"Troubling" analysis [Commenting On Jonathan Turley Hit Piece]

Powerline ^ | Jan. 10, 2006 | Paul Mirengoff

[conservativecorner]

Jonathan Turley finds Judge Alito a "troubling nominee" because of his "extreme views of government authority over citizens' rights" in a time when "President Bush has claimed virtually absolute authority to act in contradiction of federal and international law." I find Turley's distortion of Alito's record troubling.

Turley relies first on positions that Alito took as a Justice Department employee, for example, the brief he filed for the government in Garner v. Tennessee, involving the shooting of a boy who refused to stop when ordered to be the police after robbing a home. But Alito was simply arguing the government's position, as was his duty as a lawyer. Moreover, three of the nine Supreme Justices agreed with the government's position (we don't know whether Alito did), so it's difficult to claim it was beyond the pale.

[Brilliant]

Turley is a constitutional law professor. Of course he's a lefty.

[bkepley]

He's a camera-chaser and let's face it...we are responsible for his creation. He was a relatively unknown environmental lawyer until he came out for Clinton's impeachment.

[Loyal Buckeye]

Turley has come out of the closet.

[jmaroneps37]

Being a leftist bottom feeder, of course turley would feel like this. This is a dog bites man story.

[LifeTrek]

I sent this reply to Powerline last night but haven't gotten a reply yet:

I have wondered for a few years why Johnathan Turley is considered an objective analysis on legal matters involving National Security and Presidential Authority when he had a major dog in that hunt:

From Las Vegas Review Journal: http://www.reviewjournal.com/webextras/area51/1997/law.html

SAN FRANCISCO -- Appeals judges ridiculed arguments Wednesday by a lawyer who urged them to disregard national security concerns and allow him to sue the government for harm suffered by workers at the classified Area 51 base in Nevada.
Judge Pamela Rymer of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at one point even scolded Washington, D.C., attorney Jonathan Turley for making exaggerated arguments.
"You have a serious problem here, Mr. Turley," she said. "I am trying to get you to explain to me in English."
Justice Department lawyers smiled at each other at times during Turley's presentation. They did not use all their allotted time for oral arguments at the hour-long appeal hearing.
Turley wants the court to overturn a summary judgment made by U.S. District Judge Philip Pro of Las Vegas in March 1996.
He threw out the lawsuit Turley brought for former workers at the classified Air Force installation, commonly known as Area 51, on grounds it presented a risk to national security. The base is in Lincoln County, about 90 miles north of Las Vegas.
Turley alleges the government violated federal environmental laws by its open burning of hazardous chemical wastes at the base.
"If American people knew what is stored at Area 51, they would be outraged," he said after the hearing. "It has nothing to do with national security."
In an interview on the courthouse steps, Turley said President Clinton is the first president in American history to cover a crime by making a national security declaration to block a trial.


I remembered seeing him on the History Channel and remember thinking he had become too emotionally involved in the case. When he started appearing on Fox News as a constitutional scholar I realized that this case -- or more likely his interpretation of the constitution that lead to his deep emotional involvement in the case -- made him far from objective in these matters.

I think?? he lost this one (Supreme Court refused to review??) but has been fighting for years to get documents released from the Pentagon and White House that might allow him to refile his case.

DKK