Skip to main content

I watched with pride as President Obama introduced Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his supreme court nominee.  Next came the inevitable parade of talking heads commenting on the pick.  When Chris Matthews threw to Jonathan Turley, I knew that my morning was about to be dampened.  Sure enough, he lived down to my expectations quipping: "We are not talking about appointing a house pet [correction based on commenter] here."

Turley went on to suggest that Sotomayor did not have the "brilliant" legal mind of Diane Wood or Harold Koh.  He then told the viewers that many academics like himself would be disappointed in the pick but would be muffled in their criticism of Judge Sotomayor.  Presumably, Mr. Turley was already getting ready to make the case that this was an "affirmative action" pick.  Sickening but predictable.

I left academia a few years ago because of people like Turley.  Those of us who went to graduate school to pursue doctorates and other professional degrees have often been doused with the cold water that is the "Ivory Tower."  Those of us who came from NOTHING and sought to bring our experiences to the Ivory Tower have often been marginalized and silenced.  We are never quite "good enough" or "brilliant" enough for the likes of Turley and the other WHITE MEN who rule those hallowed halls.

Graduating at the tops of our classes at places like Harvard and Princeton still do not afford us the respect that Turley and his like seek to bestow.

I understood only a year into graduate school that I would be FOREVER separate from most of my peers and from most of the faculty.  The topics that I chose to write about and study were not seen as valid ones for inquiry.  The perspectives that I brought to bear were not dispassionate enough.  Weber, Durkheim, Marx were privileged over E. Franklin Frazier, DuBois, and Fanon.  Any interest in truly marrying theory and practice was derided as intellectual laziness.  One was accused of a lack of rigor.  I stayed and I fought it out.  I don't back down from a fight but the experience was alienating.  It was lonely.

I was reminded of all of that through Turley's condescension.  I was reminded again of the utter irrelavancy of most of academia to the lives of ordinary people across the world.  I was reminded of why I absolutely HATED academia.

Jonathan Turley is an embarrassment!  Truly!

Here is one of what I am sure will be MANY appearances on MSNBC... I am trying to find his Chris Matthews appearance.

Originally posted to mka193 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:49 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I Generally Love Turley, But He Said The Same (11+ / 0-)

    thing on NPR about 1.5 hours ago. I mean literally exactly what you outlined he said on MSNBC.

    "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle

    by webranding on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:53:11 AM PDT

    •  Thus proving that Turley plays a lawyer (0+ / 0-)

      on radio and on TV!!

      As to the diary and subject, I am unpersuaded that Turley is an embarrassment. He is stating a preference for a different nominee, one who may yet be named should another opening appear on SCOTUS.

      Sum and substance, Turley is a telegenic legal scholar whose frequently stated opinions on torture prosecutions mesh with those of many round here - including myself.

      Which may mean his opinions are as deeply thought out as many around here - including myself.

  •  Turley throws crap out (34+ / 0-)

    and yet fails to back it up with actual evidence.  I've listened to him since he was an "expert" in the hey day of environmental litigation in the '90s.  What he blathers on Olbermann or Maddow's shows, I could do -- superficial commentary without depth of analysis.  I get better talking points from reading diaries here.

  •  He said 'house pet' (10+ / 0-)

    Because she's not up to his rarefied standards.  

    Has he ever practiced law?  I don't think so.  And everything is pants-on-fire to Jonathan, a surefire hint that he's never had to deal in the real world.  

  •  Turley also disparaged Thurgood Marshal today. (25+ / 0-)

    He compared Sotomayor with Thurgood Marshal, saying that they are both intellectual lightweights, and were put on the SC strictly for their ethnic backgrounds.  Disgusting.

  •  Boycott Turley (4+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    mj171976, Hawkjt, marabout40, aymandaman
    Hidden by:

    And turn off Keith and Rachel when they this piece of shit appears on their shows.

    "If the thorn of the rose is the thorn in your side Then you're better off dead if you haven't yet died."

    by whitewash on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:57:09 AM PDT

  •  This is why people bad-mouth Ivory Tower-types (4+ / 0-)

    and I personally loathe that practice, but Prof Turley isn't helping, that's for sure.

    Ann Compton to President Obama at next presser: "Is it true that once you go black, you can never go back?" Obama: "WTF?"

    by dlh77489 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:57:59 AM PDT

  •  your arrogance is showing. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and your racism.

    turley is expressing a different view than your "Accept Anything Obama Says" mantra.

    Answer back his actual criticisms (which seem to be echoed by people who have gone before her), don't just play the "My grad school prof's didn't think i tried hard enough."

    I know plenty of WHITE professors who think their NONWHITE grad students are just fine.

    Here: cheese with that whine.

  •  As an academic myself, (11+ / 0-)

    I am ashamed of Turley's snob crap about the supremacy of academic discourses. As I Puerto Rican, I almost started to puke because all of the sudden the Constitution was just about "laws" and not about people and their experiences. His reaction was a joke!!!!

  •  And I suppose Princeton just GAVE her (14+ / 0-)

    summa cum laude distinction because her skin is a little darker.

    Ann Compton to President Obama at next presser: "Is it true that once you go black, you can never go back?" Obama: "WTF?"

    by dlh77489 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:00:34 AM PDT

  •  I've always thought (25+ / 0-)

    his condescension dripped.

    My bigger issue with him though is that I don't trust him.

    Do folks remember that he worked for Ken Starr and was a regular guest with Matthews pushing for Clinton's impeachment?

