We recently discussed how Yale faculty reached academic nirvana after years of purging departments of conservatives and Republicans. The university finally showed zero political donations to Republicans. Now Princeton can claim that it has succeeded in a similar cleansing, according to a new study by Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS). The study shows that 98% of political donations went to Democrats or Democrat-affiliated groups and 0% went to Republicans or affiliated groups.
Political contributions are one measure that helps gauge the degree of ideological orthodoxy and intolerance in higher education. While some academics simply do not make contributions and may still hold conservative views, the study still offers another insight into the political preferences of those who do make such contributions. The study does not mean that we can assume that the number of academics with conservative or libertarian values is zero. (There are obvious outliers such as Robby George). However, few would dispute that it reaffirms the extreme imbalance of ideological views at this and other universities.
Professors often express shock at the thought that there would be any political or ideological litmus test for hiring. I have also opposed such measures. However, the hypocrisy is crushing. Today’s faculty are responsible for a near-complete ideological purging of their ranks. They have created a hostile environment for anyone with conservative or libertarian viewpoints, including students who rarely have the opportunity to hear from a professor from a center-right perspective at most schools.
Most recently, forty percent of college faculty admitted that they would vote against any Trump supporter seeking an academic position regardless of their scholarship or teaching ability. Keep in mind that this is only the professors willing to admit to such bias.
Some are more open than others.
I had dinner with a Harvard Law Professor, who expressed disbelief that I expected him to vote for any faculty applicants who held views he considered wrong. When I noted that I regularly vote for faculty candidates who hold opposing views, he just shrugged and said that, if he rejects their views, he cannot vote for those views to be taught to students.
There are few remaining conservatives or libertarians on law school faculties, which have been purged of dissenting voices through a biased hiring and promotion system. Despite years of complaints and declining public trust in higher education, faculty members continue to reinforce bias and orthodoxy in our schools.
I wrote about the rise of this new McCarthyism on the left seven years ago.
Recently, I discussed the example of Fordham University School of Law professor John Pfaff, who called for “repercussions” for professors who do not “recant” their view that the 14th Amendment does not protect birthright citizenship.
Not long ago, I debated Professor Randall Kennedy at Harvard Law School about the school’s lack of ideological diversity. 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.”
Of course, the problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent Republican.
At schools like Yale and Princeton, they have achieved near 100% for Democrats (with only a couple of percent going for independent or socialist causes). Yet, if you ask faculty about the purging of their ranks, they will often shrug and say that they just cannot find a conservative or libertarian who is intellectually worthy of an appointment to their schools. It was the same absurd rationalization that was once used to justify not hiring minorities or women.
I just had a debate with a William & Mary law professor who admitted there is no other rational explanation for the virtual absence of conservatives and libertarians than systemic bias. Indeed, if a company were to go to court to say that there was nothing intentional in a virtual absence of minority employees, it would be laughed out of court.
Of course, nothing is laughable about the state of higher education. This generation of administrators and faculty are destroying our educational institutions because they cannot set aside their political bias and intolerance for the benefit of their schools. Higher education has reached record lows in public trust. Yet, these professors and deans are insulated from such public opinion. They are often financially insulated from the economic impact of such isolation. In higher education, the echo chamber works to their personal benefit, increasing their opportunities for writing and conferences. They also do not face opposing views of their scholarship or viewpoints.
Recently, I participated in a debate with the President of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). He doubled down on his call for universities to pursue more political agendas and activism. AAUP later broke its long-standing apolitical tradition and endorsed Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan.
This is why I have advised university presidents who want to restore intellectual diversity that they cannot rely on faculty members. With enough donor and faculty pressure, deans may add a single conservative, but they have shown they are unwilling to make real changes to the academic echo chamber they have created.
In the same way, I have encouraged state legislatures to tie further public subsidies to real and substantial changes in creating intellectual diversity among faculty.
If we are to protect these bastions of free speech, legislatures will need to play a more active role in addressing the exclusion of both faculty candidates and speakers on public campuses. Too many faculty members still take the view that citizens are a captive audience expected to keep funding their departments, while excluding conservative or dissenting views held by many, if not most, citizens in a given state.
If faculty members want to maintain echo chambers for their own viewpoints, they should seek private donors to sustain such intolerance and orthodoxy.
Legislatures can demand evidence that schools maintain intellectually diverse faculty when determining the level of continued support from citizens. Otherwise, it is ridiculous to expect the public to subsidize their ideological echo chambers of faculty.
For schools like Princeton, donors clearly do not want or expect intellectual diversity. They keep donating to a school that has systematically purged its ranks and now runs from the left to the far left.
As these surveys confirm what we already know about the intellectual intolerance of today’s faculty and administrators, they can at least spare us the performative denials. They should embrace their bias and dogmatism. Own it. This is what they have built through years of ideological agendas and intolerance.
After all, how many academic institutions can claim true perfection? Princeton is effectively a closed shop for Republicans. “Rah rah rah Tiger, tiger, tiger / Sis, sis, sis / Boom, boom, boom, ah! / Princeton! Princeton! Princeton!”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
P.U. and other privates are effectively country clubs. As far as I’m concerned, they get to select their staff and their members however they want, like any other country club. These institutions do have to keep the lights on, which I get, and so wealthy students who can pay whopping tuitions will always be admitted in abundance.
Friends, this is the way of the world.
These wealthy students will all have learned “critical thinking” at the same prep schools. As you may know, in a prep school, “critical thinking” means, “whatever everyone else at the prep school thinks.”) Inevitably, a dull, ferociously policed groupthink begins to dominate the private colleges receiving these prepsters. And the private colleges hatch out professors who they then hire.
Not my issue. Lemmings gonna lemming. The idiot cliff looms.
But I am interested in the publics. The publics should be different. The publics should be attainable, and not just for the rich and the selected poor (as we see in the privates), but also for the middle class whose taxes are funding their state’s public.
At a public, the state should ensure that tuition is low and standard for all.
By this I mean, covering Mary’s tuition shortfall should be from state revenues, not from John’s artificially high tuition.
I think this approach can translate to economic/class diversity at the publics. And I think maybe economic/class diversity may be the secret sauce that can translate into more ideological diversity.
My daughter graduated from a private law school which appended “… and Social Justice” to its name. She told me she came out more conservative than she went in. Exposing students to ideas that run counter to their world view can reinforce their belief system instead of altering it.
The same thing happened to my child in his ultra woke high school. An unintended consequence of a thought-police atmosphere.
USA at top of National Economies Least Dependent On Exports
(OT) Clancy Holdout Juror
So much for those fools who relied on the hearsay of the other Clancy jurors:
“I didn’t have any doubts. As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented. *Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presented*, I thought it was enough proof that she (Clancy) knew exactly what she was doing and planned.” (Michael Péguy Desronvil — the heroic holdout juror) (emphasis added)
Those who sympathize with a mother who committed triple homicide, recklessly claim that Desronvil had “reasonable doubt,” that he flouted the law by ignoring that doubt, that he was motivated by misogyny, that there should be a mistrial, that he should be prosecuted. The defense attorney publicly excoriated Desronvil for not doing his job. Will any of those reprehensible people retract their reckless claims and apologize?
When pigs fly.
Sam, this shows how corrupt Gigi is. She set herself up as judge, jury, and executioner, telling us all exactly what was in this juror’s mind before he explained his vote. Conservatives need to set up an Underground Railroad for him to escape northern white liberals in Massachusetts.
Who is “Gigi”? You have the holdout juror who, after multiple co-jurors disclosed what he said and how he arrogantly he acted over the multiple days that they deliberated, after admitting that the evidence proved there was reasonable doubt to believe that Clancy was in control of her mental faculties, and who was roundly criticized in the press, coming out and giving a different story, which, of course, because it fits the MAGA narrative, is immediately presented as the unassailable truth. I believe the other jurors. They didn’t have the opportunity to be coached in what to say, they weren’t first criticized by media or given an opportunity to craft a story that fit within MAGA philosophy, or be the benficiaries of a “Go Fund Me” account that is now over $300,000.00. Then, there are the sheer numbers–one, versus–how many? Several. Then, there’s the evidence–she was on numerous psychotropic medications, she was severely depressed, she had called the suicide hotline several times, she had reached out to her psychiatrist and only got a nurse practitioner. She tried in more than one way to kill herself. The biggest evidence is that, according to her husband and former mother in law, she was a warm, loving mother who took good care of her children until she snapped due to postpartum psychosis. No one has ever come up with any reason to explain why she would have killed her kids other than mental illness.
And, you MAGAs need to stop calling yourselves “conservatives”—you are NOT conservatives–you are the followers of the most-flawed, arrogant and mentally ill person ever
to occupy the White House. REAL conservatives want nothing to do with you, and have formed their groups like “The Bulwark” and “The Lincoln Project” to fight back against MAGAS.
Leftism is a cult, no dissenting viewpoints allowed. It’s a mental illness.
If you mean craving power, greed and envy to have the things all of the things then yes, a mental illness. Tragically these have been denied and this is the backlash. So it is…
There are nothing but dissenting viewpoints on the left. Getting agreement there is a constant challenge. On the right, they all wait for Trump to take a position before they back it solidly, unless Trump changes his mind and then they switch direction.
Ano
Trump to take a position before they back it solidly, unless Trump changes his mind and then they switch direction.
