PRO: Regardless of what a federal court may say about the crimes, that's not your domain. Your domain and responsibility is that if a President has committed a criminal act, you are obligated to hold hearings. What I would caution members of this body is you're establishing a precedent by not holding hearings.

CON: [Lewinsky.]

The same guy that claimed that Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional because punishing someone who lies about being a veteran is restricting "Free Speech".

Re: Paul L. & Stolen Valor Act

Turley's certainly right on that Stolen Valor nonsense. Anybody who supports that authoritarian flagwavery, ironically, steals the valor of every American who's ever taken a stand in defense of the First Amendment.

What's next, a law which prohibits lying about whether or not you supported the Iraq War? That was a collective act of cowardice which effectively sentenced thousands of American troops to death for petty political purposes, after all. Umm... Wait... On second thought, that would put every other Teabagger in the slammer, wouldn't it? I digress.

Uh, Billy, you say: "What I would caution members of this body is you're establishing a precedent by not holding hearings."

Do you think the Supreme Court can hold hearings? It is Congress that is supposed to hold hearings in its oversight role. Civics 101.

Turley's an obvious best candidate, so Obusha ain't gonna pick him. It would be kinda fun to hear Faux News go nuttier than usual if he was picked.

Interesting though how many supremes are gettin set to retire asap, huh?

Brad,
a request? Hear anything yet on 130 Congress critters moving to get China declared as a currency manipulator and laying all sorts tarriffs on them across the board? Thom Hartmann was ranting about it today.

Re: SandyD and Civics 101

That is a quote from taken from Jonathan Turley's testimony before Congress regarding the initiation of impeachment hearings against George W. Bush.

Think about where we have come from and where we are going after reading this

http://www.newyorker.com...t_toobin?currentPage=all

Yeah, I think Turley has a good grasp of the law.

SandyD

Do you think the Supreme Court can hold hearings? It is Congress that is supposed to hold hearings in its oversight role.
_________________________

What in the world are you talking about? The right to a hearing in a court of law is one of the essential features of due process. What is it you think they call the proceedings when attorneys appear before an appellate court to argue their case. It's called a "hearing."

Now, if you are referring to "impeachment" hearings, it would be accurate to state that Congress is the only body that is authorized by the constitution to initiate them.

Billy
Stolen Valor authoritarian?? How dare they punish people for lying about their Military service.
Surprised you did use the all purpose progressive Mccarthyite talking point too.

But to progressives like you, Brad and Jonathan Turley, the FEC banning a anti-Hilary Clinton documentary in Citizens United is not authoritarian.

PaulL @ 9 said:

But to progressives like you, Brad and Jonathan Turley, the FEC banning a anti-Hilary Clinton documentary in Citizens United is not authoritarian.

Just for the record, the FEC didn't actually "ban" anything, per se, as I understand it, but rather enforced the bi-partisan McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act as passed by Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush. It is the requirement of the FEC, as part of the Executive branch to enforce the laws passed by Congress and duly signed by the President.

If you believe the law was unconstitutional, that's a separate matter and is decided in the Supreme Court where the five Republican-appointed justices seem to agree with you as much as I might disagree with *them*.

I don't know what Turleys position on that ruling is, and I know I've disagreed with him on many things in the past, so I can't speak to that for the moment (especially from my iPhone) but I know Glenn Greenwald, for example, who is *very* progressive, believes tHat SCOTUS was right in their decision as I recall. FWIW.

The clarity Turley uses when discussing torture or Bush's impeachment in and of itself disqualify him from even consideration, or so those doing the considering will reason.

Obama and Bush are on the same team, I thought that was clear here. Even putting his name out for public vetting would not be looking forward enough. When all those Attorneys General were illegaly fired Bush replaced them with some real doozies. Has Obama cleaned house?

Robert Gates? October suprise, Iran-Contra, drug running...he stays on?

Now Obama is threatening to veto intel budget legislation if it dares to request some clarification on the Anthrax charade.