    In my mind that whole fiasco was one of the biggest barriers to impeaching Bush because it politicized the whole process. And Turley was behind it from the get-go.

    •  NLinStPaul you win today's prize (7+ / 0-)

      because the impeachment of Clinton is exactly why Bush's impeachment was impossible.  The American people would've been easily led to believe that any impeachment of Bush would've been simple retribution for what happened to Bubba!

      Ann Compton to President Obama at next presser: "Is it true that once you go black, you can never go back?" Obama: "WTF?"

      by dlh77489 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:02:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I certainly remember it (0+ / 0-)

      It comes to mind every time I see him. And while I know that TV is a sound-bite driven medium, Turley actually gets a lot of air time. If he had cogent, supported arguments to make, he is given time to make them. Given that, I find it telling that he cites no examples to support his argument against Sotomayor. Either he doesn't have strong arguments or he thinks his audience is too stupid to understand them.

      What I don't remember, and cannot find with teh google, is where he set the intellectual bar during the Roberts and Alito hearings. And for him to argue that intellectual brilliance should be the only standard for a SCOTUS nominee without calling for Clarence Thomas' impeachment in the same sentence is ridiculous.

  •  Maybe he's jealous? (3+ / 0-)

    Please put up a link if/when available.  I really would like to see this for myself.  Such a shame, because I've always liked Turley.

  •  I saw that (4+ / 0-)

    and thought WTF? As I said on a previous thread that is here on DKOS criticizing her intelligence
    "Anyone that has made it out of a housing project and risen to the top of their Ivy League school" has the intelligence to do anything!

    This person is also criticizing her personality calling her "gruff"

    WHAAAAA ... !!!

    When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it? Eleanor Roosevelt

    by IndyRobin on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:01:03 AM PDT

  •  It's amazing. Turley used to be held up (7+ / 0-)

    as some sort of hero lately when he would agree with Keith on Obama prosecuting torturers. Now in this diary he's in the shitcan. Amazing, the rise and fall of Jonathan Turley's heroism status on Kos. I can't say I'm sad about it.

  •  The only person Turley would really approve of (4+ / 0-)

    is, of course, Jonathan Turley.

    He's an arrogant bastard. He gets on Olbermann and says things as if its the final word and there's no other opinion on the matter except his.

    Just because he's liberal doesn't mean he can't be a blowhard...or arrogant. Whenever Olbermann has him on, I just flip the channel to baseball for a few minutes.

  •  I'm frankly offended by the "not intelligent".... (5+ / 0-)

    enough line.

    How do you judge that?

    First, is it her demeanor on the bench?  I know some brilliant people who are honestly not that articulate.

    Second, perhaps Turley is involved in a professorial cabal that shares people's academic records and knows something we don't. Otherwise, give me some case history to support the claim--I'm quite sure he doesn't accept his students' superficial responses while grading their exams.

    And third, academe is supposed to be a place for well considered thought, but has become a source for the instant sound-bite.

    Unlike the good professor, I a lonely rube, will wait till I've read much more before passing on such opinions. (Maybe that's why they don't call me to be on cable shows.)

  •  I generally f-forward through Turley (7+ / 0-)

    because he so rarely says anything that adds to the conversation.  Wish Olbermann would try out one of DC's 300,000 other lawyers . . .

    "If you can't do something smart, do something right."--Serenity

    by Maimonides on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:03:23 AM PDT

  •  Turley even threw Thurgood Marshall (9+ / 0-)

    under the bus... Turley is very annoying every time he's on Countdown i change the channel......

    power concede nothing without a fight....

    by bosshogg on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:04:27 AM PDT

  •  Turley's response (6+ / 0-)

    wasn't that surprising, given that he's disagreed with nearly every legal decision that Obama has made.

    His reference to appointing a house plant, however, was unnecessarily negative.

    And it's possible that he just provided ammunition for the "She's the liberal Harriet Myers" theme.

    But Jonathan Turley remains pure, and I imagine his conscience is clear, as well.

  •  Jonathan Turly agrees with Karl Rove (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missLotus, spyguy999, Tricky, aymandaman


    I'm using my quiet voice... {CLO}

    by caps lock on on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:06:06 AM PDT

  •  Nonsense (6+ / 0-)
    Jonathan Turley has been one of only four voices in the media speaking clearly and passionately on the subject of torture, in case you hadn't noticed.  He is responsible for educating potentially millions of people to the law in this regard.

    I'm sorry if he didn't bobblehead the fucking SCOTUS nominee but to call him an embarrassment is breathless nonsense.

    "We are loaded today." - Rush Limbaugh

    by The Termite on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:10:06 AM PDT

    •  Let me repeat... (6+ / 0-)

      HE IS AN EMBARRASSMENT.  Talk about "breathless nonsense!"

    •  He's more commentator than expert (11+ / 0-)

      He has his opinion, which doesn't bother me. But there's not much underneath it.

      Take his criticism of Obama recently on holding those few terrorists whose cases were botched indefinitely.

      I don't want the government to hold anyone indefinitely, and I hope this mess can get cleared up.

      So, a certain level of criticism is just fine, I think.

      But he criticizes and then, what was his ultimate solution?

      Oh! We can try to try them and when that fails, we can hold them pending deportation.

      Of course, no one is going to accept these cutthroats into their country so, guess what! We'll hold them...indefinitely anyway!