_____________________________
Pure BULL…
Trump said gas prices were too high, now he says they aren’t so high as to be a problem, that Americans should just accept it.
the leftist legislators in the US House and Senate walk in lockstep with their “Master(s) and/or Mistress” – Hakeem and/or Nancy and Schumer. Rarely do you send dissention. the Conservatives on the other hand are more self-serving and buck the majority when they want something for their state/themselves. Your statement about dissenting viewpoints – going with Trump and then Trump changing his mind and them following suit is pure balderdash sprinkled with a lot of arrogance AND ignorance.
#. Sydney Sweeney is quite a businesswoman! Who’s her handler? Instead of pay for the spread she took an equity share. Her ad was for herself. It was spectacle to get NOVIG seen. The little lady intends to be rich and far removed from the poor. She’s sitting on a pot o gold.
Literally: her butt!
OT, BREAKING, deal benefitting USA with regard to Greenland (this will cause chagrin to all the commenters here who hate America, and I have no doubt we will see that in comments responsive to this one). From President Donald J. Trump:
I am pleased to announce that the United States of America has entered into an Agreement with The Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland, that gives the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many U.S. concerns. There will be NO COST to the United States! At my direction, we worked with representatives of Denmark and Greenland to guarantee that the United States will FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland in order to secure and defend the security of Greenland, and the United States of America. Additionally, from now on, no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval. For over 100 years, Presidents have known the strategic importance of Greenland, but NONE of them were able to do anything about it. I am proud to be the President that permanently and conclusively addressed this very important situation. This is an “Infinite Life” Agreement, there is no end! We are very honored and proud of what has just taken place, and everything agreed to today will be cherished by the American People. We will immediately begin the process of developing a large Military presence in the appropriate part of Greenland, of which there are many. We will work with the people of Greenland in its development and construction. This solution is a great one for the United States of America, Denmark, Greenland, and all of our Allies. We look forward to working with the wonderful people of Denmark and Greenland toward a magnificent future with respect to this large, and highly strategic, parcel of land. We will be very protective of it! This is a dream come true for the United States of America, one that is very important, historic, and special. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP
“Additionally, from now on, no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval.”
This is great.
They told Putin the same thing about Ukraine.
Who’s “they?” And even if the U.S. DID say that (it didn;t) you might recall the the U.S. has been sanctioning RUssia quite a bit, and sanctioning other countries that transact with RUssia in oil and gas. So what was your point again?
Obama enabled multiple bioweapons labs in Ukraine. Similar to the one in Wuhan were they were and are conducting gain of fxn research.
Obongo could never have been admitted to become a citizen per the American Founders’ Naturalization Acts; in other words, they didn’t want him here and they certainly did not want him to vote.
Obongo will never be eligible to be president per the one and only definition of “natural born citizen” in the universe—the very “natural born citizen” in the Law of Nations, 1758, that Jay and Washington used to establish the requirements for U.S. president.
No to both made up MAGA stories.
“Great”? This is the madness of King Trump attempting to gobble up the world. What a crock of s–t.
Man, I am all about the Republic, but the more I hear about King Trump, the more I like it.
since Kings are not elected, I’m just going to start calling him our benevolent king and no one can stop me.
The rest of us call him a fat, stupid, lazy, corrupt, sociopathic narcissistic liar.
The only individual in history to make military threats against Greenland in its entire history was Trump. There are no security threats to Greenland, there is no possibility of any rival power, be it Russia or China, ever invading. There might be the odd visit to its waters by a Russian spy trawler, and Trump cannot stop that. So nothing has changed, and Greenland and Denmark know it. Trump is just delusional.
If Greenland had no extreme strategic importance to the US at all, I would still be down with a US invasion just to piss off the world’s leftys.
I say we claim the antarctic next and see who wants to fight us for it.
How come nobody complained about the Panama Canal? Cause they couldn’t see what Trump was up to yet.
Denmark and Greenland are pushing back on what Trump said—Greenland will remain autononymous, and the US will have NO control over the government.
Since we all know that Trump is a pathological liar, continues setting records for low approval, knows that Republicans are in trouble with the midterms, his efforts to pre-rig the election have mostly failed and he grossly exaggerates what he claims are his alleged “accomplishments”, I reserve judgment on what this alleged “agreement” says until I review the actual agreement. I automatically assume Trump is at least exaggerating, and probably lying. Commentators have said that we already have a base in Greenland to repel Russia and Chinese threats. It’s not clear how this “agreement” adds anything to the longstanding agreement already in place.
Meanwhile, in a stunning display of Trump’s pathetic emotional immaturity and thin skin, Trump announced that he is banning MSNOW, CNN and Politico from the White House. Why? Because they aren’t MAGA media and they report the truth about him, which is pretty bad. The economy is bad, inflation is high, the Fed just raised interest rates, gas keeps creeping higher, housing and healthcare are rising, and it’s all Trump’s fault— the illegal tariffs, the war he started and cuts to ACA subsidies. Hospitals and nursing homes are closing down.
