It seems that we continue to struggle with a chief executive who goes on social media to personally attack judges who have ruled against his laws or policies. No, it is not Donald Trump. This week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) went on Twitter/X to denounce U.S. Judge Roger T. Benitez as “an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to [sic] human life.” Four years ago, I wrote how Democrats were becoming more Trump-like in their attacks on judges and hyperbolic rhetoric. There is no better example than Gavin Newsom. Continue reading “Gov. Newsom Attacks Federal Judge as Child-Killing, Extremist, Right-Wing Zealot Owned by the NRA”
Category: Constitutional Law
We previously discussed the defunct Disinformation Governance Board and its controversial head Nina Jankowicz. After the outcry over the program, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas finally relented and disbanded the board while insisting that it was never about censoring opposing views. Jankowicz has sued over the portrayal of her views. Now, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) has exposed just how broad the scope of the censorship efforts were under the board in combatting “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (MDM). This range of authority in what the agency called the “MDM space,” included targeting views on racial justice and the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Continue reading “The Defunct Disinformation Governance Board Sought to Censor Opposing Views on Racial Justice, the Afghan Withdrawal and Other Political Subjects”
Below is my column in The Hill on the impeachment inquiry and one striking pattern among the alleged crimes facing Hunter Biden: they all served to conceal the influence peddling efforts to sell access or influence to his father. The investigation and charging of Hunter Biden has, thus far, been strikingly surgical in avoiding this pattern of concealment.
New York Times columnist (and my former classmate at The University of Chicago) David Brooks said this week that the corruption scandal “merits an inquiry. It does not merit … an impeachment inquiry.” While I understand the distinction, I do not understand the basis for it in this situation. There are a variety of alleged crimes related to this corruption that may involve the President. There are also allegations like abuse of office that have been cited in past impeachments. We do not know if those connections exist but, if they do, they would clearly constitute impeachable offenses. Moreover, it is unlikely that we will get those answers without an impeachment inquiry. An impeachment inquiry does not inevitably lead to impeachment, but it does tend to lead to answers on whether impeachable conduct has occurred.
Here is the column: Continue reading “How The Surgical Charging of Hunter Biden Ignores a Pattern of Concealment”
Below is a longer version of my column in the New York Post on the gag order motion docketed Friday night in Washington, D.C. by Special Counsel Jack Smith. While described by Smith as “narrowly tailored,” even a cursory consideration of the broad scope and vague terms belies such a claim. It would sharply limit the ability of former President Donald Trump to publicly discuss the evidence and allegations in a case that is now at the center of the presidential campaign.
Here is the column:
Below is my column in The Messenger on the reason why an impeachment inquiry is warranted. I do not believe that a case for impeachment has been made, but there is clearly a need for an investigation into a growing array of allegations facing the President in this corruption scandal.
I also reject the notion that, because a conviction is unlikely in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the House should not go down this road. I rejected the same argument made by some Republicans during the Trump impeachment. The House has a separate constitutional duty in the investigation of potential impeachable offenses and to pass articles of impeachment if those allegations are found to be valid. My objection to the Trump impeachments were first and foremost the failure to fully investigate the underlying allegations and to create a full record to support the articles of impeachment. The Senate has its own constitutional function under the Constitution that it can either choose to fulfill or to ignore. A House impeachment holds both constitutional and historical significance separate from any conviction. That does not mean that grounds for impeachment will be found in this inquiry. While the President deserves a presumption of innocence in this process, the public deserves answers to these questions.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Five Facts That Compel the Biden Impeachment Inquiry”
Today I have the honor of speaking to the judges and lawyers in the 2023 Ohio Judicial conference on the Supreme Court in Columbus, Ohio. I will be discussing the last year of cases and controversies for the Court, incluiding recent and upcoming decisions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said that “it’s hard not to have a big year at the Supreme Court.” However, this is shaping up as another huge year for the Court. Continue reading “Turley Speaks at 2023 Ohio Judicial Conference”
Below is my column in the Hill on release of the final report of the Special Purpose Grand Jury in Georgia. The recommendation for sweeping indictments involving 39 people, including current and former senators, only magnifies fears over political prosecutions. For many of us, the inclusion of figures like the senators reflects a rogue grand jury. However, Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) insisted that Sen. Lindsey Graham was “lucky” not to be indicted. According to Schiff, Graham calling Georgia officials about the counting or discarding of votes was enough to justify a criminal charge. Presumably, since Graham could be indicted with Trump, Schiff would also consider him eligible to be barred from ever running again for office under the 14th Amendment, as discussed below. It is the “why not” approach to criminal and constitutional law.
