Jonathan Turley

Here’s Controversial Ethics Position: Universities Shouldn’t Employ Professors Who Advocate Murder

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

In 2020, Prof Erik Loomis, a far, far Left radical (not that there’s anything wrong with that) who teaches at the University of Rhode Island, was discussing the murder of Aaron “Jay” Danielson, a member of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer who perished during rioting in Portland, Oregon. In a September blog post titled “Why was Michael Reinoehl killed?” (Reinoehl is the man suspected of fatally shooting Danielson; he was killed as federal authorities tried to arrest him), Loomis responded to a commenter who had limited sympathy for Reinoehl because he (probably) had shot Danielson by writing,

He killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective…tactically, that’s a different story. But you could say the same thing about John Brown.”

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote Of The Week: Jonathan Turley

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

“As [the WaPo’s Philip] Bump wrote when he was falsely accusing Barr, “it is the job of the media to tell the truth.” This would be a good time to start.”

—-Prof. Jonathan Turley in an epic defenestration of Washington Post Democratic Party propagandist Philip Bump

The Washington Post continuing to publish columnist Philip Bump’s “advocacy journalism (aka. lies) tells us as much about that once respectable paper as MSNBC continuing to provide a platform for Al Sharpton (and Joy Reid, and Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O’Donnell, and Joe Scarborough…). Bump distorts facts and sets out to disorient Post readers, which is, I was taught in journalism class, the opposite of what newspapers are supposed to do. “But he’s a pundit, not a reporter!” you protest? Fine: as the saying goes, he is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts.

Continue reading →

“Apparently Donald Trump Is A Ham Sandwich,” Continued: Prof. Turley Weighs In, Among Others

/ Jack Marshall / 40 Comments

I’ve been looking for commentary by legal and ethics experts I trust that defend Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Donald Trump, now that the thing is in black and white. (Speaking of White: old Popehat blogger Ken White was one of the first I checked. The former Ethics Alarms Award-winner as best ethics blogger has so far avoided the topic, I suspect because he regards explaining why an indictment of someone he obviously detests is a lot of hooey with the same eagerness he applies to having sex with a horseshoe crab.) In the earlier post today, Ethics Alarms looked at Andrew McCarthy’s analysis, which was searing in its contempt for Bragg’s efforts. Later, I discovered that one of the Washington Post’s worst knee-jerk progressive members of its editorial board, Ruth Marcus, wrote,

…the indictment unsealed on Tuesday is disturbingly unilluminating, and the theory on which it rests is debatable at best, unnervingly flimsy at worst.That is a scary situation when it comes to the first criminal charges ever lodged against a former president.

Then she almost immediately demonstrated why I hold her in such contempt by adding,

I’m not saying prosecutors will lose this case. They could well win, and I hope they do, because a failure to secure a conviction will only inflame Trump and his supporters in their claims that the criminal justice system is being weaponized against them.

Got that? She hopes Bragg wins a bad case and Trump is convicted because Trump and his supporters will have evidence to support the “claim” that the criminal justice system is being weaponized against them. Somebody explain to Marcus, a lawyer, though it always astonished me that she is, that ethical lawyers don’t want defendants to be convicted on bogus charges no matter who they are.

Continue reading →

The Rotting American Public School System’s New Philosophy: “If At First You Don’t Succeed, Call Failure A Success.”

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

In the ultimate expression of “The Great Stupid,” New York has gone to a bad Jerry Lewis movie (no, they aren’t all bad) for inspiration in revising its education policy. Faced with terrible math and reading scores for students—in some school, not one achieved what was considered minimum proficiency— a state school board lowered the standards so more students would “succees”. This was the measured response after, as one media source reported,

“A scoring committee that reports to the Board of Regents said Monday that they must take into account the results of last year’s tests for students in grades three through eight. Some schools posted shocking results — in Schenectady, no eighth grader who took the math test scored as proficient. And the scores for the third through eighth grade tests throughout the state were much lower in 2022 than in 2019, a result no doubt of the absence of in-person learning during the first year and beyond of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

No doubt? There are several reasons this crash is occurring. One is that the disastrous decision to close the schools in response to the health “experts” and news media-driven panic over the Wuhan virus seriously (and perhaps permanently) set back the intellectual development of America’s young. Before that, there was already evidence that U.S. IQs are declining, and not just in the White House. The politicized public school system now devotes crucial class hours to teaching black kids that they face a lifetime of permanent oppression in a racist nation, and making white kids believe that their skin shade signifies evil embedded in their DNA. Then there is the little problem of the education profession being riddled with incompetents from top to bottom, as well as today’s children spending more time on social media and video games than reading, while their parents have abdicated their traditional duties to stimulate their children’s intellectual life at home.

Continue reading →

Ethics Hero: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

The Supreme Court this week granted 19 states’ request to temporarily block a lower court ruling that ordered the Biden administration to end Title 42, and agreed to expedite review of the Biden administration’s effort to eliminate the use of an alleged continuing pandemic emergency to justify border officials skipping asylum processing details to quickly expel illegal immigrants. The end of Title 42 will create “a surge of [illegal immigrants] at America’s southern border,” says The Hill. That’s amusing, since there is already such a surge and has been since Joe Biden threw out a virtual welcome mat for those wanting to take the benefits of U.S. residents regardless of what our laws say. The proper phrasing would be “even greater surge than the unacceptable and irresponsible level being permitted already.”

