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
City Council votes to deny public speaker
Steve McQueen, one of the organizers of the Quincy Tea Party effort, requested to speak on the recently approved budget and water and sewer rate increases.
When it came time to vote to open the floor to allow the speaker a roll call vote ensued.
Seven Democrats denied McQueen’s opportunity to speak while six Republicans voted to allow him to speak.
Long time residents said they had never seen anyone denied the right to speak and called the vote “outrageous.”
HEY TURLEY, HERE IS ONE FOR YOU; HOW ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WHAT THESE DEMOCRAT CLOWNS DID AT THIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING?
I DOUBT IF YOU CARE SINCE IT WAS DEMOCRATS DENYING A RIGHT TO SPEAK TO WHAT WAS APPARENTLY A PERSON FED UP WITH HIGH TAXES. AM I RIGHT? AM I RIGHT? AM I RIGHT?
Hey Everyone!
I was just wondering to myself, other than JT (still my first choice!)who might be considered a potential ‘liberal lion’ for a SCOTUS appointment? A liberal activist jurist whose would change the court, who would make landmark decisions and so on? Is there even such a person these days?
cheers!
Former
Wow. You sure do have some strongly held opinions. Did you happen to see any of Justice Souter’s — he is an Associate Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States and not a judge. I am kind of a stickler for accuracy — confirmation hearings? What exactly did he lie about? Could you be specific? I don’t want to challenge your beliefs, far be it for me — I’d just like to know.
Whether you like it or not, abortion, access to family planning, a woman’s right to choose her own reproductive destiny is the law of the land. It is a private decision made between a woman and her physician. In other words, what she may decide is not your business or mine and Justices to the bench do not take their jobs and decisions lightly.
I suppose because Justices Alito and Scalia have not been shy about their willingness to overturn Roe that you opposed anything that came up in their confirmation hearings, did you?
Did you happen to watch them? Did you happen to watch Chief Justice Roberts’s hearings when he refused to comment on abortion?
Litmus test hearings have become huge wedge issues that divide us more than they unite us.
Oh and no one is ever forced to terminate any pregnancy that they wish to carry to term. Don’t want an abortion? fine. don’t have one.
Souter is right up there with the worst Supreme Court Judge the United States has ever had.
He lied to President George H. Bush about his political beliefs and that any he had would not impact his decisions.
He also has the knowledge that he could have stopped the murder of 25,000,000 infants to abortion and did nothing.
I really hope he sits in his little cabin and contemplates the damage he has done in his miserable life.
Mike
the groups and individuals who flaunt economic elitism are just one feature of the special interests who seek to exert control over the direction of this nation.
The white “country club” republican is one example of this on the right, but the most insidious group to exert power in this country has come from the far right, the christian ultra-conservatives whose agenda is by and large social and not an economic with its use of fear-based advertising as its main strategy in building its membership.
While the traditional power base of the Republican party is still in that country club demographic, the ultra-conservative christian groups have only managed to marginalize the right into a regional and quite quirky party, who in 12 years of congressional domination never managed to cement even one of their social agenda items into law or manage a reversal of present law.
Olympia Snowe wrote last week with the news that Arlen Spector crossed the aisle, “There is no plausible scenario under which the Republican party can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideologican confines and continuing to retreat into a regional party.”
I am not buying that Republicans are the party of the people and Democrats the party of monarchy ( Mitt Romney and it isnt like he is not hugely wealthy ) which was something I read today that came out of the Virginia town hall meeting held by the Republican’s desperate attempt to grab onto something that can spur mobilization in 2010. It might have just as easily been argued 4 years ago that the Bush family was building a political Dynasty who had a republican house, senate and conservative courts, the son of a former president, the brother of a governor of a large state and scion of a family whose political prospects in the coming generations seemed to be assured for many decades to come.