      Turley's quick to criticize...not so quick on solutions.

    •  And he was also (6+ / 0-)

      speaking clearly when he advocated for the impeachment of Clinton for a blow job?

      •  Nope (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah, MindRayge

        But he is a lawyer, and Clinton lied under oath.

        What's a lawyer supposed to say?  Give the guy a pass?

        "We are loaded today." - Rush Limbaugh

        by The Termite on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:20:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're kidding right???? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mj171976, elmo, Escamillo, aymandaman

          Please tell me that you're not suggesting that you supported that whole impeachment fiasco.

          Because the alternatives would not have been limited to giving "a pass" to someone who lied. A simple censure would have been sufficient for the "gravity" of the crime.

          We all know that it was really all about a political witch-hunt that completely politicized the only way we have to hold a President accountable for "high crimes and misdemeanors" while in office.

          And yes, our esteemed Professor Turley was a big supporter of the witch hunt.

          •  Wow (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jeffersonian Democrat, snafubar

            Wow.  You have next to zero reading comprehension ability.

            For the record, no, I didn't support impeachment of Clinton.  Where in God's green earth you found that impression, I have no idea.

            Now.  Did Turley support the Starr commission, or did Turley support impeachment proceedings after Clinton was found to have lied under oath?  Because those would be radically different things.

            I don't know enough to answer that question, but here's my view, since you asked.  If he supported the creation and continuation of the Starr commission, that's "an embarrassment."  If he opined after Clinton lied under oath that Clinton should be impeached, then that's a completely different matter.  I can't imagine someone who wanted to remain credible as a legal expert giving a pass to anyone lying under oath, unless they were representing someone accused of perjury.

            "We are loaded today." - Rush Limbaugh

            by The Termite on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:31:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, its actually yes to both... (6+ / 0-)

              He worked for Starr and supported impeachment.

              And again, he could have very easily maintained his integrity and supported discipline less onerous than impeachment. There were thousands of lawyers all over the country who did that.

            •  yep, I agree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              The Termite

              Turley seems to be a strict interpreter of law, whether it is lying under oath about a trivial blow job or something as grave as torture.  He is at least consistent.

              That's not to make a judgment whether he is a snob, asshole, embarrassment, or ivory tower type, just to say he is consistent.

              "I gonna ride in South Dakota, with two girls in a light blue De Soto, Ya know one's named Jane, the other Blaine but they both had a racing motor..."

              by Jeffersonian Democrat on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:41:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Termite, you're right on the money but this (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MattR, The Termite

              issue is  one that most people choose to ignore the parts they don't like.

              The right says Clinton Lied, and tney are correct on that matter.

              The left says the impeachement was bullshit, adn they are right - not on the lie, for that was in fact how it had to unfold once he said it - but the effort to try to impeach him started two years before the lie, and that's the part Democrats are not so precise about.

              I've found it's impossible to get people ot think deep enough to admit that:

              Yes, once Clinton lied, the impeachment was valid.

              No, the entire investigation that led to the lie was utter and unforgivable bullshit, and the REPUBLICANS made that case when they cried out that Scoother Libby must be pardoned.

              The RW argument is that Scooter was not convicted for anyting that was on the original indictment, therefore the punishment was bullshit. But if that is their measure, then Clinton should have been given a pardon as well. (I know scooter was not given a pardon, but the RW was demanding one).

              So let's hammer home the duplicity and the hypocrisy of the RW demanding that Scooter be pardoned but Clinton being impeached;

              I have found that both sides are too polarized and impassioned to understand the complexity much farther beyond that.

              Ok....just my opinion. I'm with you.

              George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

              by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:44:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Look - don't dig a hole. Clinton was impeached fo (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jeffersonian Democrat

        r lying under oath, and I'm the loudest voice in this country to insist his impeachement was bullshit.

        But Constitutionally it was valid.

        The fact that the Democrats let the Right define morality in the eyes of this country and pursued Clinton for two years , and only after two years they caught him in a lie - t

        That was bullshit.

        But the lie was under oath, the lie was punishable, and in the end, Bill Clinton can't deny that.

        now - Remember I'm on your team - If Clinton's impeachment was legitimate because Clinton lied, then Bush's communtaiton of Scooter Libby was bullshit because Scooter did the same thing that Clinton did - he lied about something that was not even on the list of things he was being investigated for.

        SO if the RW thought letting Scoooter go, why did they insist Clinton had to be impeached?

        Take that angle if you wish, but Turley has always advocated for following the law as it is written, and it is on those grounds that TUrley is right on the money about torture prosecutions and War Crimes violations, and it does none of us any good to see the whole thing throw into a blender on Turley's veiws on Sotomayor.

        In summary, yes, Turley was speaking clearly, because Clinton was not impeached for a blowjob. He was impeached for lying.

        Make your argument that the investgation that led to the blowjob was illegitimate and wrong, but the lie is irrefutable and that's something we have ot live with.

        Please, pick the right argument.

        ANd if you need more explanation about where I'm coming from and proof that I'm on your side, read my last four diaries.

        George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

        by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:38:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you're misunderstanding my point. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Up above, I said that there were MANY remedies to lying under oath (in a witch hunt, by the way) that were available for Clinton.

          The idea that impeachment was the only remedy - or even the best - is laughable to me as a legal opinion.

          And not only did Turley endorse impeachment - he worked for Starr.

          All I'm saying with this is that I don't trust him and he doesn't strike me as all that brilliant of a legal mind.

