Jonathan Turley is not your ally. He poses as a liberal, as a Democrat, but he never fails to attack liberals. Now he’s got a new gig: defending Trump.
I’m not a big fan of the concept of a “constitutional scholar” in the first place. A Shakespearean scholar, now that’s impressive. But the Constitution is not long and is not cryptic. I have read it several times since I was but a lad. Hell, it’s on my phone right now and occupies me during bowel movements at times (TMI? Yeah, I know).
Laurence Tribe is another one. Imbued with prestige as a “constitutional scholar.” You might agree with him that Ted Cruz is ineligible to be president, but that doesn’t make him right. What would make him right would be the text itself, which is ambiguous enough that he can make a case, but that’s his opinion only, granted to any American who bothers to learn about our constitution. The thing that would definitively make him “right” would be precedent (or “president” as it’s spelled now) and there is no definitive legal precedent on the subject. He’s been on TV plying the “what can you do, he’s (Trump) the president,” argument as well.
Ultimately, what I’m trying to say is: reject the notion that these ideas about the interpretation of our Constitution are, somehow, like so many arcane and esoteric things in our culture, the exclusive bailiwick of “experts.” Last I heard this was supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. So if someone comes on TV as an expert in British mercantile law well, I guess, in that case, I’d defer — skeptically — to their expertise. But this concept, that too many wrap themselves in, that their opinion is definitive because they’re a lawyer who’s studied the Constitution is fundamentally offensive as a citizen.
Not to say that people who’ve studied the intricacies of specific decisions shouldn’t be afforded their due deference, but when it comes to the Constitution the cynicism meter ought to be on 10, and you ought to be grabbing your copy of the document (don’t be grabbing other things… unless they’re yours and that’s your thing… who’m I kidding, that’s everybody’s thing) or googling it (don’t google your “thing” though… unless that’s your thing… I’m a true liberal: I don’t care).
But Turley. He was on the scene in the early Obama years being absurdly harsh on the new President in his hysterical falsetto. He even got John Cusack to cite him (in the usual way: “Jonathan Turley is a ‘constitutional scholar’ and he agrees with me so there!”) as he was in a “disenchantment” tizzy over the then President. Somehow, he fell out of the scene to a major degree, but he found plenty to do backstage like, help Republicans fight Obamacare, which, ironically, was because of his so-called fear of executive authority overreach.
Now, Turley is enjoying his role as Trump defender on Morning Joe (his new buddy) as well as other places, essentially arguing that the EO on these countries is the prerogative of the president and his broad and overwhelming power. He’s disparaging the 9th circuit, gleefully. I kinda would’ve thunk that those 3 judges might qualify as “constitutional scholars,” but I guess the tummy rub from Scarborough is more valuable than integrity.
He picks and chooses what has relevance under the guise of “constitutional scholarly-ness.” If the not-in-the-executive-order “Muslim ban” talk, in his opinion, can’t be included in the legal argument, then he declares it so. If the not-in-the-executive-order claim that “Obama chose these countries,” sustains his argument in his opinion, then he declares it so. It’s that simple. All to be the contrarian liberal who gets to be Joe Scarborough’s best friend.
“Constitutional scholar” is a spurious term. Obama is, ostensibly, a “constitutional scholar,” but somehow his interpretations were not “constitutional scholarly” enough for Turley. So is Obama a charlatan?
Of course not. The Constitution does not belong to Tribe or Turley: It belongs to us.
I certainly won’t let them determine my opinion when they’re on TV preaching their babble.
