For his part, Turley opens his broadside against the Democrats citing George Orwell and closing on the Army-McCarthy hearings. It\u2019s a properly erudite framing for Turley\u2019s self-caricature as an academic.<\/p>\n
Except for the way he doesn\u2019t bother to get the quote right<\/em>.<\/p>\n We are left again in that moment with lawyer Joseph Welch in the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954: \u201cHave you no shame, sir, at long last? Have you no shame?\u201d The answer today is clear: No, but I have the votes.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Yeah\u2026 that\u2019s not what he said. In reality, Welch very famously said<\/a>, \u201cHave you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?\u201d<\/p>\n Look, the sentiment is roughly the same. If the guy at the end of the bar quoted it wrong, only a true pedant would correct him. Which is to say I would correct him, but I\u2019d feel a little bad about it. But Turley is not the guy at the end of the bar. He\u2019s a law professor framing a hot take around a historical quote to sound smart even though he cannot be bothered to make sure he\u2019s even got the quote right.<\/p>\n But this speaks to a bigger issue with Turley\u2019s whole schtick. At a fundamental level, he\u2019s just intellectually lazy. The confidence that drives him to (mis)quote history from memory is the same assurance he brings to his slapdash legal analysis. From rewriting Martin Luther King Jr\u2019s life<\/a> to firing off his misunderstanding of civil procedure<\/a> to concocting conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden based on warping space-time<\/a>, Turley just sort of says stuff<\/em>. Accuracy isn\u2019t really a priority. <\/p>\n According to New York Times<\/em> reporting summarized by Alaska Public Media<\/a>, operatives aligned with Democrat Mary Peltola and the DSCC allegedly recruited Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. onto the ballot to siphon support from incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan. Despite this accusation, the other Sullivan says he had \u201cno conversations whatsoever with the Peltola campaign.\u201d<\/p>\n If it did happened as alleged, then it was incredibly stupid \u2014 not because it\u2019s sleazy, but because it wouldn\u2019t work. <\/p>\n Turley\u2019s piece quotes Rep. Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia:<\/p>\n But, in Alaska, they have ranked-choice voting, and third-party candidates are very relevant.\u00a0And so, if you recruited a third-party candidate who can take votes away from your opponent, that\u2019s part of the process, and that\u2019s just how it works in Alaska.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That is not how it works in Alaska. In fact, that is the OPPOSITE of how it works in Alaska. <\/p>\n Turley had an opportunity to dunk on Subramanyam here, but that wouldn\u2019t fit the GOP narrative, so instead he credulously accepts Subramanyam\u2019s incorrect framing and grumbles that the congressman \u201cinsisted that it showed how all states should embrace the widely criticized ranked-choice voting system.\u201d <\/p>\n Except, ranked choice voting is exactly why this tactic would never work. Turley adds with an air of hopefulness, \u201cAlaskans may finally reject the [ranked choice] system this year,\u201d even though recruiting a decoy candidate actually could undermine an election in a normal, first-past-the-post election system.<\/p>\n Alaska runs a top-four primary followed by a ranked choice general<\/a>. If nobody tops 50 percent of first-choice votes in the general election, the last-place candidate is eliminated and those ballots that placed the last-place candidate first will have votes awarded to their second-place candidate in the next round. It keeps running like this until someone has a majority.<\/p>\n If a confused Republican voter could not figure out which Sullivan was which, they would just need to rank both of them<\/em> \u2014 first and second \u2014 in whatever order. <\/p>\n One of two things happens in this scenario: Either Peltola has more votes than both Sullivans combined, meaning there\u2019s no \u201cvote splitting\u201d because the real Sullivan was going to lose anyway. Or Peltola beats each Sullivan individually, but the Sullivans together outpoll her. After the first round (or second round\u2026 there\u2019s a fourth candidate who will disappear first), the weaker Sullivan gets eliminated, and every ballot that ranked him first now counts for its second choice, and the \u201cright\u201d Sullivan wins.<\/p>\n Recruiting a decoy in a ranked choice system doesn\u2019t split votes, it delays the inevitable by a couple minutes.<\/p>\n Preventing vote splitting is the point<\/em> of the system! It\u2019s an instant runoff that asks every voter up front, \u201cif your first choice doesn\u2019t make the runoff, who would you vote for next?\u201d It saves the cost of a second election, and it defangs spoilers. Harvard Law\u2019s Nicholas Stephanopoulos told FactCheck.org the scheme is \u201cmuch less impactful in Alaska than just about anywhere else.\u201d That\u2019s being overly fair to the prospect of a Republican voter who sees two Dan Sullivans, votes for the wrong one, and then turns in the rest of the ballot blank. And, with all due respect for the challenges facing America\u2019s stupid, that\u2019s not an impact worth strategizing around.<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t actually hard!<\/p>\n Yet, as Turley noted, Alaska\u2019s Ballot Measure 2<\/a> would repeal ranked choice and return the state to partisan primaries and first-past-the-post. Trump insists Sullivan \u201cwould win easily\u201d without RCV, even though the system only protects him from the alternative Sullivan. As Reason<\/em> points out, without ranked choice the incumbent would simply lose all of the roughly 2.5 percent the non-senator Sullivan pulled in the primary. The Senator will instead be adding most if not all of that to his total.<\/p>\n A legal analyst would perform basic research on the math and history of ranked choice voting to counsel voters not to imagine threats to electoral sanctity that don\u2019t exist. A conservative<\/em> legal analyst could even use it as an opportunity to mock any Democrat who thought vote splitting was even possible in a ranked choice election. But Turley is neither. He\u2019s a cartoon character that right-wing media hauls out to lend a veneer of credibility to their preferred talking points. <\/p>\n And in this case, the preferred narrative is to accuse Democrats of stealing elections, even if (or especially if) the facts don\u2019t back that up. <\/p>\n We are left again in that moment \u2014 not<\/em> with lawyer Joseph Welch in the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954 \u2014 but with Jonathan Turley. \u201cHave you no shame, sir, at long last? Have you no shame?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s Part of the Process\u201d: Democratic Leaders Embrace Voter Confusion Tactics as Harmless or Humorous<\/a> [jonathanturley.com]<\/p>\n The post Jonathan Turley Botching Famous Quote Just Tip Of Latest Intellectual Laziness<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n Wherever there\u2019s a conservative temper tantrum, Jonathan Turley will be there. Turley\u2019s late-stage career is basically a wrestling gimmick, casting himself to right-wing media as a \u201cDemocrat\u201d law professor making a heel turn. The George Washington Law professor reliably bloviates about how some Democratic party position doesn\u2019t sit right with him and Fox News viewers get to feel like they\u2019ve heard \u201cboth sides\u201d because this representative of the twin evils of academia and vaguely liberal thinking totally agrees with them!<\/p>\n Part of playing this character is sounding like a well read intellectual. Alas, \u201csounding like\u201d is not the same as being one, which is how the professor managed to misquote one of the most iconic statements of mid-century American history.<\/p>\n Turley\u2019s latest post on the Alaska Senate race<\/a> seeks to scold Democrats for not being enraged about the fact that two people are named Dan Sullivan. One Dan Sullivan seeks reelection as Alaska\u2019s senator. Also on the ballot is another, considerably less viable Dan Sullivan. This describes the state of affairs throughout the race, but as it comes to its end, the GOP has finally realized that it may well lose that seat to Democrat Mary Peltola. So, over the last few days, Republicans have rallied around the second Sullivan as a \u201cdirty trick\u201d designed to steal the election from the other Sullivan. In the process, the DOJ went so far as to demand that the state refuse to accept the results\u2026 but only if the Republicans lose. That take has proven to be a loser in courts<\/a>.<\/p>\n For his part, Turley opens his broadside against the Democrats citing George Orwell and closing on the Army-McCarthy hearings. It\u2019s a properly erudite framing for Turley\u2019s self-caricature as an academic.<\/p>\n Except for the way he doesn\u2019t bother to get the quote right<\/em>.<\/p>\n We are left again in that moment with lawyer Joseph Welch in the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954: \u201cHave you no shame, sir, at long last? Have you no shame?\u201d The answer today is clear: No, but I have the votes.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Yeah\u2026 that\u2019s not what he said. In reality, Welch very famously said<\/a>, \u201cHave you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?\u201d<\/p>\n Look, the sentiment is roughly the same. If the guy at the end of the bar quoted it wrong, only a true pedant would correct him. Which is to say I would correct him, but I\u2019d feel a little bad about it. But Turley is not the guy at the end of the bar. He\u2019s a law professor framing a hot take around a historical quote to sound smart even though he cannot be bothered to make sure he\u2019s even got the quote right.<\/p>\n But this speaks to a bigger issue with Turley\u2019s whole schtick. At a fundamental level, he\u2019s just intellectually lazy. The confidence that drives him to (mis)quote history from memory is the same assurance he brings to his slapdash legal analysis. From rewriting Martin Luther King Jr\u2019s life<\/a> to firing off his misunderstanding of civil procedure<\/a> to concocting conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden based on warping space-time<\/a>, Turley just sort of says stuff<\/em>. Accuracy isn\u2019t really a priority. <\/p>\n According to New York Times<\/em> reporting summarized by Alaska Public Media<\/a>, operatives aligned with Democrat Mary Peltola and the DSCC allegedly recruited Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. onto the ballot to siphon support from incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan. Despite this accusation, the other Sullivan says he had \u201cno conversations whatsoever with the Peltola campaign.\u201d<\/p>\n If it did happened as alleged, then it was incredibly stupid \u2014 not because it\u2019s sleazy, but because it wouldn\u2019t work. <\/p>\n Turley\u2019s piece quotes Rep. Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia:<\/p>\n But, in Alaska, they have ranked-choice voting, and third-party candidates are very relevant.\u00a0And so, if you recruited a third-party candidate who can take votes away from your opponent, that\u2019s part of the process, and that\u2019s just how it works in Alaska.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That is not how it works in Alaska. In fact, that is the OPPOSITE of how it works in Alaska. <\/p>\n Turley had an opportunity to dunk on Subramanyam here, but that wouldn\u2019t fit the GOP narrative, so instead he credulously accepts Subramanyam\u2019s incorrect framing and grumbles that the congressman \u201cinsisted that it showed how all states should embrace the widely criticized ranked-choice voting system.\u201d <\/p>\n Except, ranked choice voting is exactly why this tactic would never work. Turley adds with an air of hopefulness, \u201cAlaskans may finally reject the [ranked choice] system this year,\u201d even though recruiting a decoy candidate actually could undermine an election in a normal, first-past-the-post election system.<\/p>\n Alaska runs a top-four primary followed by a ranked choice general<\/a>. If nobody tops 50 percent of first-choice votes in the general election, the last-place candidate is eliminated and those ballots that placed the last-place candidate first will have votes awarded to their second-place candidate in the next round. It keeps running like this until someone has a majority.<\/p>\n If a confused Republican voter could not figure out which Sullivan was which, they would just need to rank both of them<\/em> \u2014 first and second \u2014 in whatever order. <\/p>\n One of two things happens in this scenario: Either Peltola has more votes than both Sullivans combined, meaning there\u2019s no \u201cvote splitting\u201d because the real Sullivan was going to lose anyway. Or Peltola beats each Sullivan individually, but the Sullivans together outpoll her. After the first round (or second round\u2026 there\u2019s a fourth candidate who will disappear first), the weaker Sullivan gets eliminated, and every ballot that ranked him first now counts for its second choice, and the \u201cright\u201d Sullivan wins.<\/p>\n Recruiting a decoy in a ranked choice system doesn\u2019t split votes, it delays the inevitable by a couple minutes.<\/p>\n Preventing vote splitting is the point<\/em> of the system! It\u2019s an instant runoff that asks every voter up front, \u201cif your first choice doesn\u2019t make the runoff, who would you vote for next?\u201d It saves the cost of a second election, and it defangs spoilers. Harvard Law\u2019s Nicholas Stephanopoulos told FactCheck.org the scheme is \u201cmuch less impactful in Alaska than just about anywhere else.\u201d That\u2019s being overly fair to the prospect of a Republican voter who sees two Dan Sullivans, votes for the wrong one, and then turns in the rest of the ballot blank. And, with all due respect for the challenges facing America\u2019s stupid, that\u2019s not an impact worth strategizing around.<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t actually hard!<\/p>\n Yet, as Turley noted, Alaska\u2019s Ballot Measure 2<\/a> would repeal ranked choice and return the state to partisan primaries and first-past-the-post. Trump insists Sullivan \u201cwould win easily\u201d without RCV, even though the system only protects him from the alternative Sullivan. As Reason<\/em> points out, without ranked choice the incumbent would simply lose all of the roughly 2.5 percent the non-senator Sullivan pulled in the primary. The Senator will instead be adding most if not all of that to his total.<\/p>\n A legal analyst would perform basic research on the math and history of ranked choice voting to counsel voters not to imagine threats to electoral sanctity that don\u2019t exist. A conservative<\/em> legal analyst could even use it as an opportunity to mock any Democrat who thought vote splitting was even possible in a ranked choice election. But Turley is neither. He\u2019s a cartoon character that right-wing media hauls out to lend a veneer of credibility to their preferred talking points. <\/p>\n And in this case, the preferred narrative is to accuse Democrats of stealing elections, even if (or especially if) the facts don\u2019t back that up. <\/p>\n We are left again in that moment \u2014 not<\/em> with lawyer Joseph Welch in the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954 \u2014 but with Jonathan Turley. \u201cHave you no shame, sir, at long last? Have you no shame?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s Part of the Process\u201d: Democratic Leaders Embrace Voter Confusion Tactics as Harmless or Humorous<\/a> [jonathanturley.com]<\/p>\n The post Jonathan Turley Botching Famous Quote Just Tip Of Latest Intellectual Laziness<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Wherever there\u2019s a conservative temper tantrum, Jonathan Turley will be there. Turley\u2019s late-stage career is basically a wrestling gimmick, casting himself to right-wing media as a \u201cDemocrat\u201d law professor making a heel turn. The George Washington Law professor reliably bloviates about how some Democratic party position doesn\u2019t sit right with him and Fox News viewers […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":166610,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166609","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166609","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=166609"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166609\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/166610"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166609"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166609"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166609"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n![\"Headshot\"](\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2016\/11\/Headshot-300x200.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\nJoe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n