Impeachment

Agree or Disagree With Him, We Need People Like Judge Napolitano

The Fox News legal analyst is driven by principle, not power. That's a rare commodity in today's environment.

|

Let us now praise Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Fox News senior legal analyst who is currently trending on Twitter because he thinks the Senate should remove Donald Trump from office. I don't agree with him on that—or his views on abortion (he's against), Abraham Lincoln (also against), and a number of other things (including his flirtation with 9/11 conspiracy theories)—but goddammit, we need more people in the public arena who stick to their principles even in the face of constant criticism and vicious personal attacks. One of the main problems in contemporary politics is precisely that people on all points of the spectrum routinely defer to power and popularity on matters of conscience. Not so the judge.

"What is required for removal of the president?" asks Napolitano in his latest column published at Fox News (of all places). "A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted." This isn't a popular view among Fox News viewers and the broadly defined right wing. But the judge is less interested in what's popular than in what he thinks is right. His personal hero is Thomas More, the chancellor to Henry VIII who refused to sanction the king's marriage to Anne Boleyn and was subsequently executed and, later, made a Catholic saint. Napolitano dedicated his 2005 book Constitutional Chaos to More, telling Reason in an interview:

I dedicate the book to St. Thomas More and cite the most frequently quoted passage from A Man for All Seasons [in which More says he would extend due process even to the devil]. More is basically saying everyone is to due process, rights are not discretionary; and his son-in-law challenges him, saying, what about the rights of the devil? And More says, I would give the devil his due because when they come after me, I want them to give me my due. Every human is entitled to the protection of the law.

In a nutshell, Napolitano's argument for removing Trump from office is the obverse of what More is discussing in the passage above. The president, says the judge, is acting like Henry VIII and refusing to abide by the limits of his office; if we let that stand, then there will be no grounds upon which to limit future presidents. In an interview with Reason last November, the judge predicted correctly that House Democrats would charge the president with abuse of power and obstructing Congress' investigation. He also stated that impeachment was "absolutely constitutional" but "probably morally unjust," partly because Trump was merely the latest in a line of chief executives since Woodrow Wilson who flout constitutional limits to power. "No American president in the post–Woodrow Wilson era has stayed within the confines of the Constitution," said Napolitano.

His latest column has made him a "new impeachment hero" among Democrats, writes The Washington Post and no less than the queen of "the Resistance," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has tweeted him out approvingly:

But it's not simply partisan Democrats and #NeverTrumpers who support the judge. The highly principled Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.), who left the Republican Party because he felt it was no longer even paying lip service to the ideals of limited government, writes: "My friend @Judgenap has remained true to his principle."

Like Napolitano, Amash has taken an enormous amount of abuse for remaining true to what he believes, and he might well lose his seat in Congress as a result. (He has already lost backing of groups supposedly devoted to small government.) Indeed, the president denounced Amash "as a total loser" and "one of the dumbest & most disloyal" members of Congress. (Amash explained his reasons for leaving—and why he thinks he will now be more effective in reducing government—to Reason last summer. Watch that here.)

We live in a hyper-partisan, hyper-polarized era; with impeachment, the stakes (and passions) are especially high. But even—perhaps especially—those of us who think Andrew Napolitano and Justin Amash are wrong in this particular instance should salute them for standing true to their principles. They have nothing to gain from their courage other than the satisfaction of speaking truth as they see it. I don't believe they are looking to be heroes or martyrs, and they are certainly not seeking and will not get invitations to all those vaunted Establishment cocktail parties you always hear about on Twitter. In fact, they may well each lose their jobs.

Judge Napolitano, who relentlessly attacked George W. Bush and Barack Obama when they contravened the Constitution, is now doing exactly the same thing when it comes to the current occupant of the White House. As Thomas More explains in the judge's favorite play, A Man for All Seasons, principles must trump personal and partisan allegiances when it comes to such serious matters as rights and the rule of law:

And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man's laws, not God's—and if you cut them down…d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

I think you're wrong here, Judge, but long may you run. We need more people like you, now more than ever.

 

Advertisement

NEXT: E-Verify: Making Life Harder for Workers and Small Businesses, With Enthusiastic MAGA Support

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I agree maybe get more people with principles to write here. Instead of hacks like Binion.

    1. Yeah I only got to the headline and I was like, well this is rich coming from Reason.

      If you care so much about principles, where are they?

      1. KMW whored them out for clicks.

      2. Reason is not one of my primary reading sources. Is it my imagination or have they taken a generally “left” turn?

        I have only read the headlines below, but to me they are not “libertarian” but “Leftist” in tone. Am I imagining a “left” turn ala FoxNews? Subtle but discernable.

