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, the University of Chicago, and other schools. He is a New York Times best-selling author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (available here) and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” (#2 on NY Times Bestseller List).
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 2024, a G.W. alum endowed a fellowship after him, “The Professor Jonathan Turley Public Interest and Public Service Summer Fellowship.”
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. (He was ultimately cleared of all charges in 2026). In 2020, the federal court found that there was 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 served as an expert defense witness in the extradition proceedings of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in London. Turley was asked to testify on the likely pre-trial, trial, and appellate issues facing Mr. Assange as well as the prison conditions that he could expect upon extradition to Northern Virginia for trial.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC program “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 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 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 with 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. He has testified over 100 times in the House and the Senate. 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 ranked in the top five most popular law professors on Twitter and 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 his 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.
In 2024, the Washingtonian recognized Turley as one of the most influential persons in shaping policy. 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 was 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. In addition to teaching a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution, he is on the board of the Supreme Court Historical Society.
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.
Twitter: @jonathanturley
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
amy:
Since the dawn of the Republic the economic resources of the few dwarfed the voting strength, and short memories, of the many. New Hampshire may be different, but here, money still talks,and its malodorous counterpart still walks.
What I simply cannot get through my thick skull is why Republicans are fighting the health care issue so vehemently. Are they SO addicted to the contributions made by the insurance and pharmacutical companies that they can’t even look for what’s in their own FAMILIES best interest? And what about Democrats fighting this issue. I will tell you…..in New Hampshire, we take our politicians to task for betrayal in the voting process. My Reps inboxes are full of correspondences from me and my ilk, and they will continue to be. We are a small enough state that our Reps take us seriously. I (and many others like me) can actually physically get to EVERY poll in the state on election day and really raise a rucus, and they don’t want that!
I am still pulling for JT to get on the SCOTUS. I just worry that if he does, it will be the end of the push for accountability on the torture issue. I don’t like that idea. But I still think we need him on the court.
Jonathan P:
“Well, if we as a nation really feel that the rules only apply while hostilities are carried out on foreign soil, then we’re not quite worthy of the credit we’ve been giving ourselves for all these years.”
*************
I wouldn’t be quite so hard on our Countrymen,and women. Fear does change everything, that’s why a nation is measure by the quality and quantity of its citizens who, while still experiencing fear, but possess the courage to remind the others of why we are here in the first place. You might recall Churchill’s immortal words for a free people:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Most of what we see is fear being exploited by a gang of ruthless power mongers for their own design. The American people remain good but, like most, they rely on their leaders to lead. When a vacuum in that leadership occurs the ship of state seems rudderless. It isn’t. It merely lacks the strong hand at the till to guide the public’s sentiments. Every great nation has its Churchills. Sadly it has its Chamberlains, and more apt here, its Stanley Baldwins, too.
“To forget one’s purpose is the commonest form of stupidity.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche
thatmtnman,
The idea you float is intriguing; I’d like to think that the larger American populus would share those concerns. But the arguments I’ve seen thus far, in the media and in my one-on-one experience, have left me pessimistic about the national will.
The focus, it seems to me, has been on whether or not torture “works,” as opposed to whether it’s the right thing to do. I have shared my opinion with friends who are ambivalent, making comments like “maybe we should look at what has happened in the past in situations like this.” Well, in the past we prosecuted people for “situations like this.”
Earlier in this thread, someone commented on the idea that 9/11 “changed everything.” Well, if we as a nation really feel that the rules only apply while hostilities are carried out on foreign soil, then we’re not quite worthy of the credit we’ve been giving ourselves for all these years.
Ultimately though, I hope you’re right, that images of our indiscretions will shock the American conscience. Otherwise, we’ll be facing this question again in the not-so-distant future.
Regards,
Jonathan P
Ami,
I totally agree with you on the health care issue. We ranked 37th in the world about 10 years ago, behind such places as Oman, or Cyprus, or Columbia and that is just wrong. And we spend a ton more money than any of them. It literally has become our money or our lives, and sometimes it is just our money and our lives. Just with less pain. Personally, I am ready for a change.
cheers!
Jonathan P,
I agree with you on your point about the political fall out if JT were to be nominated or if Obama were to appear open to justice.
On the other hand if for example, the general population were to have their conscience shocked by, say, memos, and photos, and congress were to act, then its not his fault. I can here it now…’I would have preferred to look forward, but the people have insisted’. I wouldn’t be surprised at all, if that is what those memo and photo releases may be all about.
