JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.
In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.
In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. The litigation was approved by the House of Representatives to seek judicial review of the claims under the separation of powers. On May 12, 2016, the federal court handed down a historic victory for the House and ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.
Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is faced criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).
Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. In 2020, the federal court found that there merit in the challenges raised by Professor Turley and his co-counsel Tom Huff. Accordingly, the judge ordered his release to protect him from Covit-19 while the Court prepared a decision on the challenges. Pursuant to a court order, Dr. Al-Timimi was released from the Supermax in Colorado and the two drove across the country so that he could be placed into home confinement. He also represented Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley represented Dr. Al-Arian for eight years, much of which was in a determined defense against an indictment for criminal contempt. The case centered on the alleged violation of a plea bargain by the Justice Department after Dr. Al-Arian was largely exonerated of terrorism charges in Tampa, Florida. On June 27, 2014, all charges were dropped against Dr. Al-Arian. He also represented pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represented David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. On December 13, 2013, the federal court in Utah struck down the criminalization of polygamy — the first such decision in history — on free exercise and due process grounds. On September 26, 2014, the court also ruled in favor of the Browns under Section 1983 — giving them a clean sweep on all of the statutory and constitutional claims. In April 2015, a panel reversed the decision on standing grounds and that decision is now on appeal.
Professor Turley was also lead counsel in the World Bank protest case stemming from the mass arrest of people in 2002 by the federal and district governments during demonstrations of the IMF and World Bank. Turley and his co-lead counsel Dan Schwartz (and the law firm of Bryan Cave) were the first to file and represented student journalists arrested without probable cause. In April 2015, after 13 years of intense litigation, the case was settled for $2.8 million, including $115,000 for each arrestee — a record damage award in a case of this kind and over twice the amount of prior damages for individual protesters. The case also exposed government destruction and withholding of evidence as well as the admitted mass arrest of hundreds of people without probable cause.
Professor Turley also served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British of Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions. In 2012, Turley also represented the makers of “Five Wives Vodka” (Ogden’s Own Distillery) in challenging an effective ban on the product in Idaho after officials declared the product to be offensive to Mormons. After opposing to the ban on free speech and other grounds, the state of Idaho issued a letter apologizing for public statements made by officials and lifting the ban on sale for “Five Wives Vodka.”
Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. That testimony includes the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominees Loretta Lynch and William Barr as well as Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in the last five years as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world. In 2016, he was ranked as one of the 100 most famous (past and present) law professors.
Professor Turley is one of only two academics to testify at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. In December 2019, Professor Turley was called as the one Republican witness in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. He appeared with three Democratic witnesses. Professor Turley disagreed with this fellow witnesses in opposing the proposed articles of impeachments on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. He argued that these alleged impeachable acts were at odds with controlling definitions of those crimes and that Congress has historically looked to the criminal code and cases for guidance on such allegations. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles that Professor Turley said could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting his position on abuse of power. However, Turley opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate. He argued for the House to wait and complete the record by seeking to compel key witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton. His testimony was later relied upon in the impeachment floor debate by various House members and he was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial, including videotaped remarks played at the trial.
Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with hundreds of articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today and writes regularly for the Washington Post. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News, CBS News, BBC and Fox News. Professor Turley has been a repeated guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday. Professor Turley has taught courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.
His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018. It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley has selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame.
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.
For further information: Mr. Seth Tate – 202-994-0537
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
mespo:
martha h is just so stubborn and ignorant when it comes to defending the clown in the White House.
I wonder how much the Repub party pays her for coming to this website and pasting and copying stuff from her right-wing bible…
martha h:
“In just 30 short years almost 20 MILLION children will be born free in Iraq thanks to GW Bush.”
******************
Wonder what they would say to the 1.2 million or so Iraqis born alive but are now dead in just 5 short years because of GW Bush and his “mistaken” invasion? You may want to recheck with the Red Cross or Opinion Research Business in London, the figures are likely up by now. Maybe we and he should have stayed on the couch. Well he does have a problem with pretzels there doesn’t he:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/bush.fainting/
martha h:
I thought you’d gone over to Hannity or O’Reilly’s website.
Your copy and pasting here is a waste of space.
Get Lost, Loser!
In just 30 short years almost 20 MILLION children will be born free in Iraq thanks to GW Bush.
and you low lifes here complain bitch & moan while sitting fat on your couch watching sports.
The Left is crowing about the time line BUT the truth is:
Maliki: Obama’s 16-month timetable sounds goodposted at 12:15 pm on July 19, 2008
“Interpreted” by Reuters as tacit evidence of Liberal Jesus’s foreign-policy sagacity.
SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.
The unasked follow-up question: How about the 14-month timetable that Obama wanted to set in January 2007 to start pulling troops out before those positive developments could occur? How keen does that look in hindsight? To repeat a point made yesterday, the only reason a timetable or “time horizon” is arguably a responsible strategy now is because it was properly rejected as being irresponsible then. Maliki hints at that in another part of the interview:
So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn’t the case at all. If we by good fortune & success now come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.
Exactly, which at least partly explains why Bush is more willing to compromise now on some sort of informal schedule. Compare Maliki’s justification for the timetable to Obama’s justification in his big Iraq speech. The pacification of the country is almost incidental, something to congratulate Petraeus on and then quickly move past. To the extent conditions in Iraq seem to affect his rationale at all, he offers this: “In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset – Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact.” I.e. it didn’t work, so let’s get out.
Back to Maliki for a rebuttal:
SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?
Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.
One more quote from the interview which I dare say won’t be making it into the inevitable Team Barry press release. The fact that Maliki thinks the war was good for Iraqis doesn’t mean it was good for America, needless to say, but Obama fans eager to exploit the timetable bit may want to mull this before baptizing his judgments with Absolute Moral Authority:
SPIEGEL: Mr. Prime Minister, the war and its consequences have cost more than 100,000 lives and caused great suffering in your country. Saddam Hussein and his regime are now part of the past. Was all of this worth the price?
Maliki: The casualties have been and continue to be enormous. But anyone who was familiar with the dictator’s nature and his intentions knows what could have been in store for us instead of this war. Saddam waged wars against Iran and Kuwait, and against Iraqis in the north and south of his own country, wars in which hundreds of thousands died. And he was capable of instigating even more wars. Yes, the casualties are great, but I see our struggle as an enormous effort to avoid other such wars in the future.
For context, here’s Petraeus on MSNBC yesterday afternoon (before the Spiegel interview was published) responding to reports that Maliki wants a timetable. He fudges a bit with the “time horizon” terminology, but note well the point about domestic politics and assertions of sovereignty. Another “positive development.” Exit question: What do we do now with that NYT piece from the other day about Iraqis who love Obama for bringing Hope but pray that the U.S. security presence doesn’t Change?
Update: Spend some time with this AP story about U.S. troops — who would have been reduced to a small Baker/Hamilton token force by now if Obama had had his way last year — helping Iraqi villagers rebuild after purging Al Qaeda. Quote: “It reveals how drastically American troops have shifted their focus from combat to helping Iraqis build on a newfound peace.
Iraqis Differ on Obama’s Plans
As Candidate’s Visit Nears, Residents Worry on Troop Pullout
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, July 19, 2008; Page A07
BAGHDAD, July 18 — As Sen. Barack Obama prepares for his first ever visit to Iraq, Iraqis are worried over his plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in 16 months should he be elected president.
“Iraq will be in hell, and we will find ourselves at the gates of civil war,” said Maied Rashed al-Nuaemi, a provincial council member in Mosul, a city in northern Iraq where Iraqi forces are battling the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq. “The American presence in Iraq is the safety valve to keep this country quiet. If they withdraw, that will lead to calamity.”
Perhaps more than any country in the world besides the United States, Iraq finds that its future is at stake in the presidential elections this November. And the single most important question Iraqis have for the next president is: How long will U.S. forces remain?
While most Iraqis are against what they see as the continuing U.S. occupation, many also view the U.S. military as a bulwark against militias and extremists, as well as the growing regional influence of Iran.
In polls, a majority of Iraqis say they want U.S. forces to leave, but only a tiny minority say they want the forces to leave immediately.
Some of the more than two dozen Iraqis interviewed for this article said Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is naive in wanting to withdraw U.S. combat troops by the summer of 2010.
“I think that Obama talks more than what he can accomplish, because reality differs from promises and dreams,” said Um Mohammed, 60, an engineer in Baghdad who declined to give her full name. “I think it is just a camouflage to reach the presidential chair.”
Mohammed Sulaiman, 56, a retired government employee in Baghdad, said: “The proposal of Obama to pull out the troops by summer 2010 is foolish. If the United States withdraws from Iraq, I think its credibility among the international countries would collapse.”
