Liberal Lawyer Turley to Represent House in Lawsuit Against Obama Administration

[Stephanie]

Good, call your Reps in Congress and tell them to fight anything Obama's wants to do by EOs.

Not one of them has been GOOD for us or our country. Hold Republicans feet to the fire

 

[TemplarKormac]

As a side note, how does framing your thread as a call out to the other side "showing up the two sides"?

Looks to me that you're only targeting one "side"....

Actually, I'm calling Republicans out for engaging in this posturing. That's all this lawsuit is. I find it ironic that a liberal would be jumping into the fray. Nobody seems to know what to believe up there.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Tell me something I don't know. Being a libertarian, I think I know a thing or two about that.

Then why do you insist on constantly pigeonholing everyone else into your liberal/conservative paradigm when it suits your argument?

Maybe because I want to show the two sides up? I think it's funny that people believe there are only two sides. It's funny to expose the pointless bickering and whining they engage in. For example, Republicans extending the Patriot Act, or John Gruber calling people stupid. In hyper partisan Washington, there are only two sides, not three, four, or ten. Maybe out here in the grassroots there might be more than one, but I'm not talking grassroots.

In reality, there are no sides or teams.

The nonsense that goes on in Washington isn't reality, it's just a show.

Precisely. And thus why I post what I do. It is nothing but pure entertainment for me.

How does labelling Turley a "liberal" in the first word of your thread title meant to "show up" "both" sides?

See the above post, since you seem only interested in derailing my thread.

 

[HenryBHough]

Wong trial.

The treason trial is the one that's most needed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

TK claims to be a libertarian. He just agrees with every GOP position by accident.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As a side note, how does framing your thread as a call out to the other side "showing up the two sides"?

Looks to me that you're only targeting one "side"....

Actually, I'm calling Republicans out for engaging in this posturing. That's all this lawsuit is. I find it ironic that a liberal would be jumping into the fray. Nobody seems to know what to believe up there.

Turley also testified against Bill Clinton during his impeachment.

The "irony" that you see is only based on the pigeonholing of Turley as a "liberal".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Then why do you insist on constantly pigeonholing everyone else into your liberal/conservative paradigm when it suits your argument?

Maybe because I want to show the two sides up? I think it's funny that people believe there are only two sides. It's funny to expose the pointless bickering and whining they engage in. For example, Republicans extending the Patriot Act, or John Gruber calling people stupid. In hyper partisan Washington, there are only two sides, not three, four, or ten. Maybe out here in the grassroots there might be more than one, but I'm not talking grassroots.

In reality, there are no sides or teams.

The nonsense that goes on in Washington isn't reality, it's just a show.

Precisely. And thus why I post what I do. It is nothing but pure entertainment for me.

How does labelling Turley a "liberal" in the first word of your thread title meant to "show up" "both" sides?

See the above post, since you seem only interested in derailing my thread.

Specifically discussing your OP and thread title is not "derailing" your thread.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As a side note, how does framing your thread as a call out to the other side "showing up the two sides"?

Looks to me that you're only targeting one "side"....

Actually, I'm calling Republicans out for engaging in this posturing. That's all this lawsuit is. I find it ironic that a liberal would be jumping into the fray. Nobody seems to know what to believe up there.

Turley also testified against Bill Clinton during his impeachment.

The "irony" that you see is only based on the pigeonholing of Turley as a "liberal".

The irony is that you only speak out when a liberal is the subject of a thread. You insist there are no sides, but insist on defending or defining what a liberal is. Very confusing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe because I want to show the two sides up? I think it's funny that people believe there are only two sides. It's funny to expose the pointless bickering and whining they engage in. For example, Republicans extending the Patriot Act, or John Gruber calling people stupid. In hyper partisan Washington, there are only two sides, not three, four, or ten. Maybe out here in the grassroots there might be more than one, but I'm not talking grassroots.

In reality, there are no sides or teams.

