The place still has some great libraries.
And a $50 billion endowment.
Change the tax laws President Trump.
Talk to Congress. O-that’s right. The dem/libs would never do that to (Harvard)
Alert! Alert! Democrat Derangement Syndrome on the blog.
Prove me wrong?
“The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.”– Thomas Sowell
It seems Harvard — and now even its own Book Club — has decided to model national dysphoria* in real time. Here’s what passes for “elite leadership” today: an American institution that censors ideas while forgetting the very virtues a free nation requires to survive.
Our founders expected citizens to cultivate courage, reason, and moral responsibility. Harvard is modeling the opposite — panic over speech, fear of disagreement, and the belief that protecting students from ideas is somehow a virtue. If this is what future leaders are being taught, they won’t graduate prepared to preserve the Republic. They’ll graduate prepared to manage its decline.
* Harvard wants the benefits of American liberty without the virtues that make liberty possible. That’s national dysphoria in its purest form.
Well said. Thank you
“Harvard wants the benefits of American liberty without the virtues that make liberty possible.” Virtues? Sounds cute, rather stretching it, I’d say.
But isn’t everyone entitled to the benefits of American liberty? What about American corporations? Who pillage the consumer. What have they done for American liberty?
The NPO’s? with trillions in endowments? What have they done for American liberty?
And 99% of the population contribute nothing. What have they done for American liberty?
Sure, go ahead, pick on Harvard, its an easy target.
You’re talking about liberty like it comes with a lifetime warranty — benefits guaranteed, no responsibility required. That attitude is exactly how a nation loses the very freedom it assumes will always be there. Liberty isn’t a subscription service we just enjoy; it’s a system of virtues we have to practice and teach or it expires.
And that’s why Harvard matters. Corporations don’t teach citizens how to think. NPOs don’t train judges. Harvard trains the people who will set the boundaries of liberty for everyone else. If the institutions responsible for forming leaders act like freedom requires no virtues — no courage, no reason, no moral responsibility — then all they’re doing is grooming a generation to live off the warranty while letting the republic rot.
So sure, everyone is entitled to liberty. But nobody gets to keep it by treating it like a product guaranteed no matter how we neglect it.
Freedom has no lifetime warranty. It survives only when we act like we’re responsible for it.
OLLY,
Great comment. I think those of us who have served in the military have a different way of looking at liberty.
That’s exactly right, Upstate. When I served in the Navy, most of what we did wasn’t combat — it was maintenance and training. If we didn’t take care of the ship and stay prepared, we wouldn’t survive a fight. Liberty works the same way. A nation that refuses to maintain its civic virtues won’t be ready when its freedoms are tested. And no “lifetime warranty” will save it then.
OLLY says: Harvard trains the people who will set the boundaries of liberty for everyone else.
And to paraphrase what you also posted: When and why does Harvard get a lifetime guarantee that they supply the people who define those boundaries? When was Harvard assigned responsibility for providing all Americans with their leaders – because I don’t think that ever happened.
If people don’t have Harvard on their CV, that is a clear indication that they don’t have the intellectual and moral characteristics to be members of the august crowd who sets our liberty boundaries for us?
Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, etc probably established their reputations due to obsessively recruiting the finest minds out there both as students and professors through meritocracy and demanding rigorous study to graduate from it’s programs. At some point or other, Harvard and the others reversed that to instead recruit on other characteristics like skin color, political affiliation, and a few slots left to distribute among other applicants that didn’t meet the primary recruiting criteria.
My wife has two clients who are Harvard grads circa the 1970’s- they met there. He is a self made millionaire who made it by forming a Seattle venture capitalism company (Harvard may have taught him that such companies have a profit margin of around 25%, while health insurance companies that are supposedly making a killing have a miniscule 0.8% profit margin). Left all that behind to pursue his dream of being an organic farmer here in Montana, where he loses money every single year despite legitimately working at it with his hands now as rough as any labourer’s hands. He fixes each year’s shortfall by writting a cheque: farming problem solved, and he goes back at it again the next year, he’s not a quitter. He’s a nice guy; he’s welcome among the blue collar guys and retired military that play in our over 60’s hockey league.