Most Iraqis interviewed appeared wary of setting a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, although Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and senior politicians have said they want such a commitment from the Bush administration.
“We need more training, as well as new and developed weapons and supplies. We also need modern and developed technology. The U.S. forces should withdraw gradually so our Iraqi forces can fill the gaps that the American forces will leave,” said Brig. Gen. Najim Abdullah, spokesman for the Iraqi National Police. “As to a timetable, I don’t think we should specify it now, because it is related to the logistical support and the ability of our Iraqi forces to handle their responsibility.”
Several Iraqi army commanders said the country’s security forces would not be ready to stand on their own for at least several years.
“Now we are only fighting the insurgency in our country, and we still need the support” of U.S.-led coalition forces, said Maj. Gen. Habeeb al-Husaini, commander of the Iraqi army’s 14th Division, whose forces control the cities of Amarah, Samawah and Nasiriyah in southern Iraq. “So how about if we want to defend the country from the external threats?”
52 seconds on why Obama won’t win the November election:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
3,000,000 hits so far.
In the video Obama pronounces a McGovernite credo like a catechism:
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems…
…I will not weaponize space…
…I will slow development of future combat systems…
…I will institute a “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending…
…I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons…
…I will not develop nuclear weapons…
…I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material…
…I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals…
NOT surprising Obama has not been asked about his statements by the media is it? This guy Obama is preparing to surrender America!
martha h,
No, I’m a real person.
Why do you come here to post vile messages?
Why do you disrespect Mr. Turley so much?
Why don’t you go join Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly’s websites?
We don’t need you, russ, percy, or any other Neo-Con here; so get lost.
I am starting to think mary leon, raf, mespo, etc are all JT alter ego’s meant to come here to stroke his own ego!
That wouldn’t surprise me a bit, no sirree, wouldn’t surprise me a bit.. Certainly when one insists on not having an opposing view for debate when you appear on a ridiculous low rated in-the-tank-for-Obama show such as countdown, that raises the suspicion bar.
Welcome, Dan,
Just ignore martha h, russ, percy, and any Neo-Cons that post messages here. They have NO respect for Mr. Turley’s website; in fact I wonder why they bother to come here and post incredibly idiotic and hypocritical remarks.
Mr. Turley is a Professor of the US Constitution and knows the laws thoroughly. I have even sent a suggestion letter to Sen. Barack Obama’s website, stating that Mr. Turley should be considered a nominee for the US Supreme Court, if the opportunity ever arises. He is such a learned scholar and can make decisions based on LAW, NOT on Neo-Con baloney.
When the TRUTH comes out, then martha h, russ, percy and the rest of the Neo-Cons will owe us an apology. Everything Bush has done using the name of our country will be because of these people who voted for him and gave him their silent approval of Invading Iraq, and killing our US soldiers and Innocent Iraqis and changing our laws by shredding the US Constitution, Especially the first 10 ‘Bill of Rights’.
I’m glad you, me, mezpo and others agree with Mr. Turley. He knows the TRUTH and so do we.
martha h:
The fact that the Administration won’t let the truth be proven should give even you some pause, martha h. Let me know when you evolve from apparatchik to citizen.
dan b:
I find it very disturbing that you do not believe in the innocent until proven guilty aspect of our judicial system. I guess you have made up your mind that the administration has “clearly violated” our Constitution despite the absolute EVIDENCE that anything of that sort occurred; except in the minds of the dead enders that infest left wing blogs.
MARTHA H,
I FIND IT VERY DISTURBING THAT YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO JONATHAN WANTING TO PROTECT AND PERSERVE OUR CONSTITUTION AGAINST AN ADMINISTRATION WHO HAS CLEARLY VIOLATED IT!
THANKS,
DAN BERGSTROM…
SEATTLE, WA…
Turley:
Someone said they saw you were on Countdown again without anybody to debate your extreme positions.
Is it because you are buddies with Keith Olbermann that he permits you to come on the national tv without rebuttal?
I find it disturbing that you would be fearful of actually having someone debate you one on one.
JONATHAN,
SHOULDN’T THE NEW FISA BILL BE CONTESTED BY YOU BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, IT IS CLEARLY UNCONSITITUTIONAL?
THANK YOU,
DAN BERGSTROM…
SEATTLE, WA…
University apologizes to student after accusing him of … “openly reading” a bookposted at 7:33 pm on July 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Behold the ne plus ultra of campus tolerance, in which the act of reading scholarly material now constitutes an actionable offense. Our culprit? A student-janitor named Keith Sampson.
His weapon? “Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan.” The charge? Racial harassment, for thoughtlessly brandishing this anti-Klan book with an image of Klansmen on the cover where others might see it.
The AP story describes what happens next, but to get the full Orwellian flavor you need to read Dorothy Rabinowitz’s op-ed. Quote:
Mr. Sampson stood accused of “openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers.” The statement, signed by chief affirmative action officer Lillian Charleston, asserted that her office had completed its investigation of the charges brought by Ms. Nakea William, his co-worker – that Mr. Sampson had continued, despite complaints, to read a book on this “inflammatory topic.”…
Ludicrous harassment cases are not rare at our institutions of higher learning. But there was undeniably something special – something pure, and glorious – in the clarity of this picture. A university had brought a case against a student on grounds of a book he had been reading.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/15/university-apologizes-to-student-after-accusing-him-of-openly-reading-a-book/
Hello Professor Turley,
I am not a law student nor am I a college student. I am a junior in highschool and because of the speech you gave at the June 9 2008 NYLF Law I am 100% sure that I would like to pursue a career in law. I truly appreciate the way you presented the speech, it made the message one hundred percent more enjoyable. As soon as I was able to call my mom at the conclusion of the speech I was like “Mom this Professor is amazing.” Of course i had to tell her about how ministers can add the extra “D” to God and also about how when you know that the defendent is guilty and you have to have a bottle or two of wine and realize what your job is. Those two really made me laugh. Even the “If you eat sushi, raw fish, why can’t you try crime?” made me laugh until my stomach hurt. I would just like to say thank you so much because I was a little skeptical because of my shyness but you inspired me to step out of my box and its okay to be funny and have a fun character.
Once again thank you!
Sincerely,
Andrea C.
russ:
I ask you a simple question, three times already, and you Ignore it.
You won’t face reality. You, russ, are guilty of supporting an administration that will be facing War Crimes, whether here on earth or in another place and time (Yes, I’m talking about Heaven. I can be a pro-life Independent AND a Christian at the same time, you know). You DON’T want to face this fact, because if you do, then you know you will be guilty of sending our soldiers to Iraq, to die and be injured for Life, whether Physically or Mentally–all because of a LIE.
Haven’t you read the “Project for the New American Century”? Haven’t you read what the Neo-Con plans were? William Kristol is the author of this piece of evil, supported by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush, amongst others who signed their souls to the devil, as far as I’m concerned, to try to force everyone on earth to follow the “American Neo-Con Empire”; starting with the Middle East.
Sorry, russ, but I can’t help you when you finally face facts. You and millions of others will have to Live with what you’ve ALL done to us, to our soldiers and to the Innocent Iraqi civilians by following that warped man in the White House. There will be PLENTY of Democrats in Congress that will be facing facts along with you, for their silent approval of Bush’s crimes.
May the Lord keep you all from going crazy with guilt and grief…
Will Kurtz Slam the L.A. Times Web Site for the Commenters Who Reveled in Tony Snow’s Death?
Tomorrow there will be an online chat with Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post web site. You can leave questions or comments for him here. Here is the question I just left:
Mr. Kurtz:
When Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a brain tumor, you made a special point of noting in your column that there were commenters at Michelle Malkin’s site “who were reveling in the news and, in one case, talked of celebrating.”
Over the weekend, Tony Snow died. At the L.A. Times web site — where comments must be approved before they appear — well over 2 dozen commenters reveled in the news. Some examples:
“CANCER WAS TOO GOOD FOR HIM. HOPE IT WAS PAINFUL. NOW FOR THE REST OF THIS SCUMMY ADMINISTRATION. COME ON CANCER, DO YOUR GOOD WORK………………..”
“I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the first day of a Tony Snow-free world! Yay!!!!”
“I only wish his suffering were more prolonged.”
“I hope he suffered at the end. Just a terrible person.”
My question to you, Mr. Kurtz: is this worthy of mention in your column? Is it meaningful that one of the nation’s largest newspapers approved these comments for publication? Or are such comments relevant only when they appear on a conservative blogger’s site?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/13/will-kurtz-slam-the-la-times-web-site-for-the-commenters-who-reveled-in-tony-snows-death/
russ:
Just answer this following question:
I ask you for the Third time:
Why do you post on Mr. Turley’s website if you don’t respect him or are interested in his views? Seems to me like you’re wasting our time here…
(Quote by ME)