Talk:Jonathan Turley

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Law C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Can someone describe his political leanings? He seems to be center-left. -Amit (obvious ivan bot)

My read of him is that he is (in USA) anti-DNC and is frequently used by the GOP Congress. On 4 Dec 19, he is the "darling" of the GOP Congresspersons on the House Judiciary Committee. Although his demeanor is "judicial", his words and citations are skewed towards helping the GOP win the impeachment debate. It's especially relevant in that he is shedding crocodile tears over the fate of the Democrats on the committee about their committing political suicide. (My opinions are present in these comments.) -Jayxmn (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His notability is due to his legal scholarship. In theory, he is a creature of the law, not politics. -- Phuongj 02:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is hard alt right at the moment.

A good reference point would be his site and it's heavily moderated comments. With this moderation, and his calls for civility, the comment section openly allows comments that include "Pelosi the Prostitute" while deleting most comments that point out Turley lies. This article will be fixed for conservative bias, or the people lying for the RW here will face repercussions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.210.113 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonathan Turley, was alt right even in the 1990s, when during the Clinton impeachment, he testified advising the US Congress that while Clinton's offenses were not "high crimes and misdemeanors," there was another path for impeachment, based on how the president had denigrated the office of the POTUS, by his receiving a BJ in the Oval Office... He has been a tool of the Republican Party for more than 20 years...Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's a law professor. That means he teaches. Does he teach constitutional law? I knew him as a professor of environmental law many years ago, but now he's referred to as an "expert on constitutional law". When did that happen? BTW, his notability is not due to his legal scholarship. No disrespect intended, but his notability comes in part from his significant and noble work as a public-interest lawyer but mostly from his TV appearances. He got himself famous by talking about the OJ Simpson grand jury and leveraged that into a career as a "legal expert." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.2.84 (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had added this phrase to characterize how Turley is regarded. I did not mean it to be puffery. Thanks for pointing out that it needs a reference.Foobarnix (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification and for adding the reference. Drrll (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has Turley severed his relationship with MSNBC? I have been unable to find out. If he has, the template MSNBC personalities should be removed from the article.Foobarnix (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it. This recent blog post states that he will continue to appear on other networks and the recent NYT story says:

A Current spokeswoman declined to comment on individual contracts, but said that “the vast majority” of the contributors have formal agreements. “Some are exclusive to Current; some are exclusive to ‘Countdown’; and some are non-exclusive,” the spokeswoman said.

It looks like Turley falls into the "non-exclusive" category. Drrll (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drrll for the nice piece of research.Foobarnix (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Jonathan Turley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927220519/http://www.jmls.edu/in_the_loop/previous/2008/01202008/index.shtml to http://www.jmls.edu/in_the_loop/previous/2008/01202008/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110414143034/http://www.law.gwu.edu/Academics/EL/clinics/Pages/POPS.aspx to http://www.law.gwu.edu/Academics/EL/clinics/Pages/POPS.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20071004/opcom_thurs.art.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928052851/http://www.fadp.org/news/20080117%284%29/ to http://www.fadp.org/news/20080117%284%29/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020142944/http://www.fff.org/conference2008/speakers/index.htm to http://www.fff.org/conference2008/speakers/index.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12055360/cover_story_time_to_go_inside_the_worst_congress_ever/6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722223304/http://www.lawdragon.com/index.php/newdragon/leading_08/?sort=name&at=400&tot=100 to http://www.lawdragon.com/index.php/newdragon/leading_08/?sort=name&at=400&tot=100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to edit the lead paragraph to include impeachment testimony on Clinton and Trump which seem to be the most notable thing about him. One sentence that was generic about him testifying before Congress was included. A sentence that included references to Clinton and Trump wikipedia pages and current impeachment inquiry wasn't saved. Deanrah (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lets call him what he is, a putin level gop shill.

He is trash. Let his article reflect that. Unlock it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanrule (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turley has clarified his stance on Clinton and Trump in an article here: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473171-turley-democrats-offering-passion-over-proof-in-trump-impeachment. It should be added to the article and readers can determine whether he is being honest or not. The article now is not written apolitically at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:C280:4100:D1:8438:CE2E:948D (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article, like most, is a RW run admin joke. So a lawyer who is primary known for writing for the RW leaning Hill, who was a GOP witness all the way back in 1998 for impeaching a Dem president, sued the next Dem president for the House GOP(then most likely lied to Congress as yet again a GOP witness to defend another Republican president by claiming he voted for the president he sued), yet the only allowable "political" comment is to link to a BS Politico article that claims liberals love him and that he is left leaning, without context. This will either be fixed or maybe it's time Wiki fold. If this site chooses to bill itself as an encyclopedia, yet lies to the American people because its mods lean right, they need to be revealed. If this leads to personal issues for them, good. Decent people are tired of fraudulent BS like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.219.66 (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia being accused of a right bias is hilarious. There are almost no articles on here without some type of left-leaning bias. Wikipedia is a neutral forum, the article shouldn't be full of your views on politics. Let readers click the citations and decide for themselves if this guy is a shill or not, you don't need to spoonfeed them. Also Turley has wanted Bush tried as a war criminal or did you conveniently ignore that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:C280:4100:6447:9B2:8F23:D109 (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How come almost all of the citations for this article come from Jonathan Turley's personal website? That is not permissible per Wikipedia rules... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turley reaching opposite conclusions on Clinton and Trump impeachments is noteworthy, but this article goes further and claims that his legal reasoning was diametrically opposite in both cases. This seems unlikely as Turley's recent testimony cites some of his 1998 arguments, and in any case the sources cited do not identify any contradiction between the old and new arguments. Is there any evidence Turley logically reversed himself, or only that his analyses applied to different facts reached different conclusions? 73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does appear to be incorrect besides being a violation of WP:SYN. If no objections, I'll remove it in a day or so. 132.159.228.222 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep it. Numerous RS that follow the impeachment news closely are calling it a contradiction: (1) www.businessinsider.com › republican-witness-jonathan-turley-contra...Dec 4, 2019 - Turley "made a number of claims that directly contradicted his previous statements and testimony." 2) www.thenation.com Dec 5, 2019 "Jonathan Turley's testimony was so inconsistent, it contradicted his own previous statements on impeachment." (3) The Hill https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473227-the-shifting-impeachment-positions-of-jonathan-turley "he [Turley] has hovered on both sides of the issue" and goes into detail with numerous quotes from Turley over the years. (4) www.washingtonpost.com › 2019/12/05 "He blatantly contradicted his position pre-President Trump"; (5) "The Independent" (a London newspaper) 4 December 2019 "Today's Jonathan Turley should really have a coffee with 2014's Jonathan Turley, who argued the complete opposite of what he argued today in a newspaper column" Rjensen (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say Turley would not be a Fox legal contributor if he had been for Trump's impeachment. Plenty of attorneys have laid out Turley's contradictions. Editor45687 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Turley's middle name is Robert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD08:EC00:9501:68AE:9604:5ED9 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 25 2020, Dobbs fawns all over Turley; what is up with this? No mention of in article about patronage. Wikipietime (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why no article or explanation as to what this is?

I found this; The J. B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Fellowship is an organization that donates a lot of money to George Washington University's law school. Two of the faculty chairs are named after them. Jonathan Turley, and also Robert Glicksman, who is the J. B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law. Wikipietime (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section is unbalanced. Turley is much more moderate than this in his statements about this matter. See ^{[1] [2] [3]}. This is a BLP and this section is citing social media comments without balance, can we agree to use a bit higher standard and find some real sources if claims like this will be made, and seek balance from other sources? 70.187.200.247 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None other than Steve Doocy had to correct Turley spreading a conspiracy theory on Fox News in November 2020 about voting machines.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/fox-news-steve-doocy-smacks-154849089.html Editor45687 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be written by Turley or his handlers. It reads like an advertisement. This article is long, lists every "award." People much more famous than this guy have much shorter articles. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:FF09:0:109:51D9:8A36:517D (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turley self-describes as a libertarian , and this article is hi biography , so it needs to describe him that way, If that was not enough, I provided a NY Times article that clearly describes him that way. Please stop replacing that with "conservative", relying on inferior sources that do not call him a conservative. You cannot substitute your evaluation for his self description and those of reliable sources. Inf-in MD (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He openly advocates for Conservative nominees to the Supreme Court. Sources indicate he once stated that he supports most of the views of John Roberts.

He's a Conservative. Editor45687 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a direct quote from Turley: "As a civil libertarian, I would be more comfortable with Barr’s narrow interpretation than I would the virtually limitless interpretation of Hemel and Posner. However, in the end, I disagree with both."

https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-free-expression/jonathan-turley-and-the-fallout-from-the-supreme-court-leak/363adb0f-8af3-4b91-8516-f04140766c0f 72.83.204.32 (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump sees himself as the best president ever so it must not always been true how one sees himself. Most legal scholars see Turley as conservative with leaning to right-wing.--Denniss (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going to need a citation for "most legal scholars." And nowhere on Wikipedia is anyone called the "best" at anything without quantitative proof.

This is his personal view of himself, no? If Turley cannot decide his own politics, why are you now the arbiter of truth? A person's political identity is their own to decide. If a person calls themself liberal or conservative, who are we to disagree? Just because he criticizes one candidate more, doesn't mean he leans one way or another. You have to look at his actual opinions for that. So, if he is wrong, you can call his specific BELIEFS conservative but you cannot say he IS conservative. Because it does not appear he identifies that way. It is an important difference.

I would actually argue Turley is more liberal than conservative in the social sense. He has said he "personally agrees with liberals on policy matters." He is staunchly pro-gay rights, anti-torture, and has represented the free speech and religious liberties of protestors, whistleblowers, and Mormon polygamists. People see Fox and scream Republican, but the guy criticizes Trump on an almost weekly basis. Even if it seems he has an odd fascination with Hunter Biden.

The only truth we have to go on here is his own word. 72.83.204.32 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several edits trying to paint Turley as a "conservative attorney" in his opening bio. Turley's legal history and opinions firmly contradict this claim. In fact, in the last election, he stated in congressional testimony that he voted for the libertarian candidate. All of the social views he holds can only be classified as liberal (supporting civil liberties like gay marriage and polygamy as well as self-characterizing himself as a free speech absolutist). While his constitutional interpretations are originalist and he is a skeptic of executive power, this does not make him conservative. Any more than him historically voting for Democrats or representing the constitutional rights of convicted terrorists and the World Bank demonstrators makes him liberal, all of which he has done.

If you feel this is in error, reply with supporting evidence in which he clearly indicates this is the case. However, until then, please stop painting him as conservative to suit a biased political interpretation. To do so would be deny his self-identification which is contrary to the spirit of this site.

See here for a statement from the NY Times which describes the range of his political views: "Mr. Turley is a civil libertarian and a skeptic of executive power who also has a history of sometimes making arguments that please Republicans and irritate Democrats — while emphasizing that he personally agrees with liberals on policy matters."

A section about this should seemingly be added to the page. 45.47.58.122 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the issue so important it deserves its own section? Why quotes? Can't you write the text in your own words? This is clearly Overquoting. Nobody (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]