You Can Shop At Amazon and Help Support Emergency-Preps.com Without It Costing You One Thin Dime - Click Here to Learn How!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well, the Wikipedia page on Turley lists him as a "champion of progressive causes" and a frequent guest on Olbermann and Maddow.So you can guess what kind of "Constitutional expert" he is.
However, Turley has a strong libertarian streak and sometimes infuriates the left with a contrarian position. 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.” In May 2009 the Daily Kos said that, "Jonathan Turley is an embarrassment!" because Turley had suggested that supreme court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor was not "brilliant" enough for the job. Moreover, Turley testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.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: "It’s very thoughtful—not a screed. I don’t see any evidence this is motivated by Judge Hudson’s personal beliefs. . . . Anybody who’s dismissing this opinion as a political screed has obviously not read the opinion."
The conceptual thread running through many of the issues taken on by Turley is that they involve claims of Executive Privilege. For example, he said, "the president’s claim of executive authority based on Article II would put our system on a slippery slope." He has argued against national security exceptions to fundamental constitutional rights.He is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation.Turley has testified in Congress against President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program and was lead counsel in a case challenging it. In regard to warrantless wiretaps he noted that, "Judge Anna Diggs Taylor chastised the government for a flagrant abuse of the Constitution and, in a direct message to the president, observed that there are no hereditary kings in America."When Congressional Democrats asked the justice department to investigate the CIA's destruction of terrorist interrogation tapes Turley said, "these are very serious allegations, that raise as many as six identifiable crimes ranging from contempt of Congress, to contempt of Justice, to perjury, to false statements."In October 2006, in an interview by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, he expressed strong disapproval of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.When the U. S. Senate was about to vote on Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general, Turley said, "The attorney general nominee's evasive remarks on 'water-boarding' should disqualify him from the job." On the treatment of terrorism suspect Jose Padilla Turley says, "The treatment of Padilla ranks as one of the most serious abuses after 9/11...This is a case that would have shocked the Framers. This is precisely what many of the drafters of the Constitution had in mind when they tried to create a system of checks and balances." This is important because, "Padilla's treatment by the military could happen to others."
Guess I should have read the whole thing instead of just the header. My bad.
Not bad, Lang. Turley is kinda libertarian, and like most libertarians, he confuses the heck out of both sides. I run into it all the time, myself...
I avoid it, 'cuz they ass-u-me that, being a retired Army NCO and all, I'm obviously a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal conservative, philosophically somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.
Wait...you say that like it's not a good thing?