The Unassailable Theory Faces a Potential Unanimous Rejection JONATHAN TURLEY
Twenty-four years ago, I was covering the Bush v. Gore case for CBS. I had just left NBC as an analyst when the election controversy exploded. While there were the usual partisans and some outlets slanted the merits, the coverage was overall balanced and informative.
This is not a case of the Court changing. We have changed as legal analysts. The Court itself is deeply divided on some issues. However, the justices gave a fair hearing to both sides. That is not the case with the coverage.
Looking back at the coverage, most legacy media called upon the same legal experts who have previously endorsed virtually every claim made against Trump. They predictably declared Trump as clearly disqualified despite the fact that this theory has never been embraced by the federal courts.
Figures like federal court Judge J. Michael Luttig who called these arguments against disqualification as revealing, fatuous, and politically and constitutionally cynical. Others insisted that the argument that the provision might not apply to presidents as absurd. That was the argument pushed by Justice Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson.
Many of the media turned to Professor Laurence Tribe despite a long record of constitutional claims rejected by the Court, in some cases unanimously. Tribe assured the public that the theory was unassailable and also insisted that the theory (later voiced by Jackson) is an absurd interpretation.
It is important that such views are heard in the coverage. The problem is that the media has, once again, pushed this novel (and in my view unfounded) theory to the point that many assumed that it was indeed unassailable.
Jonathan Turley. I’m no con law expert, but at least I was right in seeing this case as a winner for Trump. I suspect it won’t be unanimous, however, with Hon. Justice Sonia on the panel.