        E-Verify: Making Life Harder for Workers and Small Businesses, With Enthusiastic MAGA Support

        New State Department Rules Crack Down on ‘Birth Tourism’ Under National Security Guise

        How a Fake Rationing Scare Highlighted the Absurdity of California’s Actual Water Policies

        Ecomodernism Is the Solution to Man-Made Climate Change

        Trump Lawyer Alan Dershowitz Abandons His Position That Impeachment Requires a Crime
        He says “criminal-like behavior akin to treason or bribery” is enough, even if it’s not “a technical crime with all the elements.”

        1. It is not your imagination. Reason has become Unreason.

          To be fair, Gillespie’s point about people sticking up for their principles in the public square is a very good one, and something we should all take to heart.

        2. “I have only read the headlines below, but to me they are not “libertarian” but “Leftist” in tone. Am I imagining a “left” turn ala FoxNews? Subtle but discernable.”

          That’s because anyone who is not in-line with whatever Trump does is a Lefty to you dumbfucks……and you are Legion.

    2. The comments on this article are a microcosm of the division within America

    3. And would a union have written such an article if Napolitano were pro Trump?

      Doubtful.

    4. The judge has always paid attention to the law. However, his hatred for Trump has derailed his normally principled responses. Ask him any legal matter that does not relate to Trump

  2. >>we need more people in the public arena who stick to their principles even in the face of constant criticism

    because he fails to change his shtick does not mean it is not shtick

    1. but goddammit, we need more people in the public arena who stick to their principles even in the face of constant criticism and vicious personal attacks.

      Intransigence is now a virtue? No room for advancement? Enlightenment?

      Does Nick hold Judge Nap up as some god?

      1. the Eddie Munster hair is a draw

        1. Dillinger, I’ve been trying to “place” that hair. Thanks for the reference to Eddie Munster. It’s also a little like Biff in “Back To The Future.”

      2. Note that he didn’t say that we need everyone in the public arena to stick to principles.
        He also didn’t say that people should never change their principles.
        There is no one right way to be and it’s a good thing to have a mix of principled and pragmatic people engaged in these debates. I hope we can all agree on that, at least.

        1. “I hope we can all agree on that, at least.”

          No.

          /flicks Zeb’s ears.

        2. The author is just plain wrong that the “judge” has stuck to his principles. Yes, he did criticize Bush and Obama for overreach, but I don’t ever recall the man campaigning for impeachment and removal from office for offenses that were significantly further down the road than a temporary withholding of foreign aid. Instead, he then properly advocated for forcing the president to act through the courts, which is the proper forum for such disputes and to force an executive hand. We don’t impeach presidents because they delayed a payment.

          Hell, Obama bombed Libya because it threatened his legacy of “Arab spring”, which failed anyway. He put off the dates for his own legacy health insurance plan and gave away special dispensations to friendly companies and unions. He threatened to withhold federal funds from any school district that didn’t oblige his predilections for unisex showers. He bombed a wedding and targeted US citizens for assassination, and sent billions of dollars in cash to a terrorist despot, fully admitting that these funds would be used to target US troops. He embargoed all oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico in violation of contracts, weaponized the IRS, and had Trump wiretapped on knowingly false evidence. Napolitano never advocated for impeachment.

          This doesn’t qualify as anything but personal. Nap was all up Trump’s butt until he never made the short list for SCOTUS after Nap had told all his friends. He was humiliated, and since then, Trump hasn’t done anything right in his book. This isn’t principled behavior. This is just snotty crying about a personal dismissal by a man who insists on being called “Judge” a full quarter century after his 8 year tenure as a state level Superior Court judge. He should be embarrassed.

          1. And he (Obama) continued Operation Fast & Furious, wherein assault weapons were intentionally sold to Mexican Drug cartels. No impeachable offense there, huh?

  3. Why do we need people like him? Is it because he asks a lot of questions? Does he think he’s a modern day Socrates? Does he have a point he’s trying to make? Does he think he knows where all his questions will lead? Why doesn’t he just say what he has to say?

    1. I see what you did. There?

  4. having TDS is not principled and Napolitano is clearly afflicted and we sure don’t need anymore principled people when when have the entire media conglomerate with “principled” TDS

  5. The world of American politics is a strange place when Nancy Pelosi is retweeting someone on the Board of Directors at the Mises Institute

  6. Where is this alleged evidence? The house managers haven’t mentioned one bit of it. In fact, one of the house managers directly altered the transcript to make it look like it was something impeachable.