GWBush lost the party when he forgot every promise he made to his base: abortion, gay marriage, fiscal responsibility and instead opted to continue his reputation as an aging frat boy who just wrecked his daddy’s new car. he is the epitome of an elitist who was ladled from one vat of privilege to the next, giving new meaning to the words “assisted living” failing at every business his contacts and family gave him, I mean, he traded Sammy Sosa. How stupid was that? Anyway, the expectation that someone of this ilk could lead the nation effectively and comprehensively was an illusion.
As for shoes and royalty, anyone with $500 can buy a pair of Manolos, heck you can buy a gently used pair on EBay for around $75.
The Revolution and the Constitution are not the same thing. The revolution was about establishing a national identity apart from monarchy and the constitution is an elitist document that served to protect the wealthy landowners. It provided almost no opportunity to vote for elected representatives or the president and only if you met the qualificiations at the time. the franchise was not extended to all white males until Andrew Jackson. It was not even amended to popular election of senators until the 20th century.
Equality meant equality among the ruling class. It did not include women, it did not include the poor, it did not include african americans. Populism was feared and was to be avoided at all costs.
GWLSM,
i agree activism is our duty. Besides writing on this blog frequently there are a plethora of phone calls, e mails and letters to my congressional representatives and to the White House. We all have a duty to be involved.
“I wonder if you Mike, and any of our resident right wingers might agree with me, that the biggest problem isn’t the ideologically gap between regular persons of the right and the left, but rather between regular persons of any stripe and the moneyed special interests who manage to frustrate and screw us all?”
thatmtnman,
Extremely well put. The struggle, which has been ongoing for thousands of years is between those who would rule over most people and their followers who yearn for rulers; And the rest of us who want to live as free human beings. Back in the middle ages it was nobility vs. bourgeois, landowner vs. serf, etc. Today it is the many of the super wealthy, who seek to not only control everything, but also want status symbols to differentiate between them and the masses.
A few towns down from where I live people drive around in Rolls Royces, Bentley’s and Ferraris and Lamborghini’s. This is not about quality since a top of the line Mercedes, BMW or Lexus represents just as much quality and luxury. This is more of a statement that the owner can overpay for a car and doesn’t care, thus is a member of the elite. I use this as an example. In Medieval days you could be put to death for wearing the same type of shoes as the nobility.
The American Revolution and our Constitution was led by people who for the most part believed in equality of all (slavery a sad exception)and it was opposed by Americans who still believed in following royalty. The labels have changed but the essence of the conflict is as you state it. I know from your post that you consider it possibly hopeless, so I would urge you to take heart and put this battle into a historical context. It’s a slow process but I think the good people are winning.
GWLSM you are an inspiration. I stay on top of my reps votes, and call and email them often. I am sure to be a burr under their saddles, or a bee in their bonnets, but I don’t care. You are exactly right when you say that we need to remind them who pays their salaries. I do so often, and they know that I’m the pain in the neck that shows up at the polls every time there’s an issue to vote on. I refuse to just turn my country over to whomever wants to run it. I have three GrandChildren that I love very much, and I want them to inherit a Nation that they can be proud of and love as much as I do.
Amy
I have to say I do admire your enthusiasm for activism, and really I dont take the typing in all caps to be shouting or offensive in this situation as it can be on other blogs/message boards/email
I think that one should consider the context.
That said, you can find your representative to congress and your state senators on the House and Senate websites, respectively. They usually have websites with information on recent votes, bill that they may have sponsored or co-sponsored and their committee assignments as well as personal bios, locations of offices in their home districts/states and in D.C.
LIke I said before, chances are if you choose to call or email them the most you can expect is a conversation with a low-level aide, someone who is a recent college grad who envisions a career in politics but they do keep track of the issues and how you feel and want them to vote.
Remember, these people all work for you. Congress is re-elected every two years and the Senators serve 6 year terms so that roughly 1/3 is up for re-election every two years. Not only do they work for you, so does their staff as they are paid by your tax dollars. and it’s okay to remind them that they have temp jobs, at that.
be well.
amy:
In my experience, no one responds well to shouts. A more reasoned and persistent approach treating your adversary as one to be convinced rather than bullied works best for me. One recalls the wisdom of the fable of the Sun and the North Wind trying to coax a man out of his coat:
“It was easy,” said the Sun, “I lit the day. Through gentleness I got my way.”
–Aesop
If you thundered hard at me, my coat would remain wrapped ever so tightly.
GWLSM,
You got it right!!! We need to be vocal, and we need to be LOUD!!! On to Washington!!! MAKE them listen!!!
Mike and Amy
Activism is not only a right, it is a responsibility. I spend a few minutes every week poking my very sharp stick at my Rep. to Congress, who is by and large an empty suit who seems fixated on money for state highways and little else and refused Stim $$ because it contained a provision for honeybee research. I’m not sure if it did or not, but here in CA we depend on agriculture and agriculture depends on honeybees, who are dying and no one knows why. The hilarious part of this is that with my weekly email to my congressman I get a phone call from the aide whose job it is to read his email. Yes. a 23 year old pisher is vetting email for my congreeman. The other day I wrote asking how my rep felt about the Employee Free Choice Act and got a phone call from The Kid who tried to compare his talking points with the decades that I have stomped the terra to prove me wrong. Yet I continue to email. I’d work to find another candidate but the DCCC doesn’t come to my district with any support for democrats and I have not yet been able to get their attention for a seat they I think might finally be vulnerable.
I tried to email Michelle Bachmann when she got her U.S.History 101 lesson wrong — dig: Hoot Smalley, she said was enacted after FDR took office. If the president is bad for the comedy business at least we have Michelle. Anyway, you can’t send her email unless you live in her district. You can’t send email to Virginia Foxx R-NC either. She’s the dried up old trout, we say Farbissiner in my family, who called the lynching of Matthew Shepard a hoax, in front of his mother on the floor of congress when it voted on the Hate Bill amendment, which btw, my rep. voted against (no big surprise) because all crimes are equal in his eyes according to the kid who reads his email and then calle me. BUT you can call their offices and even if you do wind up talking to kids with talking points in front of them, they learn that Americans will use their access to the system.
I recommend going to Washington when Congress is in session. YOu can visit any of the folks whose work you admire and those whose work you don’t and sometimes get to a senior aide. They do pay attention even if it doesn’t change things, these aides are the politicians of the future and you get to help shape their experience of public service for the better, I think.
I’m glad I found this place. YOu all seem like thoughtful and reasonable people and while I may not have time to respond to all, everyday, you don’t have to feel disenfranchised. Once a congressperson or senator is elected from their state or district they work for us all, so don’t be shy about calling the offices of those whose work you like and those whose ideas cause you shame and embarrassment.
thatmtman:
“hey mespo727272,
What a fantastic quote from Churchill!!”
*********
I can take no credit because when it comes to WSC, there are few bad ones!
hey Mike,
I was myself, just composing a note themed with ‘money is the root of all evil’ idea, and it seemed to me, the one constant affecting all of our issues these days. You did a better job than I, as usual!
I think the ultimate way we solve all of our problems is by simply going to a public funded electoral system. But if you think the hue and cry over public health care is loud, just wait until you try to take lobbyists, and fund raising out of the electoral system. I think we’d all be lined up at dawn and shot! LOL!
I guess having written that thought, I just realized that on a practical note, we are all screwed 🙁 Things will never get better. I also just realized that right wingers would benefit as much as left wingers were we to get a publicly funded system for elections.
I wonder if you Mike, and any of our resident right wingers might agree with me, that the biggest problem isn’t the ideologically gap between regular persons of the right and the left, but rather between regular persons of any stripe and the moneyed special interests who manage to frustrate and screw us all?
cheers!
hey mespo727272,
What a fantastic quote from Churchill!!
cheers!
There have been so many thoughtful posts deserving attention that it’s hard to know where to begin. So perhaps for those of you not regulars here I would suggest you click on blog and see the many topics there that will expand your ability to discuss, teach and learn.
“Since the dawn of the Republic the economic resources of the few dwarfed the voting strength, and short memories, of the many.”
Mespo, one of the treasures of this blog, cuts to the chase with his usual perception. This to me also is the chief culprit in keeping this from being a country run by its’ people. There is a tension in the US between those who believe that a blessed “elite” should be in charge to rule the unruly mob and those who believe that the Government should be of, by and for the people. Those “elitists” with the money, controlling the media, have managed to mostly keep us a society governed by the needs of the wealthy, by using other issues (like xenophobia, racism, religion, etc.)
to distract the many from their pockets being picked.
Amy & GWLSM,
This is why many of our activist efforts get thwarted. The public, living in a society where supporting ones’ family and ones’ self has become so difficult, where real wages have shrunk, where the tax burden is squarely on the shoulders of the middle classes, has what little time left for contemplation distracted by a news barrage meant to make us fearful in all aspects of our lives. The supposedly wise commentators after 9/11 who on every network kept saying” now everything has changed,” were short-sighted fools who gave tacit permission and cover to the Bush/Cheney Mob’s forays into unconstitutional government and war for profit.
The people were cowed by rampant headlines telling them to be very afraid and thus exploited and pushed to vote against their own interests. This is also why unfortunately Professor Turley, though perhaps more qualified than anyone, will not even get on the SCOTUS appointment shortlist. He has proven to possess the independence of mind, the fearless constitutional perspective and the ethical dedication that would scare the hell out of the elites, from both sides of the political spectrum. The clamor against him would be deafening.
Elaina George, thatmtnman, Jonathan P.,Amy,GWLSM, and Tom,
All of you offer excellent comments that help put the puzzle of our country’s failed health care system together. Dr. George, as someone afflicted for years with a serious medical condition and thus familiar with the quality of care, please let me compliment you on being a physician who is “in the business” of really trying to help people. Through my more than 30 year battle with heart disease I have met more than a few with your dedication to the excellence of care, but all too many who saw the profession as a way to get rich. This then is one part of the problem. I do believe that physicians, giving the rigorous training, years and expense it takes to get there, should be handsomely rewarded for their efforts. Too many though care more for the money than for their patients and due to that often overlook symptoms, in their rush to minimize the doctor/patient time and see as many as they can in a workday. This is not to say that the system is the cause this to a large degree.
Dr. George, I believe your analysis is correct to note a decline in care since the Clinton’s failed health care initiative. Hilary, brought to the table representatives of the major hospital and insurance conglomerates. The failure resulted in the HMO model becoming predominant and when quality of care, is measured against percentage of profit, quality takes a back seat.
The issues raised as to why Republican oppose universal health care are in a sense perplexing. We can understand why from a philosophical perspective they oppose government’s involvement in anything, but on the other hand a national health care system would make our industries and businesses more competitive in the world, by drastically reducing their employee costs. One would think the Party of Business would see this. However, Republican’s (at least nowadays) and some Democrats dance to the tune of whoever gives them the most campaign contributions and the health insurance companies, drug makers and hospital conglomerates have great lobbyists. All these sharers of the health care buck want at least the status quo. Then too it is only of late that the AMA has stopped working in concert with these industries, as doctor’s realize they are also being screwed by the system.
So lastly we get down to how do we change things in this country. As GWLSM has suggested activism works, but only to a certain degree. In truth the greatest reform needed in the country is figuring out how to remove the money from elective politics and how to get the real news to the public, unfiltered by a mass media, both incompetent and run in the interests of corporatists. The Internet has provided much of the latter and we must all fight to keep it free. The former is more difficult, but the solution lies somewhere in the realm of limiting the time of electioneering like Great Britain, providing free air time to candidates and perhaps have something like a National Elections Week with candidates all you see on TV and voting times increased from on mere working Tuesday.
