Turley’s prominence in public discourse relies, in part, on his position as a professor—that status carries with it a claim to expertise on legal matters.
Apparently his expertise led him to conclude the exact opposite of what he is claiming now on an issue of great importance.
When I say “great importance,” I’m not exaggerating. Some Senators have already signaled that their vote in the impeachment trial will turn on this issue. And we know because he was asked to testify at previous impeachments, that GOP leadership sees Turley as an authority.
Perhaps Turley has an explanation for why he has discarded his considered legal opinion.
If so, I would have hoped that he’d presented that explanation before or during the announcement of his new opinion.
At a bare minimum, he should offer it immediately.
But until and unless he does so, I think Turley has done something much worse than offering a poorly reasoned opinion on a pressing current event—something that many of us have done at some point. He has violated the very norms of academia.
Hello to all the people who are here to say that they think Turley should be fired or otherwise reprimanded by his law school
I could not disagree with you more
We can have academic norms without destroying academic freedom
Update: it looks as though Turley is now acknowledging the article, which I’m *very* glad to see.
I understand that some folks (like @steve_vladeck ) are disputing his attempt to reconcile the two. But I haven’t done the necessary work to evaluate this.
For all of the smart people (including some lawyers who follow me!) who keep saying that they have unanswered questions about problems with the election, please read this. washingtonpost.com/politics/us-at…
Whatever questions or concerns you have are simply not based in fact.
I understand that Fox News and various conservative websites keep insisting that there are real questions that remain unanswered.
But they are misleading you.
They're aren't real questions. Just misleading statements and flat out lies meant to create doubt in your mind.
Even the acting US Attorney in Atlanta was surprised that there was nothing to the allegations of voter fraud in that state.
I'm sure he watches the same news programs and reads the same websites you do.
But know he knows that all of those stories are false.
So strange that Law & Crime article questioning whether the Capitol rioters could be prosecuted for felony murder and it *never discusses* the most obvious predicate felony—burglary
As I will be teaching my first year criminal law students later this semester, felony murder is often a question of charging strategy for prosecutors. The defendant has often multiple felonies, some of which trigger felony murder and some of which don’t.
This article makes the classic mistake of analyzing only one possible underlying felony—sedition—and not the other, more mundane felonies, including burglary.
It’s the sort of error that loses students a lot of points on their final exam!
I was very glad to see so many GOP officials condemn the violence and damage caused when Pres Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol.
But I am troubled to see how many continue to either equivocate about--or even explicitly support--false claims of election fraud.
If Republicans want to push for legislation that would make it more difficult to vote, they are free to do so in Congress and statehouses.
But they need to clearly and forcefully denounce false claims that Joe Biden won the presidency because of fraud.
The only reason that Pres Trump was able to rally his supporters and tell them to march to the Capitol on Wednesday was because the GOP failed to denounce his false claims about a stolen election.
Many members of Congress supported his claims even after the Capitol was stormed.
I have seen so many people (including folks on #lawtwitter) comparing what happened at the Capitol yesterday with the violence and property damage that happened in some cities during protests last summer.
Let me explain what is wrong with that analogy . . . . .
To clarify -- my disagreement is not with those who are pointing out that law enforcement didn't respond with the same level of force and arrests at the capitol as it did during BLM protests.
That comparison deserves to be drawn and it raises some very important questions.
My disagreement is with those who are saying that what happened at the Capitol yesterday is so similar to what happened during protests this summer, that people's reactions ought to be similar--a suggestion that those reacting more strongly now are hypocritical.
David has a great point--a lot of people's intuitions about whether DAs have a duty to bring all plausible charges are often bound up in their policy preferences about the particular types of charges/defendants.
To be clear, people often draw a distinction between a prosecutor's decision not to bring charges in an individual case and a decision not to charge a certain category of cases.
These arguments are reminiscent of the arguments we saw in the debate over Obama's DACA policy.
The argument essentially boils down to the idea that prosecutors' executive power gives them discretion in individual cases, but decisions not to prosecute entire categories of cases are akin to decriminalization and so they infringe on the legislative power.
Let’s talk about this story. It discusses a NJ bill that is designed to make sentencing less harsh. The bill is being held up because a lawmaker introduced an amendment that would eliminate the mandatory minimum for one type of corruption. nytimes.com/2020/12/17/nyr…
First, let's talk about the framing of the story. The lede is about how the lawmaker who introduced the amendment has a girlfriend whose son is facing corruption charges. The story minces no words: It says the amendment was added specifically to help that man.
The idea of powerful people helping each other escape punishment is a powerful one. It is the stuff of headlines and outrage, and so I'm not surprised that this is how the story is being framed.