What do you think?
cheers!
Tom,
That is one great idea! Lets have every politician and their family’s have to deal with the health care system like regular people! We’d learn how fast those old guys can say ‘yes’ to a fix!
Very well done!
cheers!
Tom,
You might notice, if you cared, that I didn’t imply that I was speaking for anyone other than myself, while your use of “we” did make that implication. But that’s neither here nor there; your role is here is trolling, and can have the rest of this particular pissing match to yourself.
With regard to Jonathan Turley as a candidate to replace Souter, I think it’d be fantastic. But I think that everything Obama has been saying about his desire to “look forward” instead of backwards means that Turley’s outspoken position in favor of torture prosecutions probably keeps him off “the list.” I don’t see the remaining Republicans in the congress letting it come to a vote.
I do understand that Obama is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to torture investigation. If charges were to be filed against Bush administration officials based on the war crime of torture, it’d make the Clinton impeachment look like a tea party. Because of this, I believe Obama’s best course of action, all along, should have been to defer to the justice department instead of going along with the notion that he should be a party to the decision.
Dr. George,
It’s very informative to see the healthcare issue through the eyes of a practicing physician. It would seem to be very difficult to come up with a good, sound, workable solution to the country’s enormous problem of how to provide quality care for everyone. It certainly is true that few of our elected “officials” place the interests of their constituents above their desire to line their own pockets. In many cases, they hardly bother to give even lip-service to understanding our wishes. They really don’t have much to fear from voter backlash because there’s no voice that can be raised that offers enough of a threat to their entrenchment in the halls of our government.
The likelyhood of ever getting the needed changes passed through Congressis certainly slim.
This roadblock exists on every front, and does weaken us at the very time that we most need honesty and bipartisanship throughout our government. There are so many problems to be dealt with, and there is a “pushing” from the top to rush to methods that are not seen favorably, when patience and practicality and level heads are needed to present the troubling issues to the citizens, who, hopefully, pull together to support plausible solutions. There are too many political agendas being foisted upon us. I believe, until we are given transparency and the opportunity to hold our officials accountable for their actions, nothing good will be achieved.
I wonder what might happen if our politicans were made to get their own family’s medical coverage from the same source that everyone else uses, if that might change things? Probably create a lot of squalling, I’d guess.
Tom Fitzhugh
Registered Democrat
Thanks thatmtnman!! I agree with Elaina George on the health care topic. However, unless I am mistaken, the HMO fiasco began with the Nixon Administration. Either way, it is a disaster. I believe that Americans should have the same health care options that Brits and Canadians have. Americans are living very unhealthy lives, high blood pressure, heart disease, obesity, childhood diabetes, pulmonary disorders, etc. the hits just keep on coming. They just can’t afford to go to the Dr.
On my original thought……Jonathan, if I email President Obama that I hope (and pray) that you are his choice for the SCOTUS position, will you PLEASE accept and do your Nation a very great service? In the meantime, will you please appear more often on Countdown and Rachel Maddow’s shows? By the way, I LOVED your discourse with Pat Bucannan on Hardball. Pat’s a nice guy, but what a schmuck!!
I would like to add my vote for Professor Turley as our next Supreme Court Justice.
whoa-off topic or what…on topic-I add my voice to those suggesting JT should sit on the court! Smart, and brave!
cheers!
Universal Healthcare: Are We Missing The Real Debate?
Elaina F. George, MD
The debate in Washington between those who believe universal healthcare equals socialized medicine and the end of the world vs. those who believe that single payer, government mandated health insurance is the only way to stop the selfish evil insurance companies has begun and is gaining steam.
I believe that single payer universal healthcare is a worthy goal, since I fundamentally believe that good health should be a right and not a privilege. Unfortunately, implementation of it will likely prove to be hard when the reality of the power of the healthcare and pharmaceutical lobbies in Washington are taken into account. They have spent a lot of money and have the ear of key members of congress. I am concerned that there is no appetite for real change, and that fear will instead lead to a doubling down on the status quo.
I have hope that President Obama will walk the walk. However, his actions say otherwise. His willingness to take single payer off the table with out vigorous debate, and his choice of Tom Daschle as HHS secretary and Sanjay Gupta as the surgeon general both speak to his willingness to pay lip service to change while putting in folks who are friendly to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries respectively. Furthermore, his health advisory team consists of people like Ezekiel Emmanuel who has ties to Humana. I am concerned that health insurance overhaul will mean a further power grab by the insurance companies. If nothing fundamentally changes about how health insurance is delivered, what will stop them from continuing their same practices? They will simply benefit from having more patients to pay premiums. History tells us this is a recipe for disaster for both patients and physicians and a pay day for the insurance companies under the guise of healthcare for all.