          •  I'm looking at Turley's last four years on (0+ / 0-)

            Countdown with Olbermann, and based on his opinions there it would be hard for me to hold whatever work he did for Starr against him.

            Turley endorsed impeachment because once Clinton lied under oath, to do otherwise was to unravel the whole system of jurisprudence.

            Now - again - I'm with you that 40 years ago no one would have even dared to ask the president where he put his penis, and in that spirit, the Republicans under Bush solved Clinton's problem by simply pissing in themouth of the whole system and flatly refusing to testify under any conditions.

            And the Democrats let them. But none of that can be blamed on Turley, and I still say his legal reasoning is not only legitimate and admirable, he's been one of the strongest voices in opposition to Republicans and in support of Demorats for at least the last five years, and why/how everyone has suddenly got a pitchfork out ofr him now really disappoints me.

            I'm tired of this site being smeared as "far left", but when i see arguments like this diary, it gives the claim some legitimacy. (sadly)

            I'd rather have Turley as a justice on scotus, because hie legal acumen is right on the money.

            George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

            by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:01:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is the part I disagree with (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Turley endorsed impeachment because once Clinton lied under oath, to do otherwise was to unravel the whole system of jurisprudence.

              Once the witch-hunt had caught him in a lie, there were many legal remedies other than impeachment. To assume it was the only course of action is a right wing talking point.

              Turley worked for Starr and went on Chris Matthews' show regularly in support of impeachment.

              It was this travesty of the process that, in my mind, took "impeachment off the table" for Bush because it had become so politicized. So excuse me if I don't have much respect for Mr. Turley and his legal opinions.

              •  I think you're looking at it backwards, (0+ / 0-)

                and the proof of that is how the Bush adminstration played their hand when they were in office - they simply never answered any questions, and when they were forced to, they did so but not under oath.

                And how you wind up faulting Turley in all of this because he supported something that you say "had many other options" but haven't offered any is a little wierd.

                Impeachment was "taken off the table" for reasons that had everything to do with whatever monsters and paranoias are in Nancy Pelosi's head, not anything Jonathan Turley said or did.

                you're on a witch hunt of your own.

                Carry on without me.

                George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

                by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:25:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm certainly not (0+ / 0-)

                  making it all Turley's fault. Its just that he supported an unnecessary and politicized impeachment process.

                  For other options with Clinton, I think censure would have fit the "crime" quite well as did the suspension of his law license.

                  And many members of Congress were quite clear that in order for them to support impeachment hearings for Bush/Cheney, they would have to be bi-partisan. Why was that? Because the process had become so politicized with Clinton.

                  •  This diary is about Turley; (0+ / 0-)

                    so when you base your objection to Turley on the Clinton issue to the exclusion of all else the man says, I think you sound more like a lunatic conservative more than an objective anything.

                    I've laid out my argument; I have nothing more to offer on it.

                    As the Clinton impeachment is being used by you to judge Turley's opinions on Sotomayor, I'm not there and I'm not coming around.

                    George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

                    by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 03:18:32 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ha-ha... (0+ / 0-)

                      someone arguing the Clinton impeachment was political sounds like a "lunatic conservative."

                      All I'm saying is that I don't trust Turley as some kind of god of legal issues. He has a very mixed record and what he said about Sotomayor and Marshall today just re-inforces that.

    •  But it's alright if he acts like a bobblehead on (0+ / 0-)

      Countdown or Maddow, nodding along with whatever the host has to say.

      •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cato come back

        So you're saying that he's taking his cues from Rachel or Keith?  And presumably if he went on Hannity he'd have a different opinion?

        You're changing the subject.  The guy has been nothing but a champion for the rule of law in the torture debate, period.  You can count those on one hand:


        Yeah, he's an embarrassment.  We should disown him.

        "We are loaded today." - Rush Limbaugh

        by The Termite on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:27:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  But he always says the same thing (7+ / 0-)

      Every time he's on the tee vee, and there is no analysis--just his opinion about torture, or blowjobs, or Sotomayor. On MSNBC Shuster asked him for examples and he said he'd read her opinions but didn't actually give any examples, and Shuster didn't push him to follow up. I believe he does the same thing when he talks about torture. It's a lot of shrilly expressed opinion and invective without anything to back it up. That's one thing if we're talking politics. It's quite another if we're talking law. I'm an academic, a small-potatoes one at a no-name school, but I know to give evidence to support my claims and I make sure my students know it too. Someone famous for being an expert on constitutional law at a major university should be far more rigorous than he is-even in a 2-minute interview on MSNBC. So I do think he's an embarrassment.

      •  He always says the same thing... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...because the matter, legally, could not be simpler.

        "We are loaded today." - Rush Limbaugh

        by The Termite on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:45:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well then. Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me. So if I get (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Termite

        on TV and repeatedly say "War crimes must be prosecuted", I guess you'll say there is something wrong with me because I always say the same thing?

        This country is becoming a fucking joke.

        I am so ashamed.

        If you think Turley is "Shrill" then you've obviously lost any hint at objectivity, because on a list of 100 talking heads on the left or the right who have current speaking gigs in the media, Turley is absolutely the least shrill amongst them.

        Unless you call a stalwart insistance that we must follow the letter of the law even if it makes us uncomfortable "shrill".

        This whole diary and the threads attached to it are embarassing.

        You have your opinion, I just gave you mine.

        I'm not changing anything about it.

        George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

        by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:31:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Losing it... (0+ / 0-)

          No need to go ballistic...

          •  If there is no need in this time, then the idea (0+ / 0-)

            that there ever will be is lost.

            There is a need to go ballistic, because in case you haven't noticed, the Republican party is self-destructing and thy're trying to make it look like it's anybody's fault but their own.

            Their tactics are to divide and set us against each other; their tactics are to make shameless and baseless accusations and then count on people who live on sound bites with no effort to check the veracity of the claim to succumb to their basest fears and keep the lies in play.

            So there is a need to go ballistic, because all this calm complacency is going to see us clocked in the head from a sucker punch because we're playing nice and by the rules and the opposition has taken the gloves off and grabbed brass knuckles.

            Yea, there is a need.

            Turley has the higher ground on his last five years in the public eye, and I'm going to defend him because it's too our collective shame that his opinion has not carried more weight in the public forum.

            George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

            by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 03:28:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  He is jealous (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary Norton, marabout40, aymandaman

    All these bastards are an embarrassment to the news journalism.  

    Fox News has turned into a new religion for the right wing extremist. Christan?

    by Tricky on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:14:16 AM PDT

    •  You're tempting me with an HR (0+ / 0-)

      So Turley - one of the strongest and loudest and most substantiated speakers that makes a cogent argument that Bush/ Cheney/ Rummy/ Yoo/ Ashcroft/ Gonzalez must all be prosecuted for their war crimes and treason...

      - that's the guy you think is a "Bastard" and an "embarassment"

      here's a giant "Fuck you, keep your eye on the ball" to you, and we'll call it even.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:27:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you like him (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        because he says what you want to hear. I wonder if you've really tried to judge whether his legal analysis has any merit.

        •  Now you can drop dead. (0+ / 0-)

          Don't ever try to get into my head, and tell me what you think is in there. I've said my peace and explained precisely what I thought, and just becuase you want to believe otherwise is not my problem.

          But my opinion about Turly has nothing to do with what "I want to hear" - unless you think there's some fault in my thinking that I'm finally inspired to see someone who supports taking the law seriously without the political implications getting in the way.

          You can "wonder" all you want, but don't start casting aspersions on my logic or my judgement just because it conflicts with yours.

          "becaue he says what I want to hear"



          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:05:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Have a great day! (0+ / 0-)

            You answered my question perfectly.

            •  How many times have you been decked in (0+ / 0-)

              real life?

              You put thoughts in someone else's head that only the one who owns the head can tell you were never there, then you act aloof if the other dares to suggest we're being truthful in our expression, and now that you realize you've really pissed me off, you're going to give me a "smile! have a nice day!"

              I hope we never meet, you're obnoxious.

              You give legitimacy to the level of unbridled angst that I unload on people with similar arrogance and contempt.

              Have a great day!

              Then you can fuck off.

              George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

              by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 03:22:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I looked over your comment history (0+ / 0-)

                and your diaries. It seems like you have some real, repeated problems dealing with anger. Unless it makes you happy to be like this, you may want to think about changing the way you deal with people who don't see things the way you do.

                I wasn't meaning to be sarcastic, actually. I hope you do have a good day, whatever that means to you.

                •  Alas, if we just fixed me all woudl be well (0+ / 0-)

                  Maybe - just maybe - you might be the first to grasp that my "anger" was not developed while living in seclusion on the moon. I got this unhinged being in the capacity of real people right here on this temporal sphere.

                  And I have a problem, I will admit, with other people who somehow rationalize that they can say anything they want and it's always excused by saying the other person reacted to it the wrong way.

                  Meanwhile, here I sit, and whenever I say something that other people determine is loaded, uncalled for, or just plain provocative, suddenly I'm solely to blame for unloading such things that everyone else KNOWS was out of line.

                  It really takes the idea of objectivity and sets it on fire.

                  And now that I have been thoroughly reviewed and judged by you to be the sole capacitor of all the discord here, perhaps you can ponder this one thought for the rest of the night:

                  "dealing with anger" is an interesting concept in that it truly does place all the burden on the recipient of the anger. Everyone else, if you leave your analysis there, can absolve themselves of any responsibility because the problem is surely mine - the reaction is always the issue.

                  We put up signs that say "don't feed the bears", because the bear doesn't know any better, and if you feed it and it mauls you, you had some warning.

                  Maybe - just maybe - some of us who you see with "anger" issues are using the same consideration of a yellow light before the red light to give you time to hit the brakes before you get blindsided in the intersection.

                  And if you choose to ignore the yellow lights, that's your perogative to do so - but it still gives the other guy some plausible denial for clocking you when he was just travelling through the other side of the intersection.

                  Fine - if it makes you sleep better knowing that you've been 10,312th to say snafubar has "issues", I hope you have pleasant dreams.

                  Nevertheless, my words here are on a blog.

                  And just maybe - maybe - you might see my example that you dismiss so eaily when it presets itself in real life one day, and you'll look back on this and decide not to feed the bear.

                  Because remember - the bear doesn't know or care it's not supposed to eat people. And you can say the same for a hothead like me. Sure, when it's all over everyone will know who is to blame for always going too far.

                  But why does no one ever say before hand,

                  "Wow, this guy looks loaded. Since he already seems to have enough reasons to be going off the scale, it might be wise not to make my comments add to the pile".