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan had directed the Biden administration to end the policy this month, but the Court’s unsigned order put the ruling on hold and effectively kept the so-called Title 42 policy in place for now. This pleased opponents of the ongoing efforts by Democrats to allow as many illicit immigrants into the U.S. as possible, but many were surprised that the six Justice conservative majority didn’t follow the desires of Republican state attorneys-general en masse. The three-justice progressive minority dissented from the opinion in lock-step, as we would expect, and Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented from his conservative colleagues, based on law, principle, integrity and the Constitution. He wrote in part,

The States may question whether the government followed the right administrative steps before issuing this decision…But they do not seriously dispute that the public-health justification undergirding the Title 42 orders has lapsed. And it is hardly obvious why we should rush in to review a ruling on a motion to intervene in a case concerning emergency decrees that have outlived their shelf life….The only plausible reason for stepping in at this stage that I can discern has to do with the States’ second request. The States contend that they face an immigration crisis at the border and policymakers have failed to agree on adequate measures to address it. The only means left to mitigate the crisis, the States suggest, is an order from this Court directing the federal government to continue its COVID-era Title 42 policies as long as possible…For my part, I do not discount the States’ concerns. Even the federal government acknowledges “that the end of the Title 42 orders will likely have disruptive consequences.”

But the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis. And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.

Well, bingo. Continue reading →

More Evidence Of Ethics Rot In The Legal Profession

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

The combination of The Great Stupid washing over the land, woke indoctrination and bullying, and the politicization of everything has perhaps taken its greatest toll on the trustworthiness of the professions. One after another has succumbed to ethics rot to an extent that one would have been unimaginable. The legal profession has been especially ravaged.

A depressing and horrifying op-ed in the Wall Street Journal told the first-hand account of how the writer was fired from her law firm, Hogan Lovells, for daring to express an opinion that was not deemed compliant with current progressive cant. She wrote in part,

After the Supreme Court issued its Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade in June, global law firm Hogan Lovells organized an online conference call for female employees. As a retired equity partner still actively serving clients, I was invited to participate in what was billed as a “safe space” for women at the firm to discuss the decision. It might have been a safe space for some, but it wasn’t safe for me.

Everyone else who spoke on the call was unanimous in her anger and outrage about Dobbs. I spoke up to offer a different view. I noted that many jurists and commentators believed Roe had been wrongly decided. I said that the court was right to remand the issue to the states. I added that I thought abortion-rights advocates had brought much of the pushback against Roe on themselves by pushing for extreme policies. I referred to numerous reports of disproportionately high rates of abortion in the black community, which some have called a form of genocide. I said I thought this was tragic.

The outrage was immediate. The next speaker called me a racist and demanded that I leave the meeting. Other participants said they “lost their ability to breathe” on hearing my comments. After more of the same, I hung up.

Someone made a formal complaint to the firm. Later that day, Hogan Lovells suspended my contracts, cut off my contact with clients, removed me from email and document systems, and emailed all U.S. personnel saying that a forum participant had made “anti-Black comments” and was suspended pending an investigation. The firm also released a statement to the legal website Above the Law bemoaning the devastating impact my views had on participants in the forum—most of whom were lawyers participating in a call convened expressly for the purpose of discussing a controversial legal and political topic. Someone leaked my name to the press.

Continue reading →

Another Damning IIPTDXTTNMIAFB: President Biden Intentionally Violates The Constitution, Hoping He Can Get Away With It

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

IIPTDXTTNMIAFB are the Ethics Alarms initials for “Imagine if President Trump did X that the news media is accepting from Biden.” The phenomenon has been a theme of the Biden Presidency Ethics Train Wreck so far: The Washington Post isn’t keeping an archive of Biden’s lies like they did for President Trump (and most of what they archived weren’t lies anyway), and Biden has arguably engaged in far more substantive and deliberate untruths in less than two years than Trump did in four. It was a recent Biden lie of breathtaking audacity that reminded me to write about this issue: over the weekend just passed, Biden told an interviewer regarding his student loan debt bailout: “It’s passed. I got it passed by a vote or two.”

No, this was an Executive Order. It wasn’t a bill, it wasn’t voted on by Congress, and it didn’t “pass”—that’s exactly why it is unconstitutional. The scary possibility is that Biden actually thinks it did pass, but I refuse to accept “He’s senile, and doesn’t know what the hell is going on” as a defense for such blatant falsehoods.

Prof. Turley, who is becoming increasingly outraged at the Democratic Party’s disregard and disrespect for the Constitution, blasted away at Biden’s deliberate defiance of the law of the land in a recent post. Noting that Biden falsely (or ignorantly) boasted that the courts “are on his side” regarding the illegal EO despite the fact that the initial law suits blocking it were rejected on procedural and not substantive legal grounds (amazingly, Biden went to law school), Turley fumed…

Continue reading →

Most Unethical Non-Criminal Cabinet Member In History?