Non-MAGA reporters don’t let him get away with spewing lies and call him to task when he just makes things up and lies about losing in 2020 due to nonexistent fraud. He does not have the authority to select only reporters who are MAGA and who won’t hold him accountable. Courts will quickly strike the ban down because it is a violation of the First Amendment.
What you describe as “Trump’s pathetic emotional immaturity and thin skin” is his weapon against the opposition and your screed proves it.
Re-read your comment and see how you’re “all over the place”? Having trouble focusing on anything but “Orange man”?
TDS is the weapon that will defeat the left. The left cannot focus on their stance on issues, who’s the leader, What to do, etc because of they are emotionally overwhelmed. They have literally tried every trick inthe book with Donald and still he stands there smirking. He’s smirking RIGHT NOW because he knows he got you right where he wants you. See? see how that makes you feel?
Today the one you worship demanded that the Governor of South Dakota put his fat, ugly face on Mt. Rushmore. He tried to pretend that he was “just kidding”, but he isn’t–he has already posted AI-generated images of his face on Mt. Rushmore, along with AI-generated images of himself on horseback with Washington. He does not belong in the company of Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton or Roosevelt. Trump demands “recognition” for upgrades and improvements to the JFK Center–but Congress has already appropriated $250 million for maintenance on the JFK Center that has been needed for some time. It’s not Trump’s money–and his involvement isn’t needed or wanted, but his fragile ego needs to capture the cachet of the Kennedy era and the admiration the American people have for John F. Kennedy. He was a patron of the arts and was assassinated so young, with a young family–so America honored him by creating the JFK Center For the Performing Arts. Trump already cut down the weeping willow trees installed as symbols of our collective weeping for our assassinated president. The Kennedy Center has been having financial problems–first, due to COVID, when there couldn’t be shows or performances there, but after Trump jettisoned most of the Board and appointed sycophants who voted put his name on the building, performers, subscribers and audiences refused to show up–just like the “State Fair” fiasco for the 4th of July in Washington. Cancelled performances and audience boycotts would happen again if he gets his way. He just doesn’t understand or refuses to accept how much people despise him. More than that, he doesn’t understand that honor by others has to be EARNED, not self-anointed. If he puts up the arch, one of the first acts by his successor will be to tear it down, along with prying off all of the gold embellishments in the White House, insulting descriptions of former presidents, and prying up the pavers and restoring Jackie Kennedy’s Rose Garden.
The matter of whether the President can bar reporters he doesn’t like , or news organizations, from the White House has been previously litigated–and lost. Trump will lose once again. The head of the White House Correspondents’ Association, who is a Fox News reporter, has openly criticized Trump.
You are so steeped in MAGA discipleship that you just don’t understand what’s going on here or choose not to. The White House belongs to the People of the United States. The President is the temporary occupant, staying there with our permission only. Everything Trump does and says is supposed to be done and said in the name of the People of the United States. He is supposed to be accountable for what he does, what he says, and how he spends our money–which is supposed to be for OUR collective benefit. But, Trump is incapable of such altruism, because he is a malignant narcissist, devoted to self-aggrandizement, and because he is a chronic, habitual liar, he simply does has he pleases. He can never back down from a lie–like losing in 2020–he he tries to bully others to go along with his lie. Non-MAGA media, like CNN, MSNOW, and Politico won’t back down from telling the truth–so Trump not only accuses them of lying, now he’s trying to stop them from confronting him. It won’t work.
The banning of certain press from the White House briefing room is a symptom of the press relentlessly reporting one-sided “gotcha” articles instead of balanced reporting.
The press is a victim of the notoriety earned by Bob Woodward’s and Carl Bernstein’s famous Watergate investigative reporting.
A free press is a constitutional right, but the public is systemically denied fair, balanced, unbiased reporting, which is a crime and such a shame.
American oligarchs set up MAGA media to try to push back against what they knew would be the tsunami of Trump’s failures, displays of arrogance and general incompetence, which mainstream media would accurately report on. Woodward and Bernstein’s digging into the truth behind Nixon’s corruption was one of the best examples of the necessity for First Amendment protection of the press–they exposed his involvement in the Watergate break-in, and it ended his presidency. He only resigned because Barry Goldwater told him that the votes were there to impeach him and remove him from office, and it would be better if Nixon just resigned to save his dignity. Republicans today do not have this degreee of altruism or patriotism—they won’t stand up to Trump.
