I have the pleasure this morning of speaking with the Federal Bar Association in Utah. The keynote address is entitled “Dangerous Times for the Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court in the Age of Rage.” Ironically, the topic was selected months ago, but the recent leaking of the draft opinion on abortion and doxing of justices adds a particularly menacing element to the topic.
Continue reading “Turley Speaks to the Federal Bar Association on the Supreme Court”
Below is my column in the Hill on the leak and the refusal of President Joe Biden to denounce such conduct. It is a defining moment for his presidency that, even in the face of such a disgraceful and unethical act, the President cannot muster the courage to condemn it. He then magnified that failure by refusing to condemn the doxing and targeting of justices and their families at their homes.
Here is the column:
Recently, National Public Radio’s Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg was widely criticized for a false story about Justice Neil Gorsuch allegedly refusing to wear a mask during oral arguments despite a threat to the health of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She also suggested that Sotomayor had to watch the oral arguments virtually due to his conduct. Gorsuch and Sotomayor issued a joint statement that called Totenberg’s story “false.” Now, Totenberg has made another bombshell report that “the leading theory” is that it was a conservative law clerk who leaked the opinion. While most of us have discussed this as one of the possible scenarios, Totenberg reports that it is now the “leading theory” in the investigation. Totenberg’s reporting, however, did not suggest that she has any factual basis or evidence to make that claim. She simply says that it is “the only one that makes sense.” It may be the only “sensible” choice for some, but it is hardly the “most likely” theory based on the available evidence.
The leaking of a draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has rocked the Court and Washington. The 98-page draft opinion is dated Feb. 10, 2022 and authored by Associate Justice Samuel Alito. I have two columns (in USA Today and The Hill) today on the opinion and the disgraceful leak from within the Court. Continue reading “Leaked Draft Opinion Rocks the Court and Washington”
Below is my column in the Hill on the trial of Depp v. Heard, which seems to get more bizarre by the day. The trial proves Oscar Wilde’s rule that “nothing succeeds like excess.”
Here is the column:
There is a bizarre report in The Daily Beast that former Trump Counsel Michael Cohen is laying down an Ultimatum for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Jr.: indict Trump or I’m leaving you. Cohen warned that, if Bragg does not use the current grand jury to indict Trump, he will no longer cooperate. It is a curious threat since he could be called before a grand jury and would have to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse further testimony.
The defamation trial of actor Johnny Depp against his former wife, Amber Heard, has all of the makings of a Hollywood hit except for the absence of a single redeeming character. The comedian Henny Youngman may have been right that “the secret to a happy marriage remains a secret,” but the Depp trial shows that it is clear how to have a miserable marriage. It includes things like mutually taping each other, throwing objects of varying sizes, and rivaling each other in the competition of conspicuous consumption. Continue reading ““Nothing Less Than Everything”: The Depp Trial and The Litigation of Mutual Destruction”
When I was clerking in Louisiana after graduating from law school, there was story of a rather notorious local judge asking counsel in a criminal case if he was ready to present the case of the defendant. He then asked the prosecutors “and are we ready to present our case?”
The story came to mind recently with a controversy in Michigan where the Chief Judge of Michigan’s Court of Claims Elizabeth Gleicher said that she will preside over a challenge to an abortion law brought by Planned Parenthood despite her previously representing the group and her annual contributions to the group.
It is always good to have a “lawyer acquaintance” when things get tough. In “A Streetcar Named Desire,” the character Stanley Kowalski famously assures to Blanche DuBois that he has “a lawyer acquaintance” who will protect her. The same appears to be true for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. Special Counsel John Durham is fighting to get access to evidence related to his prosecution of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. The documents are being withheld by the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Fusion GPS, and Perkins Coie. There are 1,455 withheld documents, but only 18 reportedly involved a lawyer. However, they are arguing that their “lawyer acquaintances” shield their communications from disclosure to the Special Counsel.
Below is my column in The Hill on President Joe Biden doubling down on his absolute defense of his son Hunter Biden. The comments only magnify the concerns over Attorney General Merrick Garland refusing to appoint a special counsel despite the clear basis for such an appointment. It is clear that the President “absolutely” stands by his son and that the media absolutely stands by the President. The question is whether Garland will stand by justice and appoint a special counsel.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Biden’s ‘Absolute’ Defense of Hunter Leaves Media and Justice Department in a Muddle”
During the last Administration, the media was (rightfully) critical of President Donald Trump’s repeated public calls for action from the Justice Department or attacking the handling of pending investigations. Legal experts lined up to denounce the damage to the independence of the Justice Department. The media and experts, however, have been largely silent as President Joe Biden has declared the guilt of individuals or promised punishment before even the commencement of investigations. The latest such example is the leaking of Biden’s desire to have Attorney General Merrick Garland prosecute Trump. Continue reading “Report: Biden Wants Attorney General Garland to Prosecute Trump”
This week, a former Clinton campaign lawyer was in court with his counsel to fight the indictment by Special Counsel John Durham alleging a false statement to federal investigators. At points, however, Michael Sussmann sounded more like Michael Flynn in arguing that, even if he gave false information, it was trivial and did not warrant a criminal charge. The one missing element, however, was the prior host of liberal legal experts shouting down the defense as frivolous and heralding the prosecution. Continue reading “In Like Flynn: Clinton Lawyer Adopts a Familiar Defense Against Durham Charge”
Below is my column in the Hill on the possible conflict of interest faced by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson if she is confirmed to replace Justice Stephen Breyer. If Judge Jackson becomes Justice Jackson, her service on a Harvard governing board will be a barrier to her sitting on one of the most significant cases of the term. While the Harvard Crimson quotes Professor Noah Feldman as saying that there is a “strong argument that she would not need to recuse,” I cannot see how she could ethically sit in judgment on the case given her board position.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “The Crimson Tie: Why Judge Jackson May Have An Ethical Problem To Address”
The civil litigation between Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts) just took a “Big Lebowski” turn.
In the movie, there is a scene “The Dude” is pressed on what happened to a million dollars in a suitcase. He insists “We dropped off the damn money…” When the Big Lebowski asks “We?,” the Dude responds “I! The Royal ‘we’!…”
It turns out that the settlement agreement between Giuffre and Epstein contains what Prince Andrew might claim is a “Royal We provision.” In exchange for half a million dollars, the settlement expressly bars Giuffre from suing not just Epstein but “other defendants.” Prince Andrew is arguing effectively that the plural reference includes him. Continue reading “The “Royal We” Provision: Newly Released Settlement Favors Prince Andrew as One of Epstein’s “Other Defendants””