But having socialized with them both as invited guests at their home or at our beer hockey league tournaments… the opinion of the two of them on world issues, never mind American issues, leaves me to conclude that Harvard equipping you with the knowledge to become rich doesn’t mean they taught you jack shyte about having a moral compass or what liberty and freedom actually mean.
And that’s 1970’s Harvard, versus the Harvard of today.
Presuming somebody is special outside of their sphere of expertise (Harvard graduate or movie star) is just one more thing alongside populist politics to help collectively dumb down America.
I think you misread what I meant by the “lifetime warranty.” I wasn’t saying Harvard deserves authority or was guaranteed a right to train leaders. I’m saying the opposite: too many institutions (Harvard included) act as if liberty’s benefits require no responsibility or virtue to maintain them. That entitlement mindset — from elites or everyday citizens — is exactly how a free nation loses its freedom. Harvard isn’t owed leadership; it’s supposed to model the habits that make liberty possible. It’s the failure to do that I’m criticizing.
OLLY,
I think you might find this interesting, The Devil’s Plan to Ruin the Next Generation
https://www.thefp.com/p/jonathan-haidt-the-devils-plan-to-ruin-next-generation
Thanks for sharing that, Upstate. I wasn’t familiar with Haidt’s “Devil’s Plan,” but it looks like he’s diagnosing something I’ve been circling from a civic angle. I’ll definitely pick up the book. What struck me even from the summary is how we’re raising a generation less prepared for freedom’s responsibilities than its comforts. That gap isn’t just psychological — it’s constitutional. A free country can survive bad policies; it can’t survive citizens who don’t know how to live free.
And think about Erich Fromm’s ESCAPE FROM FREEDOM.
Thank you very much Catherine. It’s now on my list.
Basically, Haidt found that ChatGPT’s answer copied the Democratic Party’s platform. 🙂
“Our founders expected . . .”
Eight Founding Fathers, all DoI signatories, attended Harvard. Today, not one of them would survive freshman year.
He can represent a bunch of scraggly Illinois Nazis to protect their right to march in a community full of holocaust survivors and not get canceled, but he can’t represent Trump.
“Only a third of students at Harvard feel comfortable speaking on campus despite being overwhelmingly liberal at an overwhelmingly liberal institution.”
Harvard departed from liberalism some years ago. The more correct adjective is “leftist”. Increasingly, the graduates should be approached carefully, as they may be best described as “leftist agitators”.
DDS – Democrat Derangement Syndrome. … 1st Amendment for me, not for thee.
The students and Harvard University can do as they please. Its a private institution, private citizens.
Does Harvard get any government funding? Can a Florida university ban gays? Can a Mississippi school ban blacks? Women?
Looks like you just got your a$$ handed to you by a bunch of anons.
They’re a “private” institution only insofar that they do not depend upon public monies. After all, “he who pays the piper picks the tune.”
Indeed, the Harvard Club of NYC is not formally a part of the university. They simply license the use of the name (with restrictions).
They’re a “private” institution only insofar that they do not depend upon public monies. After all, “he who pays the piper picks the tune.”
Democrats Lyin’ And Denyin’ Like You’re Joe Biden doesn’t work well in the age of the Internet. From Open The Books, who looked at Harvard:
Analyse reveals since 2017 Harvard has received $4.4 billion in federal funding through grants, contracts, sub-grants, and sub-contracts. That’s about $539 million a year. In any given year, Harvard collects more in federal grants and contracts than they stood to gain through tuition, room & board.
DDS – Democrat Derangement Syndrome. … 1st Amendment for me, not for thee.
And the last time students at Harvard blocked a communist or hajji Imam from speaking at Harvard was….? Bueller? Bueller?
Democrat Marxist Useless Idiots drop their guts in a Midol Moment when criticized in print! Criticism of them and their latest New Hitler Youth Movement violates their 1st Amendment rights!