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Well, I don’t know. Quite a few Cabinet members have been convicted of crimes in office, and the Biden Cabinet has other bad apples, notably Attorney General Merrick Garland. Still, it’s hard to imagine any federal department head more incompetent or guilty of dereliction of duty than Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Or more of a weasel. To be fair, he is the first Cuban-born Homeland Security Secretary, which makes him “historic” and yet another diversity feather in the current Democratic regime’s cap. And after all, that’s what’s really important, right?

I wish I were kidding.

Mayorkas, you no doubt recall, says that our Southern border is “secure,” apparently using the archaic definition of “secure” that meant “as porous as cheesecloth” in Chaucerian English. He also attempted to install an Orwellian “Disinformation Governance Board, until even the Democratic Party’s captive news media objected, which always signals that the Left’s totalitarian aspirations are getting ahead of themselves. But he really secured his place in the U.S. Cabinet Members Chamber of Horrors, it has now been revealed, by deliberately condemning border agents of whipping illegal immigrants along the Texas-Mexico border when he knew the allegations were false.

Continue reading →

Prof. Turley’s Mutual Defense Proposal To Battle Ideological State Government Boycotts

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Ethics Alarms wrote about the efforts by some “blue” states, notably California, to unethically bully other states into bending to their partisan will in opposition to their own voters in this post from last month, condemning the practice. That essay involved California’s “black list” preventing state travel to others states that in California’s consistently warped assessment, “discriminates” against LGBTQ Americans—you know, like by not allowing biological men to instantly become female collegiate swimmers just by saying they are.

This is not the first coercive effort of its kind, nor will it be the last. Major League Baseball was convinced to move its All-Star Game in 2021 from Atlanta because a reasonable Georgia voting integrity law was falsely labeled as “voter suppression.” California was at it again last week, as Gov. Newsome called upon Hollywood production companies to stop filming in states such as Georgia or Oklahoma with strict anti-abortion laws. In other states, legislation is developing  to block any state contracts with businesses in states with anti-LGBTQ legislation or pro-gun ownership laws, or that significantly limit abortion.

The July EA post concluded,

California’s attack on pluralism, democracy and federalism as well as its unethical efforts to try to influence governing decisions of other states is far, far worse that any imagined “discrimination” the Golden State claims to be reacting to. California has no respect for other states; it refuses to acknowledge that everyone doesn’t agree with California’s frequently warped vales and priorities and that there is nothing wrong with that; and it is deliberately acting as an agent of discord and division in the nation at a time when such conduct by a state, an official, or even a celebrity is particularly irresponsible.

California’s boycott list expresses exactly the same un-American spirit as bars, restaurants and other establishments that refuse service based on political views (Ethics Alarms has discussed that revolting trend many times)….

How can California’s toxic conduct be stopped? …This may be one of those rare exceptions where “tit for tat” becomes ethical as a last resort. The other states should consider taking retaliatory measures against California, and execute their own boycotts.

Now Jonathan Turley, the rapidly red-pilling Constitutional Law scholar from George Washington Law School in D.C., has proposed a formula to do exactly that. He writes in part,

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Secret Service Defies Orders!

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

As soon as I saw the headline to Prof. Turley’s latest post on his blog, “Res Ipsa Loquitur” I knew we had an ethics quiz: “Presidential Protection or Abduction: Why Secret Service Wrong for all the Right Reasons on Jan. 6.”

Turley’s article was prompted by one aspect of the Jan. 6 Commission testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson that President Trump ordered his official SUV to take him to the U.S. Capitol to be on hand with his supporters as they rallied (it turned out to be a “mostly peaceful” rally) against what Trump had told them was the stolen 2020 election. According to the witness, that she was told that T his Secret Service security team refused, causing the President to become furious.

Turley’s take, in brief:

…the Secret Service is trained to take immediate action to protect a president. On the other hand, it cannot effectively control the presidency by controlling a president like a modern Praetorian Guard. In the end, if this account is true, the security team was likely wrong in refusing the order of the President to be taken to Capitol Hill….Trump intended to do exactly what he promised and ordered the Secret Service to take him to the Capitol. But Tony Ornato, White House deputy chief of staff for operations, and Bobby Engel, who headed Trump’s security detail, reportedly refused.

…If true, the security team’s motivation certainly was commendable. It probably prevented Jan. 6 from getting much, much worse…what was the authority of the security team to refuse a direct order from a sitting president to go to Congress?

…The Secret Service has always assumed discretion in seizing a president to protect him from immediate harm [but there was no immediate harm threatened]…Trump reportedly decided he wanted to lead the protests to the Capitol and didn’t care about the security uncertainties — and he actually had a right to do so. Presidents can elect to put themselves in harm’s way… The Secret Service has no authority to put a president into effective custody against his will… In Trump’s case, he reportedly said he did not want to go back to the White House but was taken there anyway.

…This act of disobedience may have saved the country from an even greater crisis…

In the end, the security team was correct on the merits but probably wrong on the law. This was not an unlawful order, and a president must be able to control his own travel. In other words, the agents were wrong for all the right reasons.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is: Continue reading →