    1. And just a few days ago that same house manager portrayed the Ukrainian President as lying over his insistence that he wasn’t pressured or part of a quid pro quo.

  7. Someone once bought me his book as a gift, thinking I’d like it since he’s ostensibly libertarian. That’s where I learned he’s a conspiracy theory driven nutjob whose understanding of history is highly questionable. We need more people like him the way we need more people like Alex Jones.

    1. Which book was it? Genuinely curious.

      1. I honestly can’t remember at this point, it’s been years, and after I certain point I got so frustrated I gave up on it. But I think it was either “Lies the Government Told you,” or “Constitution in Exile.”

        But I remember that he kept making oblique references to 9/11 truther theories, because he’s a truther whacko and they can’t restrain themselves, when it wasn’t relevant to his larger point. One point where he lost me was talking about FDR. It’s his belief that FDR was trying to goad the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. That’s not too far out there since FDR was certainly hawkish and cynics can conclude he was willing to make the trade in order to give America a reason to enter the war. But in doing so he has to make FDR look like some micromanaging mastermind who was intentionally leaving gaps in patrol fleets, who was sabotaging our radar capability (which he didn’t seem to realize was a new technology people didn’t understand), that FDR somehow personally arranged to have our carriers out to sea when the bombing happened, etc.

        For him, there can be no such thing as coincidence, every single dot has to be connected somehow.

        1. That last sentence well describes every conspiracy nut I’ve known. Also describes the best use they can be turned to.

          Give them something new and unknown to focus on and they are dogged and creative. Let them continue to focus on that thing after you know a bit more and understand it and they are like a neighborhood dog that won’t stop barking.

          1. My favorite conspiracy of all time is Oliver Stone’s “JFK” movie. Poor Lee Harvey Oswald, sitting up there in the Texas School Book Depository building, minding his own business. LOL

    2. Alex Jones is doing a character and has never had anybody’s legal fate in his hands. Alex Jones is funny. Napolitano is scary.

      1. Jones is a bit cringeworthy when he sobs uncontrollably on the air.

    3. If you can, what conspiracy theories does he believe in, or mention in his book?

      (Not like I’m going to take the time to read it, but since you already did…)

  8. “The president, says the judge, is acting like Henry VIII and refusing to abide by the limits of his office; if we let that stand, then there will be no grounds upon which to limit future presidents.”

    I cannot disagree with the good judge on this point…but I need to point out to him that that chicken flew the coop long ago. I can find a reason to remove every sitting President in my lifetime (and I am over 50yo), including Obama’s declaration that “I have a pen and a phone”. These impeachment trials have absolutely nothing to do with wresting power away from the President and more about which party is in power.

    1. I think he would agree with you. From what I’ve heard from him, his stance is that every president since Wilson should have been impeached for the conduct. So in his eyes, Trump isn’t anything special on this front, but rather just a continuation of 100 year trend.

      1. “ He also stated that impeachment was “absolutely constitutional” but “probably morally unjust,” partly because Trump was merely the latest in a line of chief executives since Woodrow Wilson who flout constitutional limits to power. “No American president in the post–Woodrow Wilson era has stayed within the confines of the Constitution,” said Napolitano.”

    2. The president, says the judge, is acting like Henry VIII and refusing to abide by the limits of his office; if we let that stand, then there will be no grounds upon which to limit future presidents.

      I can disagree with the good judge on this point. There may not be any principled grounds upon which to limit future presidents, but as you point out, that chicken flew the coop long ago. This sudden respect for the Constitution and the rule of law and the idea that nobody is above the law is utterly absurd and deserves to be treated as the last tattered shreds of principled argument that it is. Nobody gives a shit about principles any more, it’s why Trump’s being impeached, Hillary Clinton isn’t locked in a cage and about 9/10ths of Washington, DC even exists.

      1. This is the real danger = …Nobody gives a shit about principles any more…

    3. “I can find a reason to remove every sitting President in my lifetime” is a subset of what Napolitano’s ” Trump was merely the latest in a line of chief executives since Woodrow Wilson who flout constitutional limits to power. “No American president in the post–Woodrow Wilson era has stayed within the confines of the Constitution,” said Napolitano.”

      I agree. Even Reagan, sad to say. (I might exclude Ford, but I was only 15 at the time, so I might have missed something.)

      1. “I can find a reason to remove every sitting President in my lifetime”

        Show me the Prez, I’ll show you the impeachable offense.

        1. Yes, but we’re not talking about a cynical Beria going after the ordinary citizens for no purpose but to maintain terror. Here we are talking about the most power person on the planet, sworn to uphold the (written) Constitution. That a string of *at least* 11 of them have broken that oath suggest there is a significant problem someplace in the system.