Reps Holt and Nadler want to insert an ammendment requiring a look at the FBI's handling of it, but oh my gosh, NO.... that would be terrible, so awful, so...unspeakable I would veto funding for intelligence over it.(yeah right)

I don't know Turley's position on most things either, but if we want someone with his moxie on the SC we need somebody from another team in the white house. Democrat/Republican corporate whore team is entrenched and will stay so barring massive spreading of 9/11 truth.

Nice fantasy, but Rockefeller would never allow it. Dream on!

If the guys deserves it, I don't think that it is so impossible to happen. Turley obviously deserves the position.

Luigi wrote: "Turley obviously deserves the position."

The more important question is what we "the People" deserve. We deserve better than the Federalist Society radicals in robes who place corporations and their profits above the health and very lies of our citizens. We deserve a Supreme Court justice who understands the true meaning of the words inscribed on the entrance to the Supreme Court:

Equal Justice Under Law

We, "the People" deserve someone like Jonathan Turley; someone actually committed to the rule of law.

correction "lives of our citizens."

Forget it. O'Bomber is never going to do the right thing. Fascist pig...

Just looked at the link to Turley's blog. There were nine articles posted yesterday, March 16. The first was health-care bill related(self-executing blah blah). The other 8 were of the National Enquirer stripe. Car thief gets locked in, man arrested after running 11 stop signs was on IPod and cell phone(is that even possible?), pastor on motorcycle in church(complete w/YouTube clip...hot dog!), Edwards affair, Restaurant sells whale meat.

Suffice to say his level of gravitas seems to be between Jerry Springer and Krusty the Clown.

OT: Dan Froomkin today on the (intentionally racist) felony disenfranchisement statutes still on the books in 48 states:

In Virginia, almost 7% of the entire voting-age population is disenfranchised due to a past felony conviction; and almost 20% of the state's African American population is locked out of the voting booth.

(?! I didn't know that!)

...and guess who weighs in?

...Two witnesses spoke in defense of the current system, including Hans von Spakovsky, whose claim to fame is his stint in the Bush Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, where he turned the voting rights section's mission on its head --- working to make it harder, not easier, for poor and minority voters to cast ballots...

...Von Spakovsky said it was a matter of states' rights. And he both mocked and questioned the motivations of the bill's sponsors:

"Why does this bill not also amend federal law to allow them to once again own a handgun? Are we to believe that they can be trusted to vote but not to own a handgun? Are we to believe that the sponsors of this legislation think that a convicted child molester can be trusted to vote but cannot be trusted to be a teacher in a public school? Are we to believe a convicted drug dealer can be trusted to vote but cannot be trusted to be a police officer? Or is the true motivation here based more on the fact that their vote is important to winning close elections?"

http://www.huffingtonpos...nfranchise_n_502178.html

Disgusting.

camusrebel said:
"Just looked at the link to Turley's blog. There were nine articles posted yesterday, March 16. The first was health-care bill related(self-executing blah blah). The other 8 were of the National Enquirer stripe. ... Suffice to say his level of gravitas seems to be between Jerry Springer and Krusty the Clown."

---
Turleyblawg is not designed to be a 'heavy' law blawg; it's point is to leaven the daily slog through the legal blawg's with oddments, humor and 'news of the weird' stories that may have an underlying basis in bad (or good) law and its application. The blawg's commenter's generally fill in the blanks regarding the stories based on their opinions and/or legal training and interest. It's not designed to be a legal theory blawg of such gravity as to suck its visitors into a whirling event horizon littered with every jot and tittle of legal opinion ever written. It's not what the Professor does for a living but what he does for fun, as his busy schedule allows; "[G]ravitas" is what he brings to his work, humor is what he brings to his blawg.

What I think he would bring to the court is a conservative approach to the Constitution (a document and system of legal philosophy dearly in need of conservation IMO) and a wicked sense of humor. Both attributes sorely needed by the current SCOTUS.