Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ragefully Wrong: A Response to Professor Laurence Tribe
Jonathan Turley ^ | September 8, 2023 | Jonathan Turley

Posted on 09/08/2023 10:52:05 AM PDT by george76

Below is my column in the New York Post in response to the attack this week by Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe. I am honestly saddened by the ad hominem attacks that have become common place with many academics like Tribe. There was a time when legal disagreements could be passionate but not personal. The use of personal insults and vulgar trash talking were avoided in our profession. Now even law deans have called Supreme Court justices “hacks” to the delight of their followers. I have always said that there are good-faith arguments on both sides of the 14th Amendment theory despite my strong disagreement with the theory. The public would benefit from that debate based on precedent rather than personalities.

Here is the column:

This week, CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront” offered what has become a staple of liberal cable news: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe assuring Democrats that they are justified in an unconstitutional effort while attacking opposing views as “nonsense.”

I was singled out on this occasion for Tribe’s latest personal attack because I voiced a legal opinion different from his own.

Being attacked by Tribe as a “hack” is not as much of a distinction as one might expect.

Indeed, it is relatively tame in comparison to Tribe’s past vulgar and juvenile assaults on others.

Tribe has attacked figures like Mitch McConnell as “McTurtle” and “flagrant d**khead.”

He attacked former Attorney General Bill Barr’s religion and thrills his followers by referring to Trump as a “Dick” or “dickhead in chief.”

Tribe often shows little patience for the niceties of constitutional law or tradition.

He has supported the call for packing the Supreme Court as long overdue.

He has also supported an array of debunked conspiracy theories like denouncing Barr as guilty of the “monstrous” act of shooting protesters in Lafayette Park with rubber bullets to make way for a photo op — a claim found to be utterly untrue.

Some of Tribe’s conspiracy theories are quickly disproven — like his sensational claims of an anti-Trump figure being killed in Russia.

Nevertheless, Tribe remains the “break the glass” academic for Democratic leaders when political expedience requires a patina of constitutional legitimacy.

I have long disagreed with Tribe over his strikingly convenient interpretations of the Constitution.

We crossed swords decades ago during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, when Tribe argued that it was not an impeachable offense for Clinton to lie under oath.

Even though a federal court and even Democrats admitted that Clinton committed the crime of perjury, Tribe assured Democrats that it fell entirely outside of the constitutional standard of a high crime and misdemeanor.

However, Tribe would later say that Trump’s call to Ukraine was clearly and undeniably impeachable.

Indeed, Tribe insisted that Trump could be charged with a long list of criminal charges that no prosecutor ever pursued — including treason.

Tribe even declared Trump guilty of the attempted murder of Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021.

Even though no prosecutor has ever suggested such a charge, Tribe assured CNN that the crime was already established “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt.”

That is the key to Tribe’s appeal: the absence of doubt.

Every constitutional road seems to inevitably lead to where Democrats want to go — from court packing to unilateral executive action.

Take student loan forgiveness.

Even former Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged that the effort to wipe out hundreds of millions of dollars of student loans would be clearly unconstitutional.

However, Tribe assured President Biden that it was entirely legal.

It was later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Tribe was also there to support Biden — when no other legal expert was — on the national eviction moratorium.

The problem, Biden admitted, was his own lawyers told him that it would be flagrantly unconstitutional.

That is when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave Biden the familiar advice: Just call Tribe.

Biden then cited Tribe as assuring him that he had the authority to act alone.

It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional.

Even Democratic laws that were treated as laughable were found lawful by Tribe.

For example, the “Resistance” in California passed a clearly unconstitutional law that would have barred presidential candidates from appearing on the state ballots without disclosing tax records.

Tribe heralded the law as clearly constitutional and lambasted law professors stating the obvious that it would be struck down.

It was not just struck down by the California Supreme Court but struck down unanimously.

Likewise, California Governor Gavin Newsom pushed for the passage of an anti-gun rights law that was used to mock the holding of the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling in Dobbs.

Yet Tribe declared the effort as inspired and attacked those of us who stated that it was a political stunt that would be found legally invalid.

It was quickly enjoined by a court as unconstitutional.

In an age of rage, the most irate reigns supreme.

And there is no one who brings greater righteous anger than Laurence Tribe.

That is evident in arguably the most dangerous theory now being pushed by Tribe — and the source of his latest attack on me.

Democrats are pushing a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment that would allow state officials to bar Trump from the ballots — preventing citizens from voting for the candidate now tied with Joe Biden for 2024 election.

This is all being argued by Tribe and others as “protecting democracy,” by blocking a democratic vote.

Democrats have claimed that the 14th Amendment prevents Trump from running because he supported an “insurrection or rebellion.”

They have argued that this long dormant clause can be used to block not just Trump but 120 Republicans in Congress from running for office.

I have long rejected this theory as contrary to the text and history of the 14th Amendment.

Even figures attacked (wrongly) by Trump, such as Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, have denounced this theory as dangerous and wrong.

Tribe was set off in his latest CNN interview after I noted that this theory lacks any limiting principle.

Advocates are suggesting that courts could then start banning candidates by interpreting riots as insurrections.

After I noted that the amendment was ratified after an actual rebellion where hundreds of thousands died, Tribe declared such comparisons “nonsense.”

He asked “how many have to die before we enforce this? There were several who died at the Capitol during the insurrection.”

My comment was not to do a head count, but to note that (since Tribe believes that there is no need for a congressional vote) one would at least expect a charge of rebellion or insurrection by Trump.

Yet Trump was not even been charged with incitement.

Not even Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged him with incitement in his two indictments.

The 14th Amendment theory is the perfect vehicle for the age of rage and Tribe, again, has supplied the perfect rage-filled analysis to support it.

The merits matter little in these times.

You can be wrong so long as you are righteously and outrageously wrong.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Georgia; US: New York
KEYWORDS: 14th; 14thamendment; hack; jonathanturley; laurencetribe; tribe; trump; turley
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: Salvey; All

He’s just mad that none of his leftist acolytes have out him on the USSC!


21 posted on 09/08/2023 12:33:39 PM PDT by Reily (!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: princeofdarkness

You wanted Garland on the SC?


22 posted on 09/08/2023 12:48:21 PM PDT by enumerated (81 million votes my ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: george76

Tribe reminds me of a vengeful old woman. He’s the Madame De Farge of Harvard Law.


23 posted on 09/08/2023 1:12:54 PM PDT by old school
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: enumerated

No. I meant his comments were correct in general about how conservatives feel about him but not about McConnell keeping Garland off the SC.


24 posted on 09/08/2023 4:37:43 PM PDT by princeofdarkness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: princeofdarkness

Oh I see


25 posted on 09/08/2023 5:01:32 PM PDT by enumerated (81 million votes my ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Therefore, "insurrection" in the 14th amendment was meant to apply to the several states, not to individual citizens. A state must be in open rebellion before the citizens of that state can be held for insurrection under Title 18.

A complete reading of the legislative history and accompanying commentaries preceding passage of the 14th Amendment clearly demonstrates that Section 3 was always directed at individuals, not states. Within that general scope, debate focussed on those who should be encompassed by its provisions, and those who should be excepted from them.

See Congressional Debates of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution for a complete compendium of Congressional consideration of the issue.

26 posted on 09/09/2023 1:14:42 AM PDT by NNN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: george76

This country was founded by gentlemen and defended by patriots. They simply couldn’t imagine the depths today’s rabble would stoop to after having been given such a gift.


27 posted on 09/09/2023 9:46:38 AM PDT by Albion Wilde (Either ‘the Deep State destroys America, or we destroy the Deep State.’ --Donald Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NNN
Thank you for the link. It's rather lengthy and will take me awhile to read it all.

The punishment is for individuals, but I'm suggesting that because Title 50 Chapter 13 refers to states in insurrection, that the individuals must be a part of a state that is in insurrection, not lone-wolf actors with a grudge against the government or citizens simply speaking out in opposition or rallying citizens to hear a speech antagonistic to the government.

-PJ

28 posted on 09/09/2023 9:56:41 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Barely-closeted toe-tapper. Swampazz married for 44 years and his wife throws him out in 2008.
29 posted on 09/10/2023 2:07:38 PM PDT by StAnDeliver (TrumpII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
"Tribe argued Bush v Gore but not before SCOTUS. Don't recall why Gore swapped him out for Boise."

Ron Klain, The White Hospice former Chief of Staff. You're welcome.

30 posted on 09/10/2023 2:11:50 PM PDT by StAnDeliver (TrumpII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: old school
"Tribe reminds me of a vengeful old woman. He’s the Madame De Farge of Harvard Law."

And that's why, since he's 81, I'm hoarding candy to pass out the minute he passes out.

LULULULULULULULULLULULULULULULULULULUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!

31 posted on 09/10/2023 2:13:19 PM PDT by StAnDeliver (TrumpII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Likewise, California Governor Gavin Newsom pushed for the passage of an anti-gun rights law that was used to mock the holding of the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling in Dobbs.

???? How was an anti-gun rights bill used to mock the Dobbs ruling? I must be missing something.

32 posted on 09/11/2023 7:27:13 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Re-imagine the media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
I'm not sure why you directed this to me. Still, the question caught my eye so I looked into it. The best I could come up with was this local news story:

Newsom details new California gun laws, including 1 modeled after Texas abortion law

-PJ

33 posted on 09/11/2023 9:31:13 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Thanks for the help. I posted it to you to help me make sense of Turley’s statement in the article about Tribe. I was looking for something Tribe said about Cal gun laws. I read the Turley statement again, and in fact he said Tribe praised Newsom’s gun laws because he claimed they were similar to Texas abortion laws.


34 posted on 09/11/2023 10:44:22 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Re-imagine the media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson