Can someone explain to me why Turley is held up to be this great legal expert?

As upset as I'm with his spouting the RW talking point about Sotomayer's intelligence, I'm much more furious that he said Thurgood Marshall lacked the intelligence for the court. I'm seriously just dumbfounded how a sniveling, smug asshole who's not even good enough to wash someone like Marshall's robes, has the nerve to question the intelligence one of the greatest SCOTUS justices. Turley can kiss my black ass

And they say he is because he says things that, while being completely divorced from reality, do grab people's attention. Stuff like, 'the Congress is Constitutionally bound to impeach Clinton.' Or that 'Nancy Pelosi is in violation of the Constitution for not impeaching Bush.' Or, 'Sotomayer is unintelligent.'

...are out of line IMHO.

continues to have him on on almost a daily basis.

He seems to be very, very concerned about the constitutionality of decisions and actions....at least where a Democrat is involved.

what else could you possibly need to know?

welcome to DU! :hi:

and you make very good points. :hi:

To think people actually wanted Obama to nominate this guy to the court.

I mean, have you noticed the collective IQ of the Turley fanboy community?

He was one of the biggest supporters of impeachment. He tilts his head and appears so sanctimonious. Instead, he's just another talking head enthralled with his own voice.

reason some here wanted him appointed to SCOTUS....

Wanted Turley appointed to the SCOTUS?

No... no way. I must be reading that wrong.

Some right here on DU thought he would be a great pick for SCOTUS.

:spray:

That's gonna have me giggling all day now... oh, the hilarity... :rofl:

.... and he can do it all with a big grin on his face .... it's a great talent.

Todays comments prompted me to look over his background and he truly hasn't done jack shit. Certainly, not enough for him to be labeled some expert or to question the intelligence of Marshall. Marshall the "intellectual lightweight" argued probably the important case of the 20th Century in Brown v Board of Education and this turd hasn't taken on a case of even remotely the same importance.

When you look at his words during the Clinton impeachment, he doesn't seem to think that the impeachment was valid. But rather, he thoroughly enjoyed arguing it. He even said that he could almost see the founding fathers in the halls as these great scholars argued the point. So, to him, a great justice is someone who can come up with a 10 installation volume of an opinion on the proper use of powdered wigs.

I saw another scholar who took the opposite view. He argued that Warren was able to concisely argue his point. That he didn't need 84 pages to provide a sound, legal opinion.

I think Turley is purely about academics sometimes. I wonder which president he would rank as the best since who we usually rank as the best presidents would seem to have Turley screaming for impeachment.