                  I really don't care - I really don't. But if you look back at your comments and can say to yourself that you were never at all being provocative, snide, derisive, contemptuous, or just plain arrogant and therefore might have deserved a strong response,

                  good luck on that path.

                  I have a short story you might wish to read.

                  Your call.

                  George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

                  by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:03:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                    I realized you were "a bear" as you put it only after going back over your comment history. I'm sorry that I set you off, because after looking over the comment history, I see two possibilities. Either you have a personal reason for being so frequently upset, or you're just an asshole looking for fights because you enjoy the drama. Since I can't know for sure which it is, I'm just going to assume the former.

                    But, please consider, it isn't healthy for you to have such a short fuse and be so tightly wound. If you are going to take such offense at pretty mild comments, you might want to reconsider blogging for your own peace of mind.

                    •  Well there you go. I will hang myself by dawn, (0+ / 0-)

                      and in the morning you will all wake up in utopian bliss.

                      Here's an idea, Dr. Freude -

                      If you are so astute to realize just how tenuously hinged I am, and how easily I anger, and how unbelievably obscene I am when I finally go off...

                      ...why are you still sticking your finger in my nose to tell me that you know better?

                      You realize I'm a bear, but you came back just to give me one more lesson about how you think I should behave.


                      I'll leave it this way - let's ponder the mindset of a guy who "goes back over my comment history" - so instead of reading each diary, and following each thread to where the comment was posted, you just took each comment on it's own and declared me to be a loaded weapon.

                      I'll tell you what -

                      Markos runs this place, and in two and a half years I haven't had a parent-blogger conference request yet to reel me in.

                      And yet here you are, the little schoolmarm wannabee, trying to rap my knuckles with your rulers.

                      It's a blog, doctor. I'ts basically a free-for all of freedom of opinion. You can feel free to post your comments, but if you're going to start trying to get into people's head and decide what/who they are, I wish you luck on your quest, but if after reading all I've wrote you're being this aloof, I'll keep coming back just to entertain myself.

                      As did you.

                      But my comments are unhinged because we - the democratic party and the country at large - are dealing not just with a Republican party has gone off the scale, even the Democrats are either afraid of their own complicity in the mess or they are afraid that our country as a whole does not have the collective consicence to reconcile what we have done and do the right thing about it.

                      We're talking about a Political party that committed war crimes, and they're threatening to secceed and revolt over TAXES. I guess speaking in measured tones will make them all cheer up and play nice?

                      if that's not a reason to get angry, I'm not going to let you or anyone else dictate to me what could be.

                      So go ahead and go blind reading my comments if you wish; try reading my diaries too, if you're really going to be objective and see if you can find out where that anger is coming from.

                      Then you can do whatever you want, because I have as little respect and concern for what you think of me as you think I do about anything else.

                      The chances that you give a flip happy flying fuck about my health is about -6, so I'll take your snide response and file it in my "you're not keeping me up tonight" folder.

                      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

                      by snafubar on Thu May 28, 2009 at 07:19:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  By the way, Mr Empath, what is my favorite movie? (0+ / 0-)

          Or my favorite song, or my favorite color?

          Since you seem to have been able to discern by one comment not even connected to anything you've said on this thread that my response proves I only support Turley because "he says what (I) want to hear" -

          What is it that I want to hear?

          Let's get your cred on how to read my mind and measure how obnoxios my comments are based on accuracy. What does Turley say that I want to hear?

          That president's who subvert the Constitution should be called to testify?

          That vice presidents who do likewise should also be sworn to tell us all what they knew and when they think they knew it?

          Is that something that "(snafubar) wants to hear" and therefore makes my judgment that Turley is on the money for suggesting that if the President and Vice President tacitly authorized things that are against the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture that somehow this means I have some bias towards Turley that he does not deserve my favor on objective grounds?

          C'mon - you made a snide cut on my opinion; let's hear you pony up with what it is about Turley's other comments in the last four years that you find makes him so suspect on the Sotomayor nomination....

          What is it that I want to hear, and then you can tell me what's wrong with wanting to hear it.

          Gotta love people who have been here as long as you have who have not put up any diaries and then start offering free psychoanalysis of the other bloggers.

          Yes, I have tried to judge whether Turley's legal analysis has merit; "what I want to hear" is that a president who gets pursued for two years and is impeached for a lie about a subject that was nowhere near the list of things he was investigated for is evidence of a baseless witch hunt (clinton, and the proof of that is when Scooter Libby got caught in a perjury trap, the same people who hounded Clinton declared there should be a full pardon for Libby since he was guilty of 'something that was not on the original list of his indictments'; identical to Clinton), and that a president and a vice president who plausibly authorized the comission of war crimes after cajoling congress into conducting an illegal war against the wrong enemy and then screwing it up, while simultaneously perverting the US DOJ, authorizing illegal wiretaps  - are going to get away with it without having to spend one single minute under oath to testify about any of it - you fault me for saying Turley is right on the money that these two stories do not speak well for the United States still being a shining example of a country that follows the letter of it's OWN law (let alone international treaty) - you mean I like Turley for saying that much that "I want to hear"?

          Gee, I guess then i'm guilty. I take back everything I said.

          No thanks.

          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 06:15:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Many non lawyers have been supreme court justices (0+ / 0-)
  •  The Marshall comments bothered me a little (0+ / 0-)

    but you're putting Turley at the arrogant level of a Krauthammer. Geesh.

