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
Thank you for your reply. It is nice to know there are a few who are willing to speak out and call a duck a duck and discuss that which is considered major problems in Washington. Far too many are afraid to speak up and take action. I am tired of hearing the race card being played. Lame excuse! We are a nation of laws and no one is above them and congress makes the laws and the House is supposed to control the purse. There is a working system in place, it is not broken, just being controlled by the President and the Senate Leader. The system has worked for many, many years and the only reason it is not working at present is that the people are not being listened to or given the right to have their messages heard. The Senate is refusing to bring to the floor bills that were passed by the House and an impatient wannabe dictator is making all the decisions by bypassing congress. It is the Senate, not the House that is holding up progress. So what if Obama threatens to veto a Bill! he doesn’t like! ,Congress has the right to override his veto and that is not happening these days, No attempt is being made to do so. King Harry will not let there be an up or down vote. Thus we have a self appointed King that is calling the shots with a Senate leader who is his hatchet man , stopping all Bills that they do not like. There should be at least an up or down vote. if no sensible action is taken relatively soon we all lose.
I just wanted to comment on Professor Turley’s appearance this week on Fox News. If I understood the good professor correctly, he said, (and I’m paraphrasing here), that it wasn’t WHAT Barack Obama was trying to do, but rather HOW he was trying to do it that the professor disagreed with the President. I agree with Professor Turley. I have supported universal healthcare since 1985. Universal healthcare is a right, not a privilege. (I will speak more on this later) I support a living wage. I’m working class; strictly meat and potatoes and proud of it. $7.25, or even $8.25 an hour is a national disgrace and embarrassment and a slap in the face of good, decent, hardworking Americans. But we are a nation of laws, and any society that considers itself to be civil must of necessity respect those laws. And no one is under a greater obligated to respect and enforce those laws more than the President of the United States.
Good Morning, Myra. Thank you for your pointed comments. It felt nice to wake up and read them.
Prof. Turley, I am by no means qualified to question you about the legality of the happenings in Washington, Having attended college but majoring in a completely different subject with little legal training and being self taught through many years of interest in our government I have a couple of questions. One concerning our Judicial arm of the Government and the other being how to stop the bypassing of our congress.
However, at this point I want to thank you for answering Justin. I am delighted to be able to follow a blog that seems to be concerned with the very things that have haunted me about this so arrogant President who once said, “I’m the one you have been waiting for” (a quote from one of his so eloquent speeches he made when everyone was so enthralled with and were swooning over him after his election.
Seems we have problems that need to be addressed, Two of which should be addressed very soon. That is where you come in. Many of us, the citizens, need to know what the rights of the people are and what actions can be taken to alleviate these problems.
1. Since our Judges refuse to properly address the problem of a President who seems to be above the law, it appears that we should consider fixing the problem by limiting the term the judges are duly appointed to serve. Thus, they would not be so comfortable in neglecting their duty and might possibly stop passing the buck. What course of action would the people have to pursue to (properly, legally and constitutionally) the task of attempting to limit the terms of the Judges? Surely lifetime positions has given our judges the freedom to sit back and avoid being a responsible party in curtailing the Political power grab which our elite President has undertaken. Until we get all branches of the government working together (curtailing the President’s power grab, relieving the Senate from “King Harry’s reign, and getting the Judges back in the game, we are treading water. Judges being appointed for life has proven, in the last decade, to render them completely safe to judge according to their beliefs rather than what is best for the Country.
2. Please advise us how to legally curtail the President’s perpetual use of his “Pen and Phone” in bypassing congress. In the past such action was generally used for dire emergencies. Even though Clinton’s hands were tied, he wrote many pardons, and made some changes by bypassing congress he never attempted to rewrite laws. And, none were drastic enough to put millions of lives in danger as this President is doing. Even though Bush had the right to declare war on the Taliban after 9/11, he went to congress and got their approval. So, what gives this arrogant President the right to totally disregard the people’s choices to represent them by blatantly breaking the law and bypassing the elected Congress?
If there is a way to stop this power hungry dictator, then would some of you lawyers who are proficient in constitutional law please make the attempt to stop his unconstitutional actions and let the citizens know what recourse they have to make a difference short of waiting out the next 3 years. Surely you, Prof Turley are not the only one qualified to oppose his actions, there must be more like you that could stand up for our country and help prevent the disastrous decline that it seems to be spiraling toward. Admittedly, congress needs the help of a few legal eagles proficient in Constitutional law who could educate its leaderless congress as to what it can do to stop Mr. Obama’s push for a signature law (Obama Care) to be carried out in spite of the astronomical cost, the loss of jobs, loss of lives, doctors and medical care. His legacy seems the only thing that matters to him.
With the help of the press, we forced Nixon out, and God forgive me I voted for him. And, for the record, Nixon was truly wrong when he said, ” If the President does it, It is not illegal”. It is no secret how his power grab and micro managing fared as President. The people recognized a whopper then and no matter how a lie is presented, a lie is still a lie. we just have more uneducated who occupy the voting booth today. To change the course of the country and curtail the actions of an overzealous president is a little more difficult and takes true leadership, of which we sorely lack in Washington……………………………..Thank God we have a few people like you Prof Turley . Not only does Congress need leadership, the Citizens need to be more knowledgeable as to what actions they can take. .
PS (Did you ever live in or around Columbus, Ohio?
Professor Turley,
I just watched your interview (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/114922-liberal-law-prof-criticizes-obamas-power/) on Fox, and before then I knew nothing about you. I haven’t poked around much yet on your website, but I’ll take your word and the URL that you’re a liberal, but clearly you have a respect for the Constitution. It seems to me that there are several important areas in which our courts are failing us, regardless of where you stand on the issues themselves:
(1) Gun control: if we as a society want to get rid of the right to bear arms, wouldn’t it be better to modify the Constitution than to try to get courts to say what it doesn’t say?
(2) Abortion: ibid. There is no constitutional right to abortion, obviously. It’s a faction. If we as a society want it, then let it be done in the proper way.
(3) Etc., etc., etc., etc…..
James
Good Morning, Everyone. If you will permit me, I would like to posit a question here for discussion in light of the current political turmoil:
What, if any, pro-active recourse does the judicial branch of the federal government have, to serve as a check and balance against the 2 other branches of government, in order to guard against an abuse of power?
Professor Turley,
Great segment on FOX. I don’t know if it’s my TV or what, but you seem to look and sound a whole lot better on FOX than on those other news programs. I hope to see and hear more from you. America needs your voice during this difficult period. Thanks.
Dear Mr. Turley,
God Bless you, as you stand boldly protecting our greatest rights for all of all human kind, while openly protecting our one and only Constitution! We are not a united people anymore, we are a commodity, some are sold on the NYSE, a country with the highest rates of unemployment, exceeding that of the1929 stock-market crash, and last but not least, a country where our people have been labeled a terrorist. This is not our government either, it’s a place of madness, insanity, and one where no one can win. The people of the United States have been dummed down, lied to, Congress has hidden from, and to top it off, we have all been brainwashed. This is why you see,there is no public action, we live in fear of retaliation. Our countrymen have been poisoned, by chem-trails, medicines, radioactivity, and our children given shots of who knows what. The only citizens that still believe in our country, are all in their 50’s and 60’s, and pretty much unable to protect themselves, let alone fight for their rights again. They are not dumb and blind, just lost and overwhelmed, by a tyrannical system. I am deeply saddened to see, the America I grew up with as a child, lay dead and dying. Tell me how does one fight back, how do we take our country back, and trust anyone who will love it, nurture it, and put God first with all his laws reinstituted, and not lie to our countrymen? Tell me where does one sign up for this, and become a hero or many hero’s, because then I will come and millions more will too, to see America the Beautiful rise to glory again. I believe this, that you are trying to do just that Mr. Turley, and I like what I hear and read about you. I certainly hope you are that Hero!
May our Lord protect you sir, Sincerely Lyn Bryant
As we the people stare at the spectacle unfolding before us, awake, wondering at some of the incredible statements of the president, his hand gestures, his eyes flashing from one point to another, smiling and at at times stammering for words (“some boneheaded decisions…” in responding to accusations of corruption regarding the IRS) one wonders is he the puppet or the puppeteer. I tend to believe he is a caricature of an SDS era brain trust, plucked by the Chicago machine, the perfect political “ringer.” To be sure, an historic accomplishment with horrible and potentially dangerous results, he seems surrounded by ideological social engineers.
Daniel Ellsberg called him the first “monarch president” was quickly quashed by democrats as “nonsense.” However, the era of Nixon has with it strange generational ironies with today; Bernard Nussbaum and Hillary Rodham scripting Article 2 of Richard Nixon’s Impeachment reads eerily of the current occupant of the White House.
As we slowly slip deeper into the abyss, we come to find just how brilliant The Founders were in understanding human nature, the core element of man’s falling from grace, an ignoble pride to do whatever one wants without question or judgement or respect for higher authority.
We are witnessing a kind of president who resembles more the character Commodus. The co-equal “orbits” of power were created to intentionally cause “friction” whereby the requisite abilities of our elected representatives required them to engage in debate, negotiation and agreement within our framework, Commodus has no interest in soiling his hands with any of it, would rather operate in the dark. The original healthcare law as it was being reviewed by Judge Roberts was effectively being rewritten in secret by Kathleen Sebellius in the subsequent scripting of 10,000 pages of regulations. Does not the court have anything to say about that? Is that not a fraud on the court? That their ruling was on a piece of legislation that was entirely fluid?
The president stared at us through the television, making declarative statements, asserting to everyone a “bright shining lie” not once, but 27 separate times on national television.
Churchill was correct. However our political system and its underpinnings can be nullified if the press is derelict. Where Nixon was taken to task for abuses of power by an active press, fomenting public support for the Watergate Hearings, the first African American president is in fact insulated by the press in this modern era.
If the president does not “take care to faithfully execute the law,” regardless of what color he or she may be, we the people have no recourse if the fourth estate remains derelict, because impeachment is a political process. The court has gone silent, congress is vilified, the general election is three years away, we have now entered a new and dangerous era. Nixon once said to John Mitchell, “if the president does it, it is not illegal.”
God help us all.
Mr. Stanley,
Thank you for addressing Justin’s concerns. I am not a lawyer either and Constitutional Law is well above my head. But surely there is a way to curb this kind of abuse by the POTUS. In my opinion, our laws seem to have become whatever this one individual says they are at any given time. In elementary school I was taught about things like The Code Of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta. The purpose of these documents was to have a written record which would be understood by everyone and be independent of any one person’s abuse of power.
Saw you professor Turley for the first time on the Kelly File on Fox news a day or so ago. You hit the nail on the head with your analysis of what is presently going on in Washington today. People are at the point of total frustration and are becoming more apathetic daily. We need to turn this around. Keep up the good fight.
As I dig deeper and deeper into this matter it becomes obvious that while the 3 branches of government are co-equal in theory, in all actuality/practicality they are not co-equal at all and that is deeply troubling. It exposes a fundamental flaw in the constitution. And the President, as a constitutional lawyer/teacher is well-aware of this fact and has exploited it much to his advantage with little to no opposition at all to his continual unabated, egregious abuse of power.
Dear Mr. Turley,
It seems very curious to me that of all the various constitutional attorneys only a very few, besides you, have challenged the president on over-stepping his bounds and bending constitutional law. You have suggested that the federal courts take on this case, wouldn’t a lawyer, such as yourself, have to introduce the case before the courts first? Or, do the courts have the privilege of stepping in to correct this obstruction of constitutional law justice?
Professor Turley, I have seen you many times on the O’reilly show. Each time I see you I wonder if you may be related to any of the Turley Family I knew in the Columbus Ohio Area? The lady I knew was named Shirley.
I agree with you each time I hear you and am astonished at the lack of outrage about the power grab that is systematically taking place in Washington. It seems to me that so many people have just gotten their fill of all the empty promises and eloquent rhetoric followed by no action. The mere mention of the usurping of the Constitution is met with a request to “change the subject”. It seems that a great many of the people have lost faith in Congress and feel it is useless and too frustrating to even address any of the situations that our self appointed King creates.
I am outraged that so many are willing to sit back and allow our congress and Constitution to be slowly nullified while our President takes it upon himself to illegally make changes to laws already passed by Congress. Such actions not curtailed by Congress renders both House and Senate null and void. Seems that our Senators and Representatives have taken the same attitude as the people. They complain but do nothing or cave to the demands put upon them by the Presidency. Is there anything we can do about all the laws being rewritten by this President? Seems that he only enforces the part of the law he likes and changes the parts he doesn’t like. Must we have to wait until election time to take over the Senate and Presidency to clean out the cesspool that we call Washington and turn the government back into the kind of government our forefathers intended it to be? At present, it looks as if all three branches of the Government are corrupt and no longer represent the people. The emphasis is making this a Nanny state thus making the people dependent on Uncle Sam. Intended result: keeping the present party in power. The People pay their salaries but sadly have no representation!
Justin,
A court can do all kinds of things sua sponte, but filing a lawsuit would create an unsolvable conundrum.
An individual judge can file a lawsuit just as you can. Anyone with a filing fee can file a lawsuit. However, that judge must file as an individual and not as a judge. Obviously, a judge could not preside over a lawsuit he or she filed.
Thank you very much, Professor Turley, for taking the time to reply. I feel very honored to have you reply personally. I have greatly admired and learned much from your comments on the news programs throughout the years. In fact, I believe that you were one of the persons who inspired me to become the political junkie I am today. It was good to see you again testifying at the congressional hearing.
Mr. Stanley, thank you very much for your reply. I agree when you say “who would hear and rule on it?” But what I would like to learn is, as a co-equal branch of government, does the U.S. Supreme Court have the right to file a law suit against another branch of government to fulfill its constitutional mandate as a check and balance against another branch’s abuse of power. At most a purely intellectual exercise, but indulge me.
Thanks again,
Justin L. Petaccio
Justin & Robert,
I am not a lawyer, but have spent the past forty years hanging out in courthouses. I never heard of a court filing a lawsuit. For one thing, if the Court filed a lawsuit. who would hear and rule on it? The SCOTUS accepts cases to hear, and rules. That’s it. The problem comes when they (and lower courts) shirk their duty to make a clear, well-reasoned, definitive ruling. The term “weasel” comes to mind when reading some decisions.
I appreciate your comment about the courts avoidance of making decisions in difficult cases. However, you also avoided answering Justin’s question.