After Nixon had time to lick his wounds, he and his supporters believed that if there had been “alternative news”–in other words–pro-Nixon and pro-Republican news, to accuse mainstream media of unfairness and to attack Woodward and Bernstein, Nixon’s presidency might have been saved. That was the genesis for MAGA media we have now, started and financed by American oligarchs who want to keep those wealthy and corporate tax breaks, rolling back of consumer and environmental protections and regulations on their businesses, to allow mergers that violate anti-trust and to allow certan members of Congress to profit off of stock and other investments without meaningful oversight. And, to pay for these things, there are cuts to social safety net programs and programs to benefit the needy.
From multiple sources:
Awards Won by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein
Woodward and Bernstein’s most celebrated honor is the 1973 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, awarded to The Washington Post for their investigative reporting on the Watergate scandal, Popular Timelines
Bob Woodward
Heywood Broun Award (1972) – For investigative reporting.
Pulitzer Prize for Public Service (1973) – Shared with Carl Bernstein; awarded to The Washington Post for Watergate coverage.
Sigma Delta Chi Award (1973) – For excellence in journalism.
Worth Bingham Prize for Investigative Reporting (1986).
William Allen White Medal (2000).
Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism (2001).
Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting (2002) – For The Washington Post’s coverage of the September 11 attacks (Woodward as main reporter).
Gerald R. Ford Prize for Reporting on the Presidency (2002).
Elijah Parish Lovejoy Award & Honorary Doctorate (2012) – For courageous journalism.
Carl Bernstein
While Bernstein’s individual award list is less extensive in the provided sources, he is co‑credited with the 1973 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for Watergate reporting. His career also includes early recognition for investigative work, such as first prize in New Jersey’s press association for investigative reporting, feature writing, and news on a deadline
Wikipedia
Joint Recognition
Pulitzer Prize for Public Service (1973) – The most prominent joint award, recognizing The Washington Post’s Watergate investigation led by Woodward and Bernstein
Popular Timelines
Their work is widely regarded as “maybe the single greatest reporting effort of all time” by journalist Gene Roberts
In summary: Woodward and Bernstein’s defining award is the 1973 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, with Woodward also receiving multiple other major honors throughout his career, and Bernstein recognized for his role in that landmark investigation and earlier investigative achievements.
You’re not going to see MAGA media winning any awards, because they are NOT journalists–they are not there to tell the truth about Trump or Republicans–they are there to attack mainstream media, to push back against criticism of Trump, to attack Democrats, to carry the MAGA message and try to keep Republicans in power.
Greenland again? Must be a bunch of excrement emanating from Trump’s withered brain.
Meanwhile, Trump and Hegseth are letting the Russians, Chinese and Daesh have a free run at all the rare earth minerals in Africa – much more accessible than under Greenland’s permafrost – by stripping Africom of resources to support pro-western governments there. Genius strategy.
Those minerals, that belong to the Africans, and not the Russians, Chinese and ??
In our country, individuals have buying power. It’s very powerful. Well, the Africans will be wanting to sell them minerals no? Now, let me think, what country has a consumer economy where everyone has opportunities to increase their wealth and purchasing power who might be interested in products made with those minerals?
Oh you want to do some trade in minerals with us US consumers? Well, we only do free trade with our friends so not interested. Oh you WANT to be our friend? OK then.
The moral? US Consumers know how to make friends worldwide.
Not an attorney. This may be a lost cause. I don’t know how legislatures mandate “ideological diversity” anymore than they could promote other types of diversity without moving to quotas, or “self-identification.” As for the Harvard nitwit who stated that Harvard was “elite” and didn’t need to look like America, wasn’t the “elite” argument used to keep our blacks, Jews, WWII vets on the GI bill, etc?
A compliment for diversity at Princeton? On a long bicycle ride some years ago, I went through Princeton and was able to find and attend a weekday Mass at the Catholic Church on campus. To get to the front door, I found the surrounding grounds jammed with little American flags, one for each victim of 9/11. Two cheers for Princeton! May there be many more, I hope. Ron Wallenfang. Harvard LS. 1969
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802 (four iterations for maximal clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Naturalization Act of 1802 has never been abrogated legislatively (i.e. legitimately and validly) or necessarily properly.
Intellectually elite, not racially elite or otherwise.
BTW, just out of pure curiosity: Can anyone point to any evidence of any kind that anyone who posts to the comments section of this blog has EVER had their mind changes on ANY issue of ANY significance? The follow-up question to that one is too obvious to even bother stating.
Sure. When JT started this blog site, his daily topics were unsettled legal issues of controversy at the time, and I could tell that >40% of the comments came from lawyers, based on the precision/craft of their writing style. I’ve since changed my mind about who comments here — based on 2026, I’d say only 1:50 commenters show any evidence of legal training or the level of analytical thinking where you endeavor to understand both sides of a conflict.
