Turley v. Krazner

 There are precious few remaining forums where we can experience a frank exchange of views anymore.  Legacy media is completely devoid of balance.  There are a few podcasts that try- most notably Bari Weiss’s Honestly is probably one of the best, along with The Glenn Loury Show.  Of course, on most college campuses, divergent views are no longer welcome.

While Wokeness has made some inroads at The University of Chicago (it recently graced Critical Race Theory with its own department – Race, Diaspora and Indigeneity), it remains one of the few places where those conversations can take place in public.  Last weekend, I returned to campus at the University of Chicago for a debate between Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley and Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krazner (now being impeached by the Pennsylvania legislature) moderated by University of Chicago law professor Emily Underwood.  Before I get into some of the content, let me just say that for all my dismay over the direction of the school over the past three years, the discussion was conducted in a very civil and respectful manner.  Early on, a few in the audience made some noises but Underwood moderator was quick to tamp it down, and it did not recur.  Despite dipping its toes in the Wokeness waters, The University of Chicago more or less adheres to the Chicago Principles of Free Speech. Ms. Underwood remarked that, “The one thing that we can all agree on is that The University of Chicago changed all of us.”

Krazner opened by rationalizing the horrendous incident at Stanford a few weeks ago in which some Stanford law students shouted down Judge Kyle Duncan, with some students shouting such vile things at him as “I hope your daughter gets raped.”  In the incident the school’s DEI instructor took the microphone and admonished the judge, “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”  In other words, was it worth having him speak?  Krazner trashed the Federalist Society (who sponsored the event), the judge for “taking away rights” and for his non-Ivy League credentials, stating “he has no business being on the 5^th circuit” and “doesn’t look judicial” and managed to smear Florida governor DiSantis along with him.  He reluctantly admitted a few students went too far but did not deserve suspension or expulsion.

Turley’s initial response was simply, “Wow” then went on calmly to admonish Krazner for rationalizations that go back centuries.  There is a long history of making excuses for silencing others.  “Speech is harmful” allows for endless tradeoffs ending in the government’s labeling of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (true speech used to mislead).  Turley’s flat declaration was that the solution to bad speech is good speech.  He considers the current attack on free speech to be the greatest threat to the country.  He characterized Krazner’s core argument as “the students went too far but it was his [Duncan’s] fault.

Turley said that we were living in an “age of rage” but that rage is addictive, giving us a license to silence others.  This country was born in rage and silencing others is a troubling trend.  It is the most intolerant environment he has ever seen.  On almost all college campuses, conservative and libertarian faculty, which were always in the minority, have been largely excluded entirely. 

Krasner further downplayed the Stanford incident, claiming that an incident is not a trend.  But Turley shot back that there have been many than one incident and he tracks them.  The data do no support Krasner’s defense.

Krazner then attacked the Supreme Court itself, with a claim that the court is taking back rights, that it has become polarized and politicized, and people have lost a lot of faith in the court.  He cited “absurd” decisions about the 2^nd Amendment and railed about not adhering to precedent and kicking stare decisis to the curb.  He complained about the undue influence of the Federalist Society on the court and the “trickery” that was used to keep Merrick Garland off the bench. 

Turley countered by stating that he had a lot of faith in the system, that Krazner misportrays the court. In the vast majority of the cases, the decisions are unanimous.  “The justices are not robotic idealogues,” he said., “Furthermore, we want judges to be intellectually consistent.”   He disagreed with the characterization of the court taking away rights.  Rather, these decisions involve collisions of rights.  As the stare decisis, he commented tongue in cheek that “thankfully Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) is still good law.”  He reminded Krazner that the Warren Court overturned 30 precedents and no one at the time claimed that was a threat to democracy.

My bias clearly is in favor of Turley and I make the following observations about the program:

·        Turley went out of his way to express his fidelity to the Constitution, rather than a political party.  “I haven’t liked a president since Madison.”  Turley did not even mention Biden and only mentioned Trump in the context of discussions of the appropriateness of impeachment.as a remedy (Turley, by the way, opposes Krazner's impeachment).  At no point did Turley disparage “liberals” or Democrats as a whole or any members of the Supreme Court.  He went out of his way to make complimentary comments about Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.  Krazner, on the other hand, ripped into the Federalist Society, and the right wing of the court. His account of the incident at Stanford in which he smeared Judge Duncan and excused the Stanford law students for the shoutdown was utterly disingenuous. Duncan had a right to speak without the “heckler’s veto.”  Period.

·        Krazner boasted that he was the first progressive DA (Soros) and that the progressive DA’s now serve 20% of the U.S. population and will soon expand to 30%.  He rambled on about the criminal justice complex, claiming that in areas like Pennsylvania which lost its steel industry, that has been replaced by the prison industry, disproportionately affecting blacks.   He conveniently failed to address the crime surge in his district and the excess deaths by violence as a consequence of his posture.

Later in the day, I ran into Turley at the bookstore and had an opportunity to have a chat with him, and I thanked him for his work on free speech matters.  He completed my “world tour” of free speech scholars – Turley, Nadine Strosser (formely of ACLU) and Jason DiSanto (Northwestern).