    UPS, Fedex, U.S Post Service can't give you the whole delivery like TWD

    by sluggahjells on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:36:21 AM PDT

    •  Um, Turley is at Krauthammer's level of arrogance (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mj171976, aymandaman

      even if they disagree on torture and the like, they're both extremely arrogant, I don't think even many of Turley's fans would question that.  I can think of NO instance where he admitted to being in the wrong or even possibly mistaken about anything.  And he looks at anyone who dares disagree with him as if they're a moron by definition.

  •  Couldn't agree more he is just another know it al (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    l loser.

  •  I wonder if Turley was involved in the whisper (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mj171976, carmenjones, aymandaman

    campaign against Sotomayor from Democrats.

    His comments are unfortunate I in my mind as an African-American woman who when I hear these kinds of comments I see these as codes words for racism and sexism.

    "Because we won...we have to win." Obama - 6/6/08. WELL WE DID IT!!! 11/4/08

    by Drdemocrat on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:40:25 AM PDT

  •  I am a Professor and I find Turley insufferable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Escamillo, aymandaman

    I didn't listen to him on this issue.But almost every time Turley is on Countdown or Rachel Maddow's show I cringe.

    I don't teach law.

  •  He's not Krauthammer (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Escamillo, IL JimP, aymandaman

    But his statements today were VERY enlightening.  It made sense now that he wanted to throw Clinton out of office because of his perjury statement.  He is an absolutist, and one thing I cannot stand in any form or fashion is absolutism.

  •  I think white men (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    liz dexic, mj171976

    of a certain age and social stature are pissed because they see their power diminishing.  Now, I'm a younger white man, and I don't care, but these guys grew up in a certain world, and it is slipping away.  I don't mind if people criticize her legal opinions or policies, she would not have been my first choice (I preferred Karlan or Koh), but to say she is not intelligent enough is insulting, and to compare her to a house plant is way over the line.    

  •  Wait just a fucking minute; Jonathan Turley (0+ / 0-)

    has been absolutely right on when it comes to the issues of torture and what must happen to those who authorized it and participated in it.

    To claim he is an embarassment is an unfair slight and it represents one of the things I loathe in people in general:

    if someone does not represent your views with absolute parity, there is something wrong with them.

    Turley is one of the best minds and voices I have ever heard for brilliantly elucidating the argument that THE LAW IS THE LAW,

    ...and anyone who has a problem with that, like Bush/Cheney, were participating in what is advertized as a free country, so they had the freedom to change the law instead of just making arguments out of thin air that they had the legal right to ignore it or betray it.

    Turley is a brilliant man with the kind of objectivity that one would hope we would all aspire to.

    This diary helps me understand how this website, which I am so proud of, nonetheless keeps getting slapped with "koolaid" nicknames and claims of groupthink disorder.

    Turley is NOT a problem.

    George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

    by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:24:10 AM PDT

    •  Did you feel the same way (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      when Turley was railing about Clinton and demanding that he be impeached? I like Turley, and I agree with him a lot -- particularly on torture. But Turley is singularly tone-deaf to politics. While I appreciate his stand on principles and I am very glad he has a voice on these issues, in some aspects, he is the epitome of the Ivory Tower, unable to distinguish between the preferable and the possible.

      •  Let's get this straight for the 1283rd time (0+ / 0-)

        the INVESTIGATION of Clinton was utter bullshit; it was a paid witch hunt financed and promoted by people who when it came time for Scooter Libby to serve his time, suddenly came out and said,

        "oh, but the lie was about something that was not on the list of indictments, so it's bogus".

        Clinton was the victim of a witch hunt.

        Having said that, it's still impeachable to lie under oath, and that alone, by itself, is a demonstrable, irrefutable fact. Case closed.

        I'm enraged that Clinton was even asked about such things, becuase as you know when it came time for Bush/Cheney et al to answer any questions, they simply refused to testify or did so but not under oath. If Clinton had been so clever (if his balls has been that big) he would have gotten away with it.

        I said something on other diaries:

        Clinton (and Democrats) usually wind up getting impeached or convicted because when they get called to testify they actually show up and do so. Republicans are liars that beat themj 12 to 1, but when someone requires that they testify, they simply refuse or they are so pathetically vague that it means nothing, n the case of Gonzalez, the lie but they were not sworn to tell the truth so it's not a crime.

        If Clinton had thought of that, they wouldn't have let him, but then they wouldn't have been able to use it as their own defense.

        Clinton should not have been investigated; but once he lied, he lost. I respect that much about our system of justice - or what's left of it.

        What I wish more Democrats would focus on is not defending Clinton after the lie is committed, but why aren't we holding our own party to the same level of pursuit when Republicans lie? Pelosi folded like a chair even before we saw most of the evidence that makes it clear now that all of the Bush administration lied, and it was Pelosi, not Clinton, certainly not Jonathan Turley, that put Democrats in such a screwed up position now.

        I'm enraged that Clinton was even investigated, since for all the reasons the Republicans have raised when they were in the lights would have shut down the Starr report before Starr was even appointed - if Clinton had done what the Republicans are doing now.

        But none of this has a goddamn thing to do with Turley. His judicial analysis of Constitutional law is right on the money, and if it pisses people off on this site that they don't always like that, I have a bigger problem with his critics than I do him.

        Clinton lied. That's not Turleys' fault.

        Clinton should have never been investigated in the first place, that's not Turley's fault.

        But if we say Clinton was somehow allowed to lie under oath, regardless of how obnoxious, pointless, or sexually entertaining the question was, then what exactly could we prosecute anyone ever again for?

        Just answer me that - if Clinton was not impeached for the lie - then what exactly would we have done if we had been able to get Bush/Cheney to testify under oath when they lied?


        George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

        by snafubar on Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:37:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Turley is jealous of her... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mj171976, aymandaman

    plain and simple, and he's not even close to as smart as she is.  Eat it, Turley.

  •  WORST PERSON...IN THE WORLD!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mj171976, Calfacon

    Admit it, if anyone else had made a "house pet" comment, KO would have put them as the "worst person in the world". But as we've learned from the Jim Cramer-John Stewart flap, KO isn't exactly the Edward R. Murrow of cable Tv, as much as he thinks he is.

  •  the house pet comment was disgusting (4+ / 0-)

    The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Raj Purohit on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:56:12 AM PDT

  •  From now on I will turn the channel when Turley (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mj171976, aymandaman

    is on.  I too have noticed that he has only one opinion and repeats it every time he is on.

    His reference to "house pet" is unforgivable.

    I doubt he could have done what Judge Sotomayor has done with all the hurdles life put in her way.  Judge Sotomayor may feel that she is half the woman her mother is, but Turley is not even half the human Judge Sotomayor is.

  •  You know people (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mj171976, carolita, aymandaman

    it is quite possible Turley could be brilliant on the torture question and an absolute resentful SOB when it comes to the Sotomayor appointment. Just sayin'. The "house pet" comment is grotesque and unforgivable. Even though he is very good legal issues surrounding torture.

    That said, as an academic myself, and a person of color, Turley's on some things, part of the he-man woman hater's club on must other things is not unusual.

    The brain is a mysterious thing.

  •  You extremist morons are as bad as limbaugh (0+ / 0-)

    I've been a long time liberal independent but I quit coming to this site lonnnnnng ago because of the dangerous turn of wackos you've all taken on.


    We are talking about the supreme court of the USA, a life time appointment.  This is NOT the time to pick someone based on their race or sex.

    This is the Supreme Court for godsakes!  It should be an intellectual who is well versed in constitutional law. Period. nothing else. end of story.

    Have you people bothered to read any of this woman's rulings? or do you just luvvvvvv her cuz you luvvvvv anything Obama says?

    You are as disgraceful representing America as Limbaugh and every a-hole on Fox.

    She is NOT qualified. She has made some extremism rulings that have even been overturned by the Supreme Court!

    This is insane.  Will you dimwits please put your country and your flag ahead of your political extremism before this country is totally destroyed?  


    Read some of her rulings. Google them and you can start here:

    •  You have managed to redefine troll. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mj171976, carmenjones, kerflooey
      1. This diary has nothing to do with Barack Obama. The diarist expressed his/her opinion regarding Jonathan Turley and academia. One may agree or disagree with that opinion but there is no discussion of the president included in the diary.
      1. However, having shown your real concerns in your past posts, I'd guess this matters little to you.

      Here is a reminder from your previous posts.

      Thank you for reminding me why I've always been a liberal but will NEVER be a democrat.

      You show yourselves to be as stupid, vile, hateful, ignorant and foolish as any republican we've ever seen who bowed to Bush as if he's some kind of god.

      Now you embarrassing ignorants are doing the same thing anointed Obama your new Svengali when he shows no substance, no experience, just full of rhetoric as Bush did to his legions.

      You are all disgusting to see as Americans to be led like sheep as others in the past did.

      As for the race issue. I've never been a racist in my life but when I see the reverse racism of the black community the way they've literally turned their backs on the Clintons who have done so much for them, back when it wasn't a hip thing to do, when Blacks were still highly ostricized back in the 70's.. these people have totally turned their back on them to show their own blatant racism in drooling over a (half) black man, simply because he's BLACK.

      This is disgusting to watch on every level.  You all act like republicans and are no better.  You young fools who think that experience should not weigh on a nomination, what someone's endured and accomplished and fought for in all those years.

      Why Obama preaches empty rhetoric about bringing people together and stop the partisanship, Hillary was working on committees with the (very controversial republicans) Lindsey Graham or Rick Santorum.  It was SHE who crossed the isle to work with these people on committees to get things of importance accomplished.

      It is a disgrace that in choosing a president of the most powerful nation on earth, you ignorantly buy into the msm attempt to anoint Obama king when he has absolutely no substance.  He's stolen (yes stolen) lines from other writers for his speeches, and now he's stolen Clinton's economic plan as he did portions of her plan.

      Very sad to see you all foolishly fall behind the media who got america to vote for Bush, and now they are getting you to choose Obama on empty rhetoric.

      I will never vote for Obama. If he steals this nomination I will vote against him. Yes I've decided this is the action I must take.

      I've broken off from any newsletters or visits to liberal websites like this (except to post these thoughts from myself to you all).  I'll never donate to a Democratic cause again.  

      and I will never, EVER forgive the black community for their betrayal and hypocritical racism. They will NEVER live this down.

      Obama bots are disgusting.  Sad to see so many voters who can be so stupid that they fall for a word,  "change" and don't insist he back that up with something besides words.

      His record speaks for itself. HE DESERTED THE WAR VETERANS IN HIS OWN STATE.

      GOOGLE IT.

      That pretty much says it all.

      "Statistics are people with the tears wiped away." --Irving Selikoff

      by smartdemmg on Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:28:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site