          1. The standards are subjective, not objective. Thus, if one has animus to the person, one can find a reason to impeach him. Beria was merely dropping the mask they (we?) wear.

            1. Impeachment isn’t the solution. Rather, we need a Congress and Senate to overturn and limit the run-a-way powers of Presidents. A great place to start would be a balanced budget. Next, order the President to bring all US troops back to the US from their various stations around the world. When there is no declared War, they don’t need to be overseas. While I’m sympathetic to the plight of the South Koreans, for example, we could just as easily threaten that nut up north with offshore naval weapons.

    4. Yeah, if impeachment had been more common in US history, I’d say impeach the motherfucker. But it isn’t, so I don’t. He’s no worse on any of that than any recent president. And better than some.

    5. “These impeachment trials have absolutely nothing to do with wresting power away from the President and more about which party is in power.”

      Exactly. For all of the abuses of power the past and current presidents have committed (and they are numerous), they only give a shit when it might affect an election or shift power. I expect the GOP to reciprocate in due time….. the wheels will come off at some point, most likely.

  9. Ever since he was suspended by Fox he’s gone off the rails.

    1. Similar that once Amash found he was going to lose his Michigan House District he went off the rails too.

    2. Actually, it was ever since Trump told him that there was no way he was getting a Supreme Court nomination just because he said nice things about Trump during the 2016 election.

      From that point on, Napolitano did a 180 and it’s been all “Orange Man Bad”. He’s no more principled than any other bitter clinger who found out that their desired patron wasn’t going to take them to the next level.

  10. Well said. (And I don’t agree with him on this ether)

  11. I’m just surprised he hasn’t yet been fired by Fox.

    1. We’re all surprised you haven’t killed yourself
      Yet

      1. If he was capable of shame he would have. Fortunately enough for him he isn’t.

      2. And disappointed, don’t forget disappointed.

  12. This Democrat House Impeachment is a joke, so anyone who thinks the Trump Impeachment is reasonable is a joke in my book.

    Evidently Judge Napolitano is a joke.

    Most judges dont like Due Process and the Constitution, so it fits him being a judge. What I superficially heard, he seemed different.

    1. You need to quit sniffing glue if you think this impeachment is a joke, it’s as serious as a heart attack. There’s a huge chunk of the electorate applauding the Left’s promises of “fundamentally transforming” this country instead of recoiling from the horrifying threat that “fundamentally transforming” really is. They’re whining about Trump threatening our most sacred institutions of democracy while at the same time campaigning vigorously on the promise that they’re going to burn them all to the ground. You’re a fool if you don’t take them at their word.

      1. Yes, it’s a very sick joke because many will think this is a reasonable process. Woe to the next Prez. 46 may be the last.

  13. Napolitano is an insane partisan utterly incapable of objectivity and so stunningly ignorant of the law that it’s absolutely fucking horrifying that he sat on a bench and had people’s lives in his hands. Like truly fucking frightening. It really makes you wonder whose lives were destroyed because of his incompetence and abject legal ignorance. The state of New Jersey should consider reviewing any cases he oversaw.

    1. Partisan? Of what party?

  14. I agree that Trump could / should be removed; but the problem is that Obama did worse (his phone and pen, his recess appointments, his droning American citizens, his sucking up to Iran, Libya, on and on goes the list), Bush x2 did worse, Clinton did worse and got impeached for such a trivial matter ….. if those weren’t impeached, why start with Trump? If Trump is impeached and removed, the next President will have a mighty low bar, and that suits me fine, except no one will want to, because they have the manners that Trump lacks.

    Trump’s only “real” crime is being unusual, not being a typical political liar, but being his own brand of liar, and pissing off the political establishment.

    1. Reason follows this up with Trump removing EPA protection for mud puddles. This is the kind of over-regulating which should have prompted impeachment, and should have applied to every regulator involved. This is what I mean by saying Obama did far worse.

      And the final straw for the Dems was what, alluding to Biden being corrupt?

      This impeachment is a farce, just as the previous two were. Nixon’s was not, and the proof is he resigned rather than fight it.

      Maybe there’s a lesson there.

      1. Fuck off twice SQRLSY.

        1. He’s right this time. Nixon resigned because Goldwater et al realized he could not govern effectively and had clearly suborned perjury and paid off operatives for their silence. Without the tapes, however, he would have survived.

    2. Fuck off SQRLSY

  15. Nothing says principle like carrying water for the CIA and FBI by repeating the Russia hoax for months. Nothing says principle like going to bat for the CIA and FBI spying on Americans because Orange Man Bad or something.