I believe the first step should involve a government based public option. This is the only real way to gain the necessary leverage to make the changes needed to improve our health care system. Republicans argue that free market pressure will help patients obtain lower premiums if they are allowed to shop for cheaper health insurance in another state. They neglect to take into account the fact that Blue Cross in Georgia is the same as Blue Cross in Nevada – it is Blue Cross and the company will still shift the cost to the patient in deductibles and rationing of care. Moreover, the insurance companies all operate the same way. I submit that dealing with Aetna or United Healthcare or Blue Cross is the same. They are for profit corporations and their goal is to make as much money for their shareholders as possible. In order to do that they must collect more premiums and pay out as little as possible. There is nothing altruistic about these behemoths.
There is so much wrong with the current system that it needs to be overhauled in order to make it viable. At the current rate we are not training enough primary care physicians, the best and the brightest are choosing not to go into medicine and those who have gone into it because they wanted to care for their patients are leaving the profession because they lack the autonomy to be true advocates for their patient’s health and/or they can’t afford the cost of doing business.
I am an ear, nose and throat physician in solo private practice. Like physicians practicing today, I have been on the front line and have seen the quality of medicine drop, the cost of medicine increase, and the doctor patient relationship erode. It makes no sense to me that Americans pay more for health care than any other industrial country, but live shorter less healthy lives.
I have come to the conclusion that this down hill slide began to occur in the 90’s with the Clinton health care reform fiasco. With Hillary Clinton’s acquiescence to the health insurance companies and under the guidance of Ted Kennedy the power of health insurance companies increased. They initiated the model of rationed healthcare under the name ‘HMO’ now known as managed care. As a physician and particularly as a specialist, that was manifested as a ‘gate keeper’ model that restricted the patient’s access to specialty care. I found that patients were kept in the primary care system longer than necessary before referral. For example, they were managed with antibiotics for 6 months before a CT scan was performed when it was obvious that the antibiotics were not working since the symptoms had not resolved. It may have cost the insurance company less in the cost of the antibiotics, but what was the cost to the patient in lost productivity and pain?
When it was obvious that the managed care model was creating a growing number of unhappy patients because of difficulty with timely access to physicians, patient dissatisfaction with the subsequent care, and lack of cost savings because of the need to pay to treat more advanced disease, the model changed to capitation.
Under this arrangement a physician or group was given a certain amount of money per number of patients (covered lives) seen by that the practice. If the cost of caring for those patients was below the amount given by the insurance company then the practice made money. It did not take into account the rising cost of doing business – i.e., supplies, malpractice insurance premiums, salaries for employees or health insurance for employees). This ended because of the untenable pressure on the physician between practicing ethical medicine and bankruptcy.
Now we have evolved to our present situation. The insurance companies have been relentless in shifting the cost of medicine to the patient and the physician. Over the past 10 years I have seen my reimbursements drop every year. Insurance companies have instituted clever ways of cutting reimbursements by instituting: 1) Global days. i.e., the physician cannot charge a patient for up to 90 days after a surgical procedure even though the post operative care may be complete in as little as 10 days. 2) Multiple procedure discounts. In surgical procedures that have more than one step, like an endoscopic sinus surgery, the surgeon will be paid 100% of the discounted amount for the 1st step in the procedure, 50% for the second, 25% for the 3-5 and then nothing after that. In essence this works out to an 80-90% discount; and 3) denial of payment after pre-authorization has been obtained. This means that an in network physician will not get paid for the procedure even though it was pre-authorized. Because of the contract, if the physician losses the appeal the patient cannot be billed because the insurance company has the last say. The patient and employer have also seen a steady increase in premiums and out of pocket deductibles along with less covered services.
It seems obvious that the cost of medicine is driven by the insurance companies. Currently, 30% of the healthcare dollar goes directly to the maintenance of the insurance company. After all it takes money to – hire physicians to deny care, auditors to recoup ‘overpayments’ to physicians, to purchase new software to edit the medical codes in a way that produce more denials and increases the time that it takes physicians to get paid, and to pay for the feel good commercials that make patients believe that the insurance company is on their side.
The only way to break this cycle is to offer real competition. A non profit government based system will be able to up the ante. Unless the insurance companies compete by both decreasing their premiums and offering more services they will lose patients. This in addition to an emphasis on prevention and wellness is the only REAL way to change our healthcare system to one that is more affordable and of higher quality.
FFLEO and GWLAWSCHOOLMOM,
I really enjoy your posts. I believe there are MANY women that are infinitely qualified for the SCOTUS post. I favor Jonathan because of his positions on many of the issues of today, most notably, his position on the question of torture. He is absolutely correct when he says it must be investigated and prosecuted. We cannot afford to be seen by the world, or our grandchildren, as a nation (or government) of ham fisted thugs!! As far as Jonathan vs. a female candidate, let’s let the resume be the deciding factor. This post is too important at such a critical time in our Nation’s history, to reduce filling it just so this President can say he appointed the first Asian American Female, or Hispanic American Female, or African American Female to the SCOTUS. I just want the most qualified person to be selected for this opening, and I hope that she or he will be young enough to serve in this position for a very long time. GWLawSchoolMom, thanks so much for your post. I am very sad to hear that the Holocaust had such a devastating impact on your family. My family has never suffered a history such as that, but I share your views regarding torture, and the way history regards it.
GWLawSchoolMom,
Yours was an informative post. I can hardly wait for a qualified woman president, I liked Justice O’Conner, and I certainly want to see another woman Supreme Court jurist. Pres. Obama is going to have at least 2 opportunities anyway. Most likely—whomever he selects—the person is going to be a centrist, which is perfect.
GWLawSchoolMom,
So well done! I too have family members who have those scars.
cheers!
FFLeo et al,
re: SCOTUS, yeah, sure it would be amazing to see Prof. Turley’s name on any short list for a nomination, but the reason there are so many women who have been mentioned is that there was an expectation that Justice Ginsburg would be retiring some time soon. No one predicted that Justice Souter would retire until he failed to interview new clerks for the coming year, as ora arguments are ending soon. I believe that President Obama was thinking of restoring a female presence on the bench after the retirement of Justice O’Connor.
re: President Obama and his birth certificate. It’s over kids. He’s in the White House. He took the oath of office and the conspiracy theorists will either be consumed with this hobby or will have to move on to another. It’s kind of hilarious when you think about secret birth certificates and phony passports. And at the end of the day, don’t we have more important things to take up our time?
re: Torture
Prof Turley, you have it right. Torture is a crime and what disappointed me about the recent press conference where the President referred to torture as a “mistake” and nearly as a mistake of expediency was colossally offensive to me. Torture is a crime and the President needs to (IMHO) say so publicly and let happen what happens.
I am old enough to remember when Adolf Eichmann was captured in Argentina and tried and executed in Israel for crimes against humanity. His actions led to the death,by torture of 95% of my family. Only my mother and grandmother walked out of those ashes and I grew up in a very wounded world. I think that President Obama is young, perhaps, too young to realize that while the Nuremburg Trials were distasteful to many they were necessary. The notion that soldiers would not be held responsible because they were ordered to commit these crimes was unacceptable then as it is today. As it must be today.
Oh and just in case that isn’t enough…. I was in Cambodia a few years ago and visited the Tuol Sleng prison, a former middle school that Pol Pot turned into his headquarters in Phnom Penh. I saw the pictures of every Cambodian that he tortured and his very own water board. I also visited Hanoi and the infamous Hanoi Hilton where Senator McCain was imprisoned for five years and I had trouble walking through the place for an hour.
Humankind has a dark history of this sort of behavior and if we are to be enlightened at all we ought to do what is right, even if it not popular.
thanks for all the posts. this is an interesting group and Prof Turley… I truly enjoyed meeting you during the trial of “B.B. Wolf”
It was like meeting Elvis or Jerry Garcia or John Marshall.
Thank you, Amy. Would you still prefer Professor Turley’s selection instead of any woman justice?
Hi FF LEO,
I am in my mud 50’s and I am also a former LEO. I would really miss seeing Jonathan on MSNBC, but I feel he would serve our Nation like very few could on the SCOTUS. I believe that President Obama is a wise and thoughtful person. I think his wisdom would be well recognized if he appointed Jonathan for this opening. We’ll see.
I thoroughly enjoyed your jousting with Pat Buchanan on the issue of torture on Hard Ball.
I’ve been following you through your appearances on the Rachel Maddow Show, too.
You are the voice of reason, intelligence and constitutional expertise.
Thank you.
I don’t know why MSNBC utilizes Pat Buchanan so regularly.
He makes no sense