The nonsense that goes on in Washington isn't reality, it's just a show.

Precisely. And thus why I post what I do. It is nothing but pure entertainment for me.

How does labelling Turley a "liberal" in the first word of your thread title meant to "show up" "both" sides?

See the above post, since you seem only interested in derailing my thread.

Specifically discussing your OP and thread title is not "derailing" your thread.

If you insist.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As a side note, how does framing your thread as a call out to the other side "showing up the two sides"?

Looks to me that you're only targeting one "side"....

Actually, I'm calling Republicans out for engaging in this posturing. That's all this lawsuit is. I find it ironic that a liberal would be jumping into the fray. Nobody seems to know what to believe up there.

Turley also testified against Bill Clinton during his impeachment.

The "irony" that you see is only based on the pigeonholing of Turley as a "liberal".

The irony is that you only speak out when a liberal is the subject of a thread. You insist there are no sides, but insist on defending or defining what a liberal is. Very confusing.

It would be more accurate to say that there are just under 320,000,000 different "sides", not "no sides".

 

[TooTall]

Jonathan Turley is not exactly a "liberal".

That is a matter of opinion.

"Professor Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda", have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian". Turley has nevertheless exhibited his disagreement with rigid ideological stances in contradiction to the established law with other stated and published opinions.

In numerous appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, he has called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, including torture.

In USA Today in October 2004, he famously argued for the legalization of polygamy, provoking responses from writers such as Stanley Kurtz.

Commenting on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, he contends, does away with habeas corpus, Turley says, "It’s something that no one thought—certainly I didn’t think—was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don’t realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us."

He sounds pretty liberal to me.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Jonathan Turley is not exactly a "liberal".

That is a matter of opinion.

"Professor Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda", have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian". Turley has nevertheless exhibited his disagreement with rigid ideological stances in contradiction to the established law with other stated and published opinions.

In numerous appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, he has called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, including torture.

In USA Today in October 2004, he famously argued for the legalization of polygamy, provoking responses from writers such as Stanley Kurtz.

Commenting on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, he contends, does away with habeas corpus, Turley says, "It’s something that no one thought—certainly I didn’t think—was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don’t realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us."

He sounds pretty liberal to me.

What is "liberal" about the above positions?

 

[SwimExpert]

The world isn't divided into just "liberals" and "conservatives".

What? Of course it is. That's how god created it. How else am I supposed to know how to think, if not by selecting from a simplistic false dichotomy? Is there an app for that?

 

[edthecynic]

Jonathan Turley is not exactly a "liberal".

To the Right, everyone is a "Liberal" when it is convenient.

 

[edthecynic]

Jonathan Turley is not exactly a "liberal".

Rachel Maddow Show Jonathan Turley On War Crimes Rachel Maddow Show Jonathan Turley On War Crimes

Outlook When a child dies faith is no defense.

USATODAY.com - Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy

The world isn't divided into just "liberals" and "conservatives".

To a Fascist, it is!

May 12, 2008
RUSH: I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats. Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
Adolf Hitler

 

[TooTall]

Jonathan Turley is not exactly a "liberal".

That is a matter of opinion.

"Professor Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda", have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian". Turley has nevertheless exhibited his disagreement with rigid ideological stances in contradiction to the established law with other stated and published opinions.

In numerous appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, he has called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, including torture.

In USA Today in October 2004, he famously argued for the legalization of polygamy, provoking responses from writers such as Stanley Kurtz.

Commenting on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, he contends, does away with habeas corpus, Turley says, "It’s something that no one thought—certainly I didn’t think—was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don’t realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us."

He sounds pretty liberal to me.

What is "liberal" about the above positions?

It is a matter of opinion, as I clearly stated. These liberals agree with me.

"his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda", have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes,

Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor"

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I felt the need to necro this thread.

As of this moment in time, Jonathan Turley is my Torts professor, and I'm currently studying for his final exam.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

...and he's still not a "liberal".