    The fact that Nick feels the need to claim Napalatano is so principled, shows how far Natolitano’s stock has fallen and how badly he has sold out his integrity over the last three years.

  16. This is a good article by Nick Gillespie. I too disagree with Judge Napolitano but agree with his principled stand.

  17. I would give the devil his due because when they come after me, I want them to give me my due.

    You know who else gave the devil his due?

    1. The damned Yankees?

    2. Johnny.

      1. THANK YOU.

        1. I’m surprised T isn’t running w/ “In America” as the theme

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kB7OR161-U

    3. Blue Oyster Cult

  18. These sorts of articles are why NG is the best writer Reason’s got. This is the impeachment article that JS wishes he could write (sorry, couldn’t resist).

  19. Odd that a libertarian publication hasn’t written about the claims of Ukraine as a vital interest to national security that requires paying them tribute.
    Fitting that Reason remains silent on it

    1. Ukraine? More like OURkraine!

      1. Not bad.
        7.5

        1. It’s a reference to the video game “BROFORCE”

  20. Schiff just played a video of McCain talking about how important Ukraine’s well being is to Americans.
    John fucking McCain.

    1. The same McCain that democrats called a racist, and warmonger when he was alive and running for president.

  21. This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down…d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

    That’s a fine sentiment, but so is this: “Give me liberty or give me death.”

    That wasn’t simply a fine turn of a phrase or some over-blown bit of rhetoric – it was a literal act of treason, everybody knew it, everybody knew what the punishment for treason was. Our Founding Fathers were not patriots, they were traitors. They overthrew their own government, they overthrew every one of those man-made laws this country was planted thick with, they faced the winds that blew. They didn’t know what would follow, but they took the risk.

    You know why they were willing to risk facing the devil? Because there comes a point where a man has to say to himself, “Fuck this shit, I’d rather be dead than to live one more day like this.” And people who’ve calmly and rationally decided death is an acceptable alternative are dangerous people.

    1. And people who’ve calmly and rationally decided death is an acceptable alternative are dangerous people.

      Hence the Mooslim ban.

    2. “ Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

      ― H.L. Mencken

    3. I like the recent tone from jerryskids.
      Preach

    4. You will notice, however, that he wasn’t saying “give me liberty or give me death” until he was reasonably confident the fight was winnable. And our founding fathers didn’t exactly cut down the laws of man and face the winds. Which I think is actually the reason the American revolution turned out so much better than most revolutions. They more or less kept a functioning social structure and held on to the rather effective legal tradition of English Common Law.

      1. With massive changes via the US Constitution and protected rights the Brits never would have allowed.

  22. “We” paleface? Hizzonner the T-Party totalitarian could do actual good were he to shut up and vote libertarian.

  23. Gillespie keeps saying he disagrees with Nap on this, but I’d like to understand exactly why.

    Does he take issue with Napolitano’s characterization of what qualifies for impeachment? Does he believe the established facts don’t meet that characterization? Or does he simply think Trump is guilty but hey, so were other guys so what are ya gonna do?

    1. In a podcast he seems to think it is not a serious matter and sets a bad precedent.

  24. Love Gillespie and Napolitano, however it’s quite ironic that Gillespie wrote this article about how principled a stance Judge Nap has taken, when the Judge raved about the President’s constitutional virtues, until he decided.. took out behind the barn and shot.. the idea of appointing Andrew Napolitano for that Supreme Court vacancy.

  25. In commenting on Trump’s attack on Qassem Soleimani, Judge Nap intimated that every American serviceperson who killed anyone in combat since September 7, 1945 is guilty of murder because there was no declaration of war.

    1. As a Vet, I would somewhat agree with this.

      At 18 years old, I assumed those in power respected the Constitution and their Oath to protect and defend as much as I did.

      As I got older, predictably, I learned that obviously this is not the case.

      There was yet another undeclared war to be had, with a country that could not have possibly seriously harmed the United States, filled with people who’s most valuable possession was a goat.

      Murder is probably too harsh to extend to every enlisted man/woman in the ranks. But I was at least an accessory to a crime.

      1. Then turn yourself in to the police

        1. For what?

          I mean if I were selling fresh milk or smoking pot, selling individual cigarets or carrying a firearm, fishing or adding an extra bathroom to my house…I’m sure they’d be interested.

          Bombing a 3rd world country, killing the innocent, imprisoning and torturing people without judge, jury or trial….they wouldn’t give two shits.

  26. Nick Gillespie needs to have his brain examined A. S. A. P.

    1. Doctors dont have a disease name