Turley steers away from unsolved legal issues that currently fall on the shoulders of the governing majority — cybercrime, copyright in the age of AI, tariff policy, renaming of bodies of water and federal depts., free speech rights of government employees, independence of the Fed, etc. He instead choses crazies on the left to write about — giving them publicity that they don’t deserve.
The gravitas this blog started with has 99% evaporated.
Speaking of gravy tossing:
You are exactly right.
Turley long ago abandoned any pretense of being a learned commenter on matters of legal controversy, when he realized a lot more money was to be made by pandering to the lunatic MAGA cultists.
He is paid handsomely by Fox and NY Post for his articles there, and he simply reproduces them here to drive interest in his paid op-eds and books, and to incite the rage he so hypocritically condemns.
PSCHO MORON ANON DEM CULTIST
He (above you, at 5;08) thinks he’s clever. I can always tell who he is because he starts out complimenting, stroking someone else’s comment, thereby pleasing them and getting them to read his comment.
Dime a dozen.
First, let me say up front so the idea does not get lost in my long comment: you are a repulsive “person”.
Second, you have exactly no idea how much money Turley makes now or how much money he has made historically. You don’t know how much money he was making when he appeared regularly on Keith Ogremann’s show on MSNBC to criticize GWB and his policies.
My impression is that Turley’s op-eds are published in fewer venues now than they were in prior years when he was regularly published in USA Today, Washington Post, and New York Times. And when he appeared as a legal analyst on NBC and CBS.
That’s probably because the “crazies on the Left” like to form mobs to destroy the lives and careers of people who disagree and criticize them. Turley rarely mentions it, but he has previously mentioned that the “crazies on the Left” have tried to get him fired from his job in academia. So it’s a short leap to assume the “crazies on the Left” have put pressure on those venues where he seems to write less frequently than in prior years.
He has subjected himself to sharp criticism from his far left wing colleagues in academia for criticizing the “crazies on the Left”.
He has publicly acknowledged receiving death threats from the “crazies on the Left”. Not just to him. But the “crazies on the Left” have threatened his family. And even his pet.
So the public data suggest he has paid a dear price for criticizing the “crazies on the Left”. Yet you, Natacha, GeorgeX, and Enigmainblack come here regularly to make the unsubstantiated claims that he is some sort of greedhead interested in getting rich catering to MAGA.
If you made it this far, then I want to reiterate that I think you are all truly repulsive “people”.
pbinca – that’s a fair point. OTOH, if the American left was not completely and totally nuts in huge numbers, there would be less of a need to highlight that large segments of American society are going bonkers and how that could affect us all.
” the problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent Republican.”
“the problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent” TOTALLY DISENFRANCHISED “Republican”s…
There are no Republicans among Massachusetts’ representatives in US Congress; its governor is a Democrat, as are 83.5% of its State lower house and 87.5% of its State Senate. That is what disenfranchisement looks like, and it is what the Demons aspire to cause to happen nationwide, permanently.
You are obviously profoundly impaired with regard to math.
If only 30% of people in Massachusetts are Republican, then that is a distinct minority.
Minorities cannot win elections unless unless there is extreme gerrymandering or some form of proportional representation.
So you seem to be advocating for extreme gerrymandering, in order to give a MINORITY greater influence than there numbers would otherwise allow.
After getting shot down several times, X reappears as “Anonymous,” pretty funny
To the contrary, it is extreme gerrymandering that results in what exists. Even with a minority of Republicans, the political geography virtually never varies from: Dems cluster in cities, and rural areas are largely Republican. Gerrymandering results in cracking and stacking: the cities get split up so their districts collectively scoop in all rural areas, and those rural areas are a permanent minority.
The American Founders were conservatives or republicans in their 2026 iteration.
The Constitution is utterly conservative.
The problem is that the communists invading this blog hate America, the Constitution, and Professor Turley, a constitutional scholar.
They are direct and mortal enemies of America.
Number Six, on the ballot this November is a question that could give the electorate in future elections a jungle primary, just like California. So the democrats could stay in complete control forever.
Well, if the Democrats are 70% of registered voters in Massachusetts then that is the only possible outcome in elections.
The Democrats will have control forever as long as they are 70% of the electorate, and that is how it should be. The Republicans are outnumbered more than 2 to 1, so it is inevitable that Democrats will always win. There is nothing nefarious about the majority winning elections.
Why does Turley not take the libertarian approach and start a new college for libertarians?
how many books is that gonna sell? how many guest appearances would that get him on Faux News? How many invitations would he get to write for the (checks notes) New York Post….
how many naive readers would read your nonsense if you did not use Turley’s generosity in giving you space to post your nonsense?
