Jonathan Turley Quotes (30 Quotes)

The fact that you have different results in these cases is itself a problem. I've yet to meet anyone who seriously argues Andrea Yates was not insane. But by sticking to a rigid standard of only knowing right and wrong, you exclude the most common forms of insanity people responding to evil voices.

The Rhode Island decision bucks a growing trend against this type of liability. Courts have generally been hostile to the use of 'public nuisance' to hold products manufacturers liable for injuries.

It's hard to describe how many parts of the U.S. Constitution this law actually violates . . . It interferes with constitutional guarantees regarding contracts (to rent rooms), families, equal protection, even First Amendment issues like freedom of association. ... It's hard to believe any attorney actually reviewed this law.

This type of violation should be a textbook example of an impeachment issue because not only is it a federal crime, but it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.

The president's dead wrong. When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The great irony is that she might be saved by Democratic votes.

He's basically being put to death for the act of omission. There would be no limit to how far this type of theory could be used.

He's a man who seems to take his legacy seriously, ... The last thing he wants is to be viewed as the man who ran through Roberts on a party vote.

It's highly ironic that it was the conservatives on the court who overturned so many statutes,

for Ashcroft to serve as attorney general and to protect the right to choose despite his own personal views in opposition.

The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear. At the heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment.

The vast majority of his statements are different versions of legal truisms. We really have not learned anything in these hearings.

The taped message is consistent with my notes as well as my email and telephone communications with editors.

This is one of the most serious constitutional crises that we've ever faced in the country.

The highest points I give Rehnquist is for his sense of long-term judicial strategy,

This is good news for the defense only in that the government really has struggled to bring as much as possible about the art purchases into the case,

Specter wants to hold hearings that will withstand the test of time, not be someone who wants to carry an ideological point to an extreme. He will be very receptive to deep, probing questions from Democratic colleagues. The hearings might get testy, but it would have been a bloodletting with a different chair.

The president's claim to be acting under the authority of the resolution borders on the ridiculous.

This case failed due to the absence of material facts needed to convince this judge.

There's no question that Roberts will vote like William Rehnquist... If he swings, it will be from right to far right.

It's not particularly surprising that a fight between a former stripper and a millionaire's son is good copy. What is surprising is that this case is going to end up in a dozen casebooks and that Anna Nicole Smith will become the mother of probate law for many generations to come. That's not bad for a stripper.

I'm sort of astonished by it. It's like a completely different team at the White House is handling it.

Life on the appeals court tends to move at a leisurely and comfortable pace.

Roberts could not be more conservative on most issues.

What the president ordered in this case was a crime.

While Congress saw some need to loosen the standard in the initial days of a war, it wanted the president to comply with FISA in carrying out surveillance in the United States.

There isn't any question in my mind that this operation violated federal law. And once you determine that federal law was violated, you ... reach a very troubling set of related conclusions.

Throughout this case, the government has denied evidence for purely tactical reasons under the guise of national security.

Prosecutors haven't revealed everything they have, so it's hard to render judgment on them.

The other irony is that Roberts is a lifelong advocate of federalism and states' rights. Like his mentor, Rehnquist, he has a narrow view of the commerce clause.