Here is my column:
Continue reading “The “Why Not” Culture: Why the Georgia Final Report Should Worry Us All”
New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday suspended laws that allow open and concealed carry of firearms in Albuquerque for 30 days after declaring a public health emergency. The order, in my view, is flagrantly unconstitutional under existing Second Amendment precedent. It could also be a calculated effort to evade a ruling by making the period of suspension so short that it becomes moot before any final decision is reached by a court.
Below is my column in the New York Post in response to the attack this week by Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe. I am honestly saddened by the ad hominem attacks that have become common place with many academics like Tribe. There was a time when legal disagreements could be passionate but not personal. The use of personal insults and vulgar trash talking were avoided in our profession. Now even law deans have called Supreme Court justices “hacks” to the delight of their followers. I have always said that there are good-faith arguments on both sides of the 14th Amendment theory despite my strong disagreement with the theory. The public would benefit from that debate based on precedent rather than personalities.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Ragefully Wrong: A Response to Professor Laurence Tribe”
After the spectacular collapse of his sweetheart deal with the Justice Department in court, Hunter Biden’s lawyer angrily told the prosecutors in open court to “just rip it up.” It appears, however, that the defense team does not want to shred one part of the deal: the diversion agreement to avoid any charge over his false statement to obtain a gun permit. The defense is now arguing that, since the two sides signed the agreement before the implosion in court, it is final and complete. Continue reading “Will Biden Go Full Bruen? A Hunter Biden Indictment Could Bring a Surprising Challenge”
New Jersey’s Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy is pushing back on a plan to fly undocumented immigrants to his state, suggesting that New Jersey is now effectively off-limits to planned federal flights dropping off undocumented immigrants. It was a striking reversal for a politician who campaigned for office on the pledge that New Jersey will always be a sanctuary state. In 2017, he declared “We’ll be a sanctuary – not just city – but state.” However, it was easier to become a sanctuary state than a closed state. President Joe Biden’s authority trumps that of Murphy in the expected flights. Continue reading “Sanctuary but Unsuitable: New Jersey Governor Comes Out Against Additional Federal Flights of Undocumented Migrants”
We recently discussed a federal court ruling that the Texas law requiring age verification and warning for porn sites was unconstitutional. Now, Judge Timothy Brooks in Arkansas has found that another state law imposing age verification requirements for social media violates the First Amendment. In Netchoice, LLC v. Griffin, Judge Brooks found that the law “will unnecessarily burden minors’ access to constitutionally protected speech.” Continue reading “Federal Court Strikes Down Social Media Age-Verification Law on First Amendment Grounds”
There is an interesting free speech ruling in Texas in favor of the adult entertainment site, Pornhub. Senior U.S. District Judge David A. Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled that a Texas law requiring age-verification and warning labels about the alleged dangers of porn contravenes the First Amendment. Continue reading “Pornhub Wins Free Speech Challenge to New Verification and Warning Laws”
In 2017, Denmark took a historic step in favor of free speech by rescinding its blasphemy law after 334 years. For those of us in the free speech community, it was an important moment in Europe where free speech is being rapidly reduced. Now, however, the liberal government is moving to reinstate the blasphemy crime with a new law barring the burning of the Qur’an, the Bible, and other religous texts. Continue reading “Denmark Restores Blasphemy Prosecutions”
I previously wrote a column on what I described as Alex Baldwin’s greatest imitation of Donald Trump . . . in a lawsuit. Baldwin was sued for a reprehensible attack on on the family of Marine Lance Cpl. Rylee J. McCollum, killed in the Aug. 26 suicide attack in Kabul during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.. He falsely accused the marine’s sister Roice McCollum of being an “insurrectionist” but insisted that his rhetoric was protected political speech and that he was not responsible for how third parties responded to his inflammatory postings on social media. Baldwin’s channeling of Trump arguments in court has proven equally successful. As expected, a court has ruled for Baldwin after finding that the sister of the fallen Marine was a limited public figure.
Continue reading “Alec Baldwin’s Trump Defense: A Torts Case Where Imitation Merged With Litigation”