Jonathan Turley is a Tedious Prat

by Crocker on June 26, 2012, 10:12 am

in Law,Media,Politics

Like everyone else watching cable news, I’ve had my fill of Jonathan Turley, erstwhile professor of law at the George Washington law school. The man’s always struck me as a tedious prat and quite precious. For those of you non-UK readers, “prat” literally means one’s backside but is not easily translatable into US slang. Perhaps the best definition is from the Urban Dictionary: an “ass” or a “clueless person of arrogant stupidity”.

Yep, that’s him. And like most arrogant people, he seems to have no sense of the ironic or the ridiculous. Especially about his recent idea of packing the Supreme Court. He thought 19 justices would be just about right. And Ann Althouse took him to task, which led precious to complain that there’s no civility anymore. To which Althouse ruptured him again.

Obviously, Professor Turley doesn’t enjoy my fun-loving, bloggy approach to his professorly musings and proposals. It’s not what he’s used to, and it’s not what the Washington Post is hoping for when it publishes all those op-eds from law professors to launder its partisan politics into something with that looks scholarly and thoughtful. These lawprofs who experience the inflation of elite media publication — and I’ve been there — do not want other lawprofs tweaking and puncturing them. It might seem that I’m just crossing a line and being unprofessional or insufficiently submissive when I call bullshit — and in this case I literally called bullshit. (“Oh, spare me the bullshit.”)

What I’m doing might seem careless and lightweight. But I am passionate and serious about what I am doing, which is about speaking clearly and showing you things you might not be able to see. Most law professors write for other law professors (as well as elite media and powerful politicians). In this enterprise of career building, they cultivate and trade on respect. Most law professors accept this discipline, because they imagine it’s in their self-interest, and it actually is. In this game, I’m a big outlier. I call out the lawprofs, and I’ve been doing it a lot lately, because —in advance of the health-care decision — the big newspapers have been publishing a lot lawprof op-eds. (By the way, did you know that “19 of 21 constitutional law professors who ventured an opinion” — and who were elite enough to be polled by Bloomberg — said the law is constitutional?)

Good point: just who do these people write for, anyway?

Be Sociable, Share!

Previous post:

Next post: