General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFake liberal Jonathan Turley hired by John Boehner
to sue Obama. Same assclown who beat the drums to impeach Clinton.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6178112?utm_hp_ref=politics
House Republicans have hired constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley to lead their lawsuit against President Barack Obama over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
How long before his "Impeach Obama" op eds appear?
still_one
(92,502 posts)unconstitutional. I guess because he was left with egg on his face he want a redo
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)enough for some people.
still_one
(92,502 posts)Person a liberal
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)who have lauded Turley.
Just google my username and "Turley."
You'll see.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Something tells me they arent
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I've been predicting they'd impeach Obama if they took the Senate for about a year now. They won't have the votes to convict but they'll spin it as "we had the majority to convict, he was saved by a technicality".
still_one
(92,502 posts)for Democrats in 2016
I don't think it will happen though
They have nothing to impeach him on
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Everyone forgets, Ken Starr originally started out investigating Whitewater. They used that to launch an endless fishing expedition and Monica just happened to be the only thing they could nail him on. They'll do the same with Obama; manufacture a "scandal" (which the corporate media will report as fact) and then impeach Obama over that. They'll launch endless investigations, find some minor breach of protocol (and every admin has them), some missed comma or uncrossed "t", drum up a "scandal" over it and impeach him over that. Right now, it's looking like they'll hang it on the peg marked "executive orders" but it could be over the climate deal or even Benghazi.
EDIT: They've started: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025833533
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Now I have (another) good reason.
Spazito
(50,590 posts)so he can make money appearing on television again. I think the repubs have had to reach into the bottom of the barrel to find someone to take their bogus case after two more reputable law firms backed out.
"After Second Attorney Quits John Boehner Cant Find A Lawyer Who Will Sue Obama
For the second time in two months, a law firm has dumped Speaker of the House John Boehner and refused to represent House Republicans in their lawsuit against President Obama.
Politico reported,
Attorney Bill Burck and the Quinn Emanuel firm halted preparations for the proposed suit in recent weeks, according to two sources familiar with the situation. Last month, the lawyer originally hired to pursue the case, David Rivkin of Baker Hostetler, made a similar abrupt exit.
A spokesman for Boehner declined to discuss the status of the Houses relationship with Burck and Quinn Emanuel. However, spokesman Kevin Smith said Wednesday evening that House leaders are considering having the lawsuit filed by lawyers already on the House payroll."
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/30/attorney-quits-john-boehner-find-lawyer-sue-obama.html
Edited to add: Turley isn't in any way a Liberal, even he doesn't describe himself as such, he is one of those Libertarians who are too cowardly to admit it, he dances around it.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)By Jonathan Turley
This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)And, yes, I know this is from Wikipedia:
....
However, Turley has a strong libertarian streak and sometimes infuriates the left with a contrarian position.[10] For instance, he has said, It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right.[8] Moreover, Turley testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.[32]
In another commentary that outraged progressives, Turley defended Judge Henry E. Hudson's ruling declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, saying: "Its very thoughtful not a screed. I dont see any evidence this is motivated by Judge Hudsons personal beliefs...Anybody whos dismissing this opinion as a political screed has obviously not read the opinion".[21]
....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley
Called for prosecution of Bush regime for war crimes. Supports separation of church and state. Anti-death penalty. Believes the Supreme Court too partisan.
I don't like the individual mandate, either.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)spanone
(135,924 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)In every legal case I've ever seen Turley comment on, he's been wrong.
Accepting this case means it will be dismissed out of hand due to a lack of standing.
That's how bad Turley is at law.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Spazito
(50,590 posts)Kudos to Judge Walton for spelling it out.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Spazito
(50,590 posts)and read his expanded ruling on denying Libby bail.
I was researching something else re Turley and found this, I don't know if you've already seen the document, it is Turley's written statement to the House, dated July 16, 2014 on the issue of suing President Obama re ACA. It gives one an idea what approach he will take in court, imo.
Here's the link to the pdf:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/RU/RU00/20140716/102507/HMTG-113-RU00-Wstate-TurleyJ-20140716.pdf
Edited to add: One of his footnotes references the case where Judge Walton took him to task, it's clear Turley is still upset about it, lol.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)when you read it!
Spazito
(50,590 posts)I started to laugh when checking the footnotes finding the majority of the references are, wait for it, him, lol.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Spazito
(50,590 posts)Love Lady Day!
Here's my dedication to Turley, it goes well with his 'references', lol
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Robbins
(5,066 posts)why i didn't like him during the clinton impeachment drama.
Gothmog
(145,839 posts)He is not a true litigator and does not have big firm backup
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)The academic elitests.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)just to see how Turley is trotted out by certain elements on this board when ODS is at a fever pitch.
spanone
(135,924 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Peacetrain
(22,881 posts)does it never end
chelsea0011
(10,115 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)and Jones during Bush's illegitimate reign.
question everything
(47,580 posts)when he provided the reasonable legal viewpoint on various topics.
onenote
(42,829 posts)Turley is a attention seeking media whore. I wouldn't be surprised if he approached the repubs rather than the other way around.