For normal Americans, it would require somebody preventing them or one of their favored communists or Arab hajjis from speaking to violate those rights. But the Democrat commies are such fragile flowers that merely disagreeing with or criticizing them is a blatant violation of their 1st Amendment rights. And so they channel their mental anguish into projection.
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where an emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else. This is an internal defense mechanism which allows that mentally ill person to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
Tom Lehrer himself would have probably had zero chances of getting in to Harvard in today’s world (brilliance is rarely appreciated in an intellectual “sensory deprivation tank”) and if the miracle did happen he would have been kicked out immediately.
You can always tell a Harvard Man, you just can’t tell him much.
How can you tell you are talking to a Harvard man? You don’t have to tell, he will tell you in the first 5 minutes.
Obviously you never met a Harvard woman or man. And, what’s your claim to fame old man? Trade school?
Two things:
1) Why are you disparaging trade schools?
2) Do know of any trade schools that confer JDs? If not then I didn’t go to a trade school.
Did you go to a trade school. Didn’t think so. The disparagement was directed at you. Still telling folks you’re a lawyer huh?
Your comments indicate a high level of stupidity and ignorance.
You’ll pardon me if I don’t believe you.
I really care if you believe me.
So I guess you saying “what’s your claim to fame old man. Trade school.” Isn’t an insult to trade schools? You really are dumb.
HullBobby,
Seems she equates higher education with intelligence and trade schools with those lacking intelligence.
Read recently the CEO of Ford, commenting he has 5,000 openings for mechanics and is offering $120,000 salary. If a person went to a trade school for auto mechanics, they could get a six figure paying job and not have the college debt hanging over their head for years if not decades. Sure, 20+ years ago, the up front costs of a college educate would pay for itself over a person’s lifetime as they would command higher salary and pay raises.
However, today, that college degree no longer commands the higher pay and the college debt is still there.
The smarter route may be trade school. Also, while I still think AI is in it’s infancy it has the potential to replace a lot of those college educated white collar jobs. AI cannot do a brake job.
Obviously you never met a Harvard woman or man. And, what’s your claim to fame old man? Trade school?
Sonny, you’ll never meet a Harvard graduate living on Hot Pockets in your Welfare Queen Mom’s basement as a Democrat Marxist Useless Idiot. And for Woke fluffers like you, trade schools followed by getting a job that would net you $100k a year and independence is your kryptonite.
Mostly women. In the current student body at Harvard, white males make up 9% of the student body.
In other astounding and unpredictable news, $h1t emanates from @$$h013$…
When minds are closed even among the top financial people in NYC, it become easier to explain why they just elected a Socialist mayor with no experience, with no record, and with ideas precisely orthogonal to their very own feelings.
No experience, no record, bad ideas? The good thing about American democracy is that anyone can become mayor of NYC.
So, in your world only a cadre of select humans have the god given right to command the masses. Sounds like MAGA.
No offense, but you come off as an intellectually incompetent moron. Do you think responding to every comment by twisting what the person writes and calling it “MAGA” is an indication of anything other than a dull wit?
Here’s a challenge. Since you wrote that it is good that people with no experience, no record, and bad ideas can be voted to be mayor of New York City. Try to put together a handful of coherent sentences at an eighth grade competency level to defend such an absurd proposition.
No offense? You are very offended by an intellectually incompetent moron.
You clearly understood what was written, so incoherent sentences aren’t the problem. What level of competency do you think your comment exhibits?
As Thornton Mellon once said “Call me when you have no class”. Is that the Harvard Club on my caller ID?
I suppose the good professor Turley will not be receiving an invitation to speak at the Hahvahd club anytime soon.
Meh. Does not pay as well as gurning on Fox.
Remember Democrats are Fascists fighting a Civil War…their 2nd
You really have no idea what a fascist was, do you?
Probably a better idea than you. Fascists limited free speech, physically attacked their physical opponents, increased government power over the economy, limited freedom of movement of their citizens and generally made life bad for everyone. Only one side is doing that in the US today and hint, its not MAGA.
“limited free speech, physically attacked their physical opponents, increased government power over the economy, limited freedom of movement of their citizens and generally made life bad for everyone. ”
You perfectly described MAGA. Thanks!
You sir are obviously delusional.
You sir, are drunk on MAGA. Sober up.
Exactly! National leader who is an extreme narcissist autocrat, surrounds himself with incompetent sycophants, deludes himself that he is a great orator, vows to make his country great again, wrecks the economy, and is easily manipulated by a murderous war criminal with whom he thinks he can negotiate a great deal. Thinks he can waddle around in military glory by threatening much smaller countries.
Benito, or Donald?
biden…
No. Biden was arguably a stereotypical Mafia Don with his constant corrupt hustles, but never resembled Benito.
But given you cannot even master initial capitalisation of names, you will not really comprehend, will you?
He has a “collage” degree.
You perfectly described MAGA. Thanks!
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where an emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else. This is an internal defense mechanism which allows that mentally ill person to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
Please explain how they do so?
And please refer to cancelling this dear Professor venue due to MAGA?
It is a form of centralized power through government regulatory takeover. The only difference between Fascism and Communism is that in communism the government seizes the means of production. Where in fascism the government uses regulatory takeover to dictate exactly what a company can do.
In simple common law, the distinction is between actual taking vs regulatory taking. Either way the government controls all.
Sure seems more like what Democrats support that what Republicans support (see DOGE).
Hope that helps!
“the government uses regulatory takeover to dictate exactly what a company can do.” You perfectly described MAGA.
“the government uses regulatory takeover to dictate exactly what a company can do.” You perfectly described MAGA.
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where an emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else. This is an internal defense mechanism which allows that mentally ill person to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
“The only difference . . .”
Very well said.
Same “difference” from another angle: Communism criminalizes private property. Fascism permits it, but in name only. The state controls its use and disposition.
You really have no idea what a fascist was, do you?
Sealioning:
Sealioning is a form of adolescent trolling where someone persistently demands answers to insincere questions to provoke a response, often pretending to seek a civil debate while actually trying to exhaust or frustrate others with no intention of real discourse. This behavior is characterized by a facade of politeness and a refusal to acknowledge previous answers. Often used as a tactic by whining Democrats in online forums and podcasts
Hardly. It was a genuine question; fascist is just a lazy term thrown about by ignorant people, left and right wing, at anyone with whom they disagree. Stalin actually ordered his propagandists to always call the Third Reich regime “fascists” instead of “Nazis”, because Nazis were of course National Socialists, so actually extreme left wingers, uncomfortably close in their doctrines to aspects of Stalinism. It was lazy left wing academics in the sixties who conflated “right wing” with “Nazi”, in between shouting about “fascist scum” at anti-war demonstrations. It was why the post-war British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, was miles ahead of Truman in recognising that Stalin remained an irreconcilable threat to western democracy, because he knew that Stalin hated and feared democratic socialists such as Attlee proved that socialism was possible in a democracy rather than a Stalinist dictatorship.
time to end Federal Aid to colleges and non-profits….and any “non-profits” where anyone gets $100k+ of benefit, should pay all taxes!
End aid? Why, because they don’t mouth your deranged MAGA paroles?
Amen. No more Federal bailouts to education establishments of any kind.
Why am I not surprised by any of this?
So, the good professor complains about a book promotion event in order to, yet again, promote his own tedious book full of errors and wilful misleading statements about events outside of the United States of America, when attempting to apply his view of the US Constitution to countries that actually have superior constitutional arrangement. Bless…
No wonder you are Anonymous.
And “Wiseoldlawyer” is not anonymity? You are an appalling hypocrite… so quite possibly a lawyer!
“No wonder you are Anonymous” says the anonymous. wiseoldlawyer.
Yet here you are commenting 100 times a day on the articles written by the “tedious” Professor Turley while residing in a nation that compares poorly to other nations vis a vis constitutional protections???
You aren’t a lawyer, you aren’t clever, you aren’t edgy, what you are is just a contrarian weirdo that has an odd narcissism that forces you to reply to everyone that makes cogent and relevant comments in the way that a parasite nips at a host.
“everyone that makes cogent and relevant comments …” That leaves you out.
“You aren’t a lawyer, you aren’t clever, you aren’t edgy, what you are is just a contrarian weirdo…” Look in a mirror.
Trust me, even an unwritten constitution offers me far better protection than the dogeared and ancient US Constitution offers US citizens right now. I live in a country where police (save for one, very, very special counter-terrorism firearms unit) are not allowed to wear masks, have to identify themselves by a unique number on their epaulettes, and where police overreach is regularly treated harshly by judges. Where someone subject to massive prosecutorial misconduct, such as that committed by Bondi and Halligan, would have their legal costs imposed on the government.
You are so blinkered by your fundamentalist delusions that somehow the constitution and your institutions are so superior to anywhere else in the world, that you cannot see the plughole towards which you are tragically spiralling.
BRD?
No.
If you don’t live here then why do you argue about our laws, our society and our freedoms? Shut up and clean up whatever s***hole you are living in.
If your country is so great then why not tell us what country it is? I guess saying you live in Haiti has lost some of it’s appeal.
Hang on sunshine. Turley, and that clown Vance, do nothing but lecture us “foreigners” about matters such as free speech. We would not mind quite so much if Turley and Vance did not base their arguments on erroneous reporting in tabloids but actually sought out the facts.
Bear in mind that your precious Constitution was written by men who had all been born, raised, educated as British citizens. Their mistake, arguably, was then to trust it for the next two and a half centuries to individuals who had been born, raised, educated as American citizens… 🙂
Bear in mind that your precious Constitution was written by men who had all been born, raised, educated as British citizens.
They couldn’t be anything OTHER than British citizens at that time. And they realized as all Colonists did that their elected government was abusing them and depriving them of their constitutional rights.
Arguably, a commie British wanker of today would hope he could to cosplay that he isn’t aware that British citizens today are being deprived of their rights now as the Colonists were being deprived of their rights 300 years ago.
British commies would play that they’re blind to the fact their current police state fascist socialist excuse for a government is pushing to put an end to almost all jury trials before an accused’s peers.
Never mind the Founders. Just ask yourself what Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, etc would think of what these British communists are doing to their own citizens at home in the UK today.
Chuffers and wankers… the power and glory that was once England has fallen to internal insidious communist surrender monkeys.
“And they realized as all Colonists did that their elected government was abusing them and depriving them of their constitutional rights.”
You do know that modern research has shown that only about 10% of colonists backed the revolution? A similar percentage were committed Loyalists. About 80% just wanted to be left in peace to farm and trade. The revolutionaries only won because of massive French assistance, and the growing feeling in London that the colonies were just not worth the bother.
But you are one of those “patriots” who does not know history, and hates having their simplistic nonsense challenged.
“their current police state fascist socialist”
Only an utter moron would think that a polity could be both socialist and fascist at the same time. Please go take your meds (assuming you can still afford them after the GOP screwed your premiums…)
“. . . men who [were] British citizens.”
They were British *subjects*.
They became independent *citizens* in 1776.
Trust me… I live in a country where police…
HAHAHAAAAAAAA… trust a gaslighting commie??? Ummmm… no.
Would you be that commie British wanker that was telling us yesterday that the UK justice system was better at protecting individual liberties and freedom?
UK Govt Wants to Scrap Most Jury Trials, Ending 800 Years of Tradition.
Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor, and Justice Secretary, David Lammy, has proposed a major overhaul of criminal trials in England and Wales by allowing judges to hear many cases without juries. In a memo, Lammy argued that there is “no right” to a jury trial in the United Kingdom and suggested reserving juries for only the gravest offences.
The debate carries particular weight because trial by jury has been a defining feature of English justice for centuries. Its origins trace back to at least the reforms of Henry II in the 12th century, and its role was strengthened by the Magna Carta in 1215, which laid the groundwork for the principle that individuals should be judged by their peers. Although jury rights have evolved over time, the system has remained a central safeguard against state overreach for more than 800 years.
And the very high probability is that the moronic Mr Lammy will fail miserably. His idea is already being ridiculed.