And while I enjoyed speaking with Turley, the most interesting conversation I had that afternoon was with a HVAC technician.   As I returned to my car, I passed two maintenance guys- a white 50ish fellow having a cigarette break and a 30 something black fellow.  They saw my alumni badge and the older fellow said “Welcome back.”  So I stopped and engaged them in conversation for a bit.  The older fellow had to take a call and I continued with the younger guy, and we talked about careers.  I told him I was less committed to college as the right path as I once was and he lit up and told me about his own journey.  He went to a Chicago Public High School (CVS) and grew up in the Robert Taylor Homes.  He talked about the fact that CPS stopped offering vocational classes and he thought that was a huge mistake, “Why go to college when you can become an apprentice, make money right away and not have loans to deal with?”  We talked for a good half hour about this.  I felt so encouraged by this conversation.  I had more in common with this young black man from the projects than I did with the smug, bombastic Larry Krazner.  

The civilized debate between Turley and Krazner and the conversation with young maintenance guy left me with more hope than I have felt in awhile.  Free speech survives in this redoubt, along with a bright young man from the projects that now has a bright future in front of him.

Off the Stage

 They’re shuffling off the stage.  Finally.  CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley announced within weeks of each other that they are leaving their posts soon.  It couldn’t come soon enough.   Both of these people that rose to high rankings represent the worst of American leadership since Aaron Burr. Together, they did enormous damage to the Republic.  It is not hyperbolic to suggest that they should both be in prison for their actions.

Rochelle Walensky
Rochelle Walensky took over for Robert Redfield in January of 2021- about a year into the pandemic.  An early advocate of the vaccines, she falsely claimed that if you took the jab, you wouldn’t get it and couldn’t transmit the virus.  Playing fast and loose with data, she failed to distinguish deaths caused by COVID and deaths with COVID.  Caving to pressure from teachers unions, Walensky advocated school shutdowns as well. 

One of my first impressions of Walensky came in March of 2021, as she addressed the nation in a halting voice, barely holding back tears,

“I’m going to pause here. I’m going to lose the script, and I’m going to reflect on the recurring  feeling of impending doom.  We have so much to look forward to, so much promise and potential where we are, and so much reason for hope.  But right now, I’m scared.”

My immediate reaction was, “What kind of leadership is that?”

What followed throughout her tenure was data distortion, flat out lies about the efficacy of the jab and policy recommendations that de facto had the weight of law that inflicted devastation on our business community, our education system, the military, and the mental health of tens of millions of Americans. We still don’t have a good number reflecting how many individuals died from COVID, rather than with COVID.

Most notoriously, Walensky asserted that vaccinated individuals could not transmit the virus, and that was patently untrue.  Her CDC advocated vaccinations for children and healthy young people while ignoring the evidence that myocarditis resulting from the vaccine was more of a risk for young men than the virus. 

Walensky will never be held accountable for her lies, distortions and bad calls.  The damage she inflicted on our society will linger for generations.

Mark Milley
While Rochelle Walensky inflicted incredible harm to our society, particularly our youth, Mark Milley damaged our standing in the world, emboldened our enemies, and, in an act of treason, upended the chain of command.   Like Walensky, he will never be held accountable.  Our enemies are now laughing at us. 

Milley jumped into the political fray in 2020 when he accompanied President Trump to the burned out St. John’s church after mobs nearly stormed the White House, then issued a statement saying that he regretted it, and should not have been there.  His caving to political pressure was the first sign that all is not well with the military top brass.

The most egregious blunder was his admission that he had placed a call to his Chinese counterpart to tell him that he would give him a heads up if Trump ordered an attack because the Chinese were worried about a U.S. attack.  He also blocked Trump’s ability to use nuclear weapons.   In our system of government, those are not Milley’s calls to make. His job is not to de-escalate with the Chinese.  His job is to serve the commander in chief.   No one elected him.   Subverting the chain of command is a treasonous offense, plain and simple.  In an earlier era, Milley would have faced a firing squad instead of a fat pension.

His statements about “white rage,” permitting drag queens to perform on military bases, and his halt of operations so that the military could purge “extremists” belied a top brass more interested in being Woke than defending the nation.

Milley’s judgment was borne out by his results.  He said he was surprised that the Afghan army folded so quickly.  Well, Mr. Milley, we pay you not to get surprised by military developments.  That is a vital aspect of the job.  Of course, there is the matter of leaving billions worth of equipment on the ground to be picked up and used by the Taliban and bartered in the international arms trade. His second mistake in judgment was assuming that Kiev would fold in a matter of weeks.  Here we are, over a year later and the Ukrainians have held off Putin’s forces so far.

Permitting the Chinese spy balloon to traverse the U.S. skies unharassed, collecting sensitive military data was his last most pusillanimous act.  American citizens were nonplussed as reports came in and people actually saw it, and the military did nothing until it had completed its mission and was over the Atlantic. Of course, the administration offered a variety of excuses for its inaction but the fact remains that neither China or Russia would have permitted this over their territory.

The consequences of the Afghanistan withdrawal and Chinese spy balloon debacles will take a generation to remediate, if they ever can be, thanks to Milley.   But Milley will suffer no adverse consequences from the harm he has caused.

When history is written, historians will undoubtedly record these two, along with the notorious Anthony Fauci, as the three actors that did the most damage to the American experiment.   And if America does indeed crumble, they will be seen as some of the major architects of its demise.