We have gone a long time without a trade war with Canada, and all was right with the world, so why do we need a trade war all of a sudden?
Is it absolutely necessary?
What was so wrong with the status quo?
What is “canada?”
https://jewishworldreview.com/0926/hanson0918126.php An analysis of the “trade war” and why it exists
The actress Brooke Shields was among the earliest female grads at Princeton, decades ago.
I wonder if she has halted her donations to her Alma mater?
@Anonymous
Why anyone doesn’t let college slip down the time stream after they are a grown a$$ adult has always baffled me. Really, grow up and let it go.
Yesterday, Trump said this: ““If we buy 2 billion dollars worth of Bananas from Brazil, we’re actually losing 2 billion dollars. So if we stop eating bananas, we actually save 2 billion dollars”. So, if you’re STILL following this guy and claiming he’s the most brilliant President ever, why would you expect anyone to hire you – ESPECIALLY in academia where – you know – they try to educate young minds?
The money is in a foreign economy?
doesn’t look like that is what he said at all
https://x.com/MichaelEMann/status/2100768934005715311
wanna try again?
actual VERBATIM words, “If we lose $50 billion dollars with a country, and we say ‘we’re not going to trade with you anymore,’ we don’t lose $50 billion a year”
The benefits of trade with nation X go way deeper than the $ trade imbalance with nation X.
Stop trying to save your clown face. You lied about what was said, and you got caught.
How is any money “lost” in a trade deal?
Does he feel like he is losing money when he pays … oh, right, he is famous for not actually paying for anything.
Why, that’s bananas!
😂 yeah, professor Kennedy’s remark- we’re an elitist college. 😂
The conclusions being drawn from this bogus study are laughably absurd.
No Princeton faculty were personally polled in the study.
They simply took the names of Princeton faculty and matched them to the Federal Election Commission database which records the names, occupations and employers of all political donations greater than $200. If someone donates less than $200, they do not appear in the database.
They found that out of the 818 faculty at Princeton, only 101 of them, or 13%, actually made a political donation greater than $200, and all of those were to Democrats.
If any of them had donated less than $200 to ANY party, then the study was unable to identify them. Therefore many of the faculty could have donated to the Republicans with donations of less than $200 and would not have been identified.
Therefore, the only valid conclusions of the study are that of the 101 Princeton faculty who made donations greater than $200, all of them were Democrats. The study says absolutely nothing about donations of less than $200. The study says absolutely nothing about the political inclinations of the OTHER 717 faculty who did not make donations greater than $200. The other 717 may not have made any donations at all, or made small donations to Republicans, but you cannot then say that their failure to donate more than $200 to Republicans means that they must be Democrats. There is no way of knowing this from the study, and that would be a ridiculous conclusion
The people who commissioned the study and Turley are trying to say that there are no Republicans on the faculty at Princeton because the 717 faculty who do not appear in the FEC database MUST be Democrats because they failed to donate more than $200 to Republicans.
That is a laughably absurd interpretation.
X- you were already called out (see below, responding to your redundant comment which apparently did not get the attention you wanted) (@2:17, so you re-post it?
Nah the above post is a new anonymous. I wrote the one below. I was going to refer him to it.
But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to easily see how poor this poll was constructed.
I mean – honestly – why would anyone want to hire a Trump supporter? Every one of his policies is anti-American. He’s anti-free speech, anti-free trade, anti-family, anti-military, anti-science and has horrible economic policies. Hiring someone who actually believed he’s doing a good job is knowingly sabatoging your own organization!
That’s not the only purge of Republicans coming. Check out Kansas where the ex-governor, Republican Bill Graves, just endorsed the Democratic Senate candidate Adam Hamilton instead of the GOP candidate Roger Marshall….You guys did this to yourselves by embracing an anti-American, cruel, orange autocrat. You reap what you sow.
Yeah, Graves decided to support Hamilton-a MegaChurch pastor.
Very accustomed to raising money……
Better than Marshall who made a business out of suing over 700 of his own patients – some for bills as small as $100. No wonder Trump loves him so much. In the Trump Republican Party – cruelty is the point.
oh gawwwwwd. try again.
I know the truth hurts, sweetheart. Listen – it’s ok. Just admit that no matter what Trump or the GOP says and does – no matter how vile they are – you are OK with it. You are allowed to be subserviant to an autocrat. Just don’t try to convince anyone that they’re NOT doing the things they’re doing.
You are a liar. NONE of the persons pursued for unpaid bills owed $100 or less. Most owed thousands.
Also,
“‘A practice with payroll, rent and malpractice premiums cannot label an uncollected balance as community benefit the way a tax-exempt hospital can,’ Richard Menger, M.D., MPA, a neurosurgeon, wrote in Forbes on Wednesday. ”
https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/sen-roger-marshall-s-obstetrics-practice-sued-more-than-700-patients-over-unpaid-bills
,
The sued patients avoided return calls to his practice or setting up payment plans. Over 80 of them were arrested for not responding to court dates.
