Fake liberal Jonathan Turley hired by John Boehner

[geek tragedy]

to sue Obama. Same assclown who beat the drums to impeach Clinton.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6178112?utm_hp_ref=politics

House Republicans have hired constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley to lead their lawsuit against President Barack Obama over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

How long before his "Impeach Obama" op eds appear?

[still_one]

1. Whoever said Turley was a liberal? He was one of the asses who told us the SC would rule the ACA

unconstitutional. I guess because he was left with egg on his face he want a redo

[geek tragedy]

6. He said negative things about Bush, which is

enough for some people.

[still_one]

12. As you observed because someone says something bad about bush doesn't make that

Person a liberal

[msanthrope]

15. The google box helpfully provided by our administrators wil reveal many DUers

who have lauded Turley.

Just google my username and "Turley."

You'll see.

[stevenleser]

31. I remember a number of those conversations. I hope those folks are embarrassed

Something tells me they arent

[Prophet 451]

2. You mean, they aren't already?

I've been predicting they'd impeach Obama if they took the Senate for about a year now. They won't have the votes to convict but they'll spin it as "we had the majority to convict, he was saved by a technicality".

[still_one]

3. Let them. Once they start down that road, that will motivate people to come out in force to vote

for Democrats in 2016

I don't think it will happen though

They have nothing to impeach him on

[Prophet 451]

8. Like that matters

Everyone forgets, Ken Starr originally started out investigating Whitewater. They used that to launch an endless fishing expedition and Monica just happened to be the only thing they could nail him on. They'll do the same with Obama; manufacture a "scandal" (which the corporate media will report as fact) and then impeach Obama over that. They'll launch endless investigations, find some minor breach of protocol (and every admin has them), some missed comma or uncrossed "t", drum up a "scandal" over it and impeach him over that. Right now, it's looking like they'll hang it on the peg marked "executive orders" but it could be over the climate deal or even Benghazi.

EDIT: They've started: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025833533

[frazzled]

4. I've always despised him

Now I have (another) good reason.

[Spazito]

5. I guess Turley wants his 15 minutes of fame back...

so he can make money appearing on television again. I think the repubs have had to reach into the bottom of the barrel to find someone to take their bogus case after two more reputable law firms backed out.

"After Second Attorney Quits John Boehner Can’t Find A Lawyer Who Will Sue Obama

For the second time in two months, a law firm has dumped Speaker of the House John Boehner and refused to represent House Republicans in their lawsuit against President Obama.

Politico reported,

Attorney Bill Burck and the Quinn Emanuel firm halted preparations for the proposed suit in recent weeks, according to two sources familiar with the situation. Last month, the lawyer originally hired to pursue the case, David Rivkin of Baker Hostetler, made a similar abrupt exit.

A spokesman for Boehner declined to discuss the status of the House’s relationship with Burck and Quinn Emanuel. However, spokesman Kevin Smith said Wednesday evening that House leaders are considering having the lawsuit filed by lawyers already on the House payroll."

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/30/attorney-quits-john-boehner-find-lawyer-sue-obama.html

Edited to add: Turley isn't in any way a Liberal, even he doesn't describe himself as such, he is one of those Libertarians who are too cowardly to admit it, he dances around it.

[SMC22307]

7. When has Turley identified himself as a liberal, fake or otherwise? (n/t)

[geek tragedy]

9. For starters :

http://www.webcitation.org/6AUNd905W

A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all
By Jonathan Turley

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

[SMC22307]

11. It's not that simple.

And, yes, I know this is from Wikipedia:

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",[8] 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,[10][16] civil rights,[7][17] and the illegality of torture.[18][19][20] Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian".[21] Turley has nevertheless exhibited his disagreement with rigid ideological stances in contradiction to the established law with other stated and published opinions.[10][21]

....

However, Turley has a strong libertarian streak and sometimes infuriates the left with a contrarian position.[10] 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.”[8] Moreover, Turley testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.[32]

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".[21]

....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley

Called for prosecution of Bush regime for war crimes. Supports separation of church and state. Anti-death penalty. Believes the Supreme Court too partisan.

I don't like the individual mandate, either.

[geek tragedy]

13. John Boehner's water boy. nt

[Capt. Obvious]

18. Scalia's crush

[spanone]

10. republicans are insidious in their hatred for the black President.

[MohRokTah]

14. I'm glad he's agreed to take the case

In every legal case I've ever seen Turley comment on, he's been wrong.

Accepting this case means it will be dismissed out of hand due to a lack of standing.

That's how bad Turley is at law.

[msanthrope]

16. Judge Reggie Walton smacked his ass on standing---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=107135

That's still gotta hurt.

[Spazito]

19. Yep, no doubt...

Kudos to Judge Walton for spelling it out.

[msanthrope]

23. Reggie Walton is nobody's fool. nt

[Spazito]

26. I agree, I remembered him from the Libby case...

and read his expanded ruling on denying Libby bail.

I was researching something else re Turley and found this, I don't know if you've already seen the document, it is Turley's written statement to the House, dated July 16, 2014 on the issue of suing President Obama re ACA. It gives one an idea what approach he will take in court, imo.

Here's the link to the pdf:

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/RU/RU00/20140716/102507/HMTG-113-RU00-Wstate-TurleyJ-20140716.pdf

Edited to add: One of his footnotes references the case where Judge Walton took him to task, it's clear Turley is still upset about it, lol.

[msanthrope]

33. What a find! It's even better if you imagine Turley's whiny voice

when you read it!

[Spazito]

34. Oh no! I was happy it was text only, lol...

I started to laugh when checking the footnotes finding the majority of the references are, wait for it, him, lol.

[msanthrope]

35. I think I will dedicate this selection to Mr. Turley....

http://m.

[Spazito]

36. Perfect choice!

Love Lady Day!

Here's my dedication to Turley, it goes well with his 'references', lol

[msanthrope]

38. Kudos to Carly for rhyming 'gavotte.' No shit. nt

[Robbins]

17. This reminds me

why i didn't like him during the clinton impeachment drama.

[Gothmog]

20. I am not impressed with Turley

He is not a true litigator and does not have big firm backup

[rufus dog]

21. But I thought Repubs hate

The academic elitests.

[msanthrope]

22. Turley is a useful idiot....you should google my username and "Turley"

just to see how Turley is trotted out by certain elements on this board when ODS is at a fever pitch.

[spanone]

24. wonder how much mr turley is soaking the american people for?

[msanthrope]

25. That's right....Turley gets the public legal fees teat for this one. nt

[Peacetrain]

27. Good grief..

does it never end

[chelsea0011]

28. Didn't they hire him to look into the NSA constitutional problem?

[geek tragedy]

29. Republicans? ha! nt

[Dawson Leery]

30. Strange how this level of outrage never existed from the likes of Turley

and Jones during Bush's illegitimate reign.

[question everything]

32. This is amazing. Some of us remeber him from Keith Olbermann's show

when he provided the reasonable legal viewpoint on various topics.

[onenote]

37. I've said it before and I'll say it again

Turley is a attention seeking media whore. I wouldn't be surprised if he approached the repubs rather than the other way around.