As the British judicial system stands at present, warts and all, it is still massively more attractive than the corrupt US judicial system, where politics, not justice, drives judgements.
Where someone subject to massive prosecutorial misconduct, such as that committed by Bondi and Halligan
It’s telling – not weird – that this is the accusation you wanted to ride on. Skipping over the four years or so of CRIMINAL prosecutorial conduct of Obama’s unindicted felons who were his Attorney Generals and FBI Directors who perjured themselves over and over again in FISA courts, in order to get illegitimate FISA warrants to deprive THOUSANDS of Americans of their civil rights through color of law.
DIDN’T SEE THOSE FELONIES OR ABUSES OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!
Which is about what one could expect from somebody who was something like a commie British police state fascist wanker.
We aren’t blinkered here – we see you and your selective views and hypocrisy just fine.
Names of countries that “have superior constitutional arrangements,” please?
Britain, Germany, France, Poland, Netherlands, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada…
I could go on.
Britain, Germany, France, Poland, Netherlands, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada… I could go on.
Yes, your abject ignorance has no limits, you’ve proven that already. You sound like that British wanker who was telling us yesterday that the UK was superior – AFTER the British government had announced a proposal to eliminte almost all jury trials of an accused person’s peers except for the worst of offences. The same UK government who jails Bits for daring to believe they have free speech to publicly criticize hajjis as being “hate speech”.
Germany: another glorious country where free speech disagreeing with government, that they believe will offend some protected classes of people, will get you jailed.
Japan – where there is no such thing as 4th Amendment protections against arbitrary police search of your home… just because. Keeps ’em honest knowing the police may knock on their door anytime, and they might even find something. Own firearms? Hahahaaa… surely you jest!
Canada: where their Prime Minister Racist Black Face, unable to get the laws he wanted passed because he was surviving in a minority government, picked up his phone and pen and through Order In Council banned all handguns and pretty much all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns in Canada. Oh… and shut down the bank accounts, credit cards, etc of truckers arrested for the capitol offense of blocking the streets to protest his Wuhan Flu declarations that was putting them out of work.
I could go on on how your idea of superior constitutional arrangements is a British wanker’s love affair of police state fascism and elimination of individual rights and freedoms.
But by now you must want to go on some more to tell us why all of this police state fascism they have in the UK, Germany, Japan is exactly what the US needs.
Still all better than King Trump or Sleepy Joe, and a constitution that fails to remove either of them from office until they have wrecked your country.
when attempting to apply his view of the US Constitution to countries that actually have superior constitutional arrangement.
Shall we all sit here with bated breath, awaiting the moment this trolling Democrat Marxist Useless Idiot informs us of the countries who he believess have a superior constitutional arrangement?
Will it be Communist China? Cuba maybe? That Utopian Venezuelan model of liberty and freedom?
Oh wait!!! Could it be Mayor-elect Mamdami’s home country of Uganda?????
Liberals that stick to the Constitution are ‘persona non grata’ to other liberals.
I think Mr. Turley himself will be joining that club soon.
Jonathan Turley is often described as a legal scholar and commentator who has identified as a liberal Democrat.
Turley is liberal in the classical sense, not progressive in the blue hair, nose ring, giant glasses rich white woman way.
HullBobby,
Well said and spot on! Our leftist friends complain about the good professor topics and whine and cry that he has not written an article on things they want. The good professor is pointing out how his party has been highjacked by the far leftists, who are clearly for censorship and cannot tolerate any view points that are contrary to leftist ideology. This illiberal ideology is the exact opposite of what the Democrat party used to be.
The republican party has been highjacked by the far rightists, who are clearly for censorship and cannot tolerate any view points that are contrary to rightist ideology. Fixed it!. Describes you perfectly. Dimwits.
And, you’re welcome.
The republican party has been highjacked by the far rightists, who are clearly for censorship and cannot tolerate any view points that are contrary to rightist ideology.
Is that you AOC? Mayor-elect Mamdami? Bribery Biden?
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where an emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else. This is an internal defense mechanism which allows that mentally ill person to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.