“The contract patients signed at the practice carried an 18% annual interest rate on unpaid balances. The practice’s lawyers garnished paychecks and bank accounts, and the balances at issue ran from $101 to several thousand dollars.”
OK, so it’s debt that is based on a predatory loan from people desperate for healthcare and unable to make a timely price comparison as most medical practices refuse to publish a consistent rate schedule. I have no doubt that many of the debts were originally under $100, but the 18% rate rapidly drove them over that amount; in that medical economics article, one patient saw her debt double in face value.
While he cannot write them off as a public good, he could write them off as uncollectible or sell the debt to someone else rather than instigating a process he knows runs a great chance of putting his patients in jail or prison. I suspect he advertised to those paycheck-to-paycheck patients who can barely make rent and food.
“Barton County, where most of the suits were filed, has above-average poverty and uninsured rates. Kansas remains one of 10 states that have not expanded Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the state’s income cap for pregnancy coverage has long been among the lowest in the country, according to the Times analysis.”
That excuses nothing. Payment plans were available. CONTACT with the creditor was encouraged. Just lie down on your tummy and take your Penicillin in the hip like a good boy or girl, to kill all those dubious twisted lies.
You’re blind? It’s possible.
Dear Anon. form the Darkside.. Do you get paid by each TDS Response ? Pathetic.. considering all who have interacted with POTUS say he basically fits RFK JR’s analysis of him… but like a terorist hiding in the dark here you take shots at every one’s post that doesn’t meet your handler’s perspective… you are both too cheap to get your own forum..
Anoon. form the Darkside.. HOW MUCH do your Handlers pay you to troll this site and post yr Jr. High School Bratty comments each day with your TDS BS? YOU are defnitely NOT an American is you think POTUS is anti-American.. You are a Joke.
Anyone that could stand in Arlington Cemetary and look at our fallen warriors – heroes all – and call them “suckers and losers” which has been verified by the very general he said it to – is anti-American. If you choose to ignore that FACT – that’s on you.
Anyone who doesn’t know how to spell cemetery (no, it was not a typo) is clearly an under-educated sucker and loser pretending to be a big shot and so anxious to bring down our country.
It’s difficult for many to accept daily murder, theft, robbery, and ruin etc. Go figure…it’s very difficult to accept fate at times.
Wouldn’t it help if conservatives were more proactive society improvers? Take a problem like young adults don’t feel they have the economic security to get married, and certainly not to birth a child. Trump Accounts for babies shows a creative approach, but it will be 18 years before those accounts mature.
How about relaxing contracting law and child labor law so that kids can be entrepreneurial agents starting around age 13, and building their savings?
Or how about Birth Licensing, so that every baby born has 2 parents fully-prepared to raise a self-actualizing, well-adjusted adult with earning power? The status quo (“the birth lottery”) is the worst conservative pretense of wanting equal opportunity. Conservatives don’t have the moral clarity, determination, and guts to do it. We talk the talk only.
Here here! And how about not putting ridiculous tariff’s on Canada so potash isn’t so expensive, and not starting a war in the Middle East so that disel isn’t $6.45/ gallon so that young families don’t lose their farms!
Isn’t Carnival Carney attempting to join the EU to cover up his loose=mouthed bashing of AMericans?
pbinca,
Conservatives birthrate is 2.4.
Progressives are 1.6.
Conservatives are much more proactive as to improve society. They are having children. They tend to be married, have stable traditional nuclear families.
Progressives do not. They are non-breeding themselves out of existence.
In my home state, I got my first job at 13.
Me, too, collecting recycled newspapers. Allowed me to buy all my camping gear.
I’m talking about kids allowed to sign contracts. Right now, you have to be 18.
I’ve also thought about the public school budget giving over 25% of their budget to pay kids for learning results, to be put into an investment account. Somebody tell me why not?
It’s meritocratic rewards that help teens adjust to being comfortable as capitalist actors.
The conversion rate to liberalism for children born to Conservative parents more than wipes out the relative birth rate.
The attempted assassin of Trump had conservative parents as did the successful assassin of Charlie Kirk.
The opposite conversion is rare. Once children learn to have empathy for other people they cannot become conservative.
Turley is free to start his own school where he can hire all of the conservatives and Republicans that he wants.
And X/George is free to start his own blog where he can hire all of the idiots who believe his “dishonest, naive, hypocritical and naive” comments.
hahahaha.
Nice
Hope they don’t drive diesel cars though – their faculty wages won’t be able to keep up with the $6.45/gallon price tag! WAY TO GO Republicans!