Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Jonathan Turley is a Liar! Thanks to DU, I Caught The Fucker! [View all]grantcart
(53,061 posts)21. Not the first time DU has nailed the fucker
I think this post from 09 captured DU's overview of Turley rather well
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8351402
Median Democrat (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-17-09 12:04 PM
Original message
Jonathan Turley - An Overrated, Overquoted One Trick Pro-Impeachment Pony?
Edited on Fri Apr-17-09 12:04 PM by Median Democrat
Is there any President over the past three administrations that Jonathan Turley has not claimed was engaging in illegal acts, and that he did not want to impeach? Turley testified in favor of the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which I think completely destroy his credibility.
I do think that the impeachment of Bush would have been completely justified, but now we have Turley getting an amazing amount of air time to essentially argue that President Obama is breaking the law.
My question is why shouldn't I dismiss Jonathan Turley as a kook, particularly after he testified in favor of the impeachment of Bill Clinton?
Has Jonathan Turley won any trials or significant cases? Has he written any influential books? Has he ever served as an appellate court judge and authored any notable opinions?
My point is what makes Professor Turley anything more than a media whore and a one trick pony who is willing to argue that the President is breaking the law, and can be impeached for not doing X?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
87 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I did too. He should be careful doing that to an old man that's already on the edge. nm
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#65
That's out of date. I just looked at the conference report in the Cong Record beginning at H8356.
struggle4progress
Dec 2011
#57
Can you explain the existing law or authorities on the topic of unlimited detention
JDPriestly
Dec 2011
#81
The existing law should be changed as I understand it. Codifying existing law
JDPriestly
Dec 2011
#86
So you're OK with indefinite imprisonment of US citizens with zero judicial recourse?
MannyGoldstein
Dec 2011
#17
So are you claiming that the NDAA does not authorize indefinite imprisonment of US citizens
MannyGoldstein
Dec 2011
#19
Yup, says it isn't a requirement and then in another sub-section it punts it back to
TheKentuckian
Dec 2011
#33
forget about Ron Paul, Suddenly Turley has gone off the deep end, did you view Turley in this light
2banon
Dec 2011
#27
But, but, but this president is a Democrat. How could you even think to question a Democrat?
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#61
"The plurality held that judges need not be involved in reviewing these cases, ...
MannyGoldstein
Dec 2011
#45
Thank you. That's an important point. Seems to me that means the president
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#63
Turley clearly likes Paul better than any other candidate. They share an anti-regulatory agenda,
struggle4progress
Dec 2011
#52
thank you..it's a great thing that here on DU we always have people who can explain why we did not
Douglas Carpenter
Dec 2011
#78