Please forgive the length of this post but all of your comments were so thoughtful, that it made me want to join in.
thank you for fighting against torture. how will common sense win out over the apologist of torture?
to GWLawSchoolMom and mespo727272 you folks are right on target. We really MUST turn America around. The past eight years have set us on such a REALLY bad track. Not just here at home, but globally. It’s critical that we hold our elected representatives accountable for EVERY SINGLE VOTE. We have to stop watching the weather channel and get FOCUSED on what is happening to OUR COUNTRY!!!. We have to reign it in and get it right!! I am very angry and ashamed of what our country has become in the last eight years. We CANNOT AND MUST NOT allow this legacy to become a part of our history without being corrected. Everyone makes mistakes, and that includes FREEDOM LOVING NATIONS, but the last eight years is a mistake we MUST acknowledge and correct. First, I think we need to prosecute the torturers, and then, we need to correct the health care issue. I am currently dealing with a knee injury that I pray won’t keep me from reporting to work on Monday, but I surely can’t afford to go to the Dr. for it!!! That’s a sad commentary on our society, no matter WHAT side you’re on.
Happily, the American public does not have a vote in who is nominated for the bench. While I appreciate the views of Prof. Turley’s fans and agree that his ideas and opinions are brilliant and accessible and simply make sense, at least to me, whether or not he considers himself more useful where he is today or might be as a jurist is kind of up to him as well as the folks who take notice of law profs as candidates for the bench.
Prof. Jeffrey Rosen (also at GW) will probably be appearing more often on MSNBC as the vettings and hearings unfold and he is another unique voice that I am sure the folks here will dig as much as I do.
Pick up his book on the Supreme Court for a real look into how the bench came into its own under John Marshall and how he regards the importance of judicial temperament.
Qualifications for the bench depend on so much and should not rest alone with a “first” Asian or Gay/Lesbian or Hispanic not that there aren’t qualified folks who belong to one minority group or another.
The amusing part of all of this is watching the right wing gearing up for a fight that does not yet exist and one that they will surely lose. Even with a majority in both houses, the White House and SCOTUS they failed in 8 years to solidify a single one of the social issues. They failed at every social objective. Abortion is still the law of the land. School prayer? nope. Porn? uh-uh. Gay marriage? they’ve done really badly there. So they still have the guns but even that issue is beginning to soften.
And you know what? I kind of feel sorry for them. To get why, watch Alexandra Pelosi’s recent documentary, America Right: Feeling Wronged. It’s all there.
be well.
Amy
Republicans fight health care because they can. Because it is a galvanizing issue that they tie to “fiscal responsibility” and immigration reform. Because they can use it to whip fear in the hearts and minds of their shrinking and somewhat pathetic base. They tie it to socialism/communism/fascism.
They don’t seem to mind that the present situation is hugely expensive, unwieldy, and has few provisions for decent public health policy that can be applied fairly. The largest and most vulnerable populations to go without comprehensive health care are seniors and children who make up the majority of Americans living in gut-wrenching, bak breaking poverty like India poverty. Too many seniors have to bargain with themselves over food/home heating-cooling/medication and what was the latest report? 1 in 10 children is homeless? that is a disgrace when we spend so much on the military on an unwanted and unnecessary war that has caused a huge power vacuum in central Asia and is now spreading to Pakistan.
Health care is a device for the right, one that they use effectively as a way to raise money. And it is one thing that can be easily remedied by better thinking and planning as well as better funding. We can throw money at the banking industry, which clearly owns the Senate now much to my dismay, or we can throw money at health care and education, two programs that are easily repaired with better funding.
Where are we now with infant mortality? 35th? Something like that. Shouldn’t we be trying to find ways to keep children alive,healthy and then educate them? All of them?
Sadly I live in a community that fears immigration more than any other real or perceived threat to social stability and the anti-immigration forces here would choose to round ’em up, ship ’em out and short of that refuse to educate or medically treat the children of the people who mow their lawns,clean their homes and care for their swimming pools. If that isn’t racism, I don’t know what is.
Thanks for your sentiments on my family history. It was what it was and I don’t carry it around in any special way, but because our experiences and our histories inform who we become I am glad for mine because it has made me someone who thinks about what is the most humane solution, the most compassionate path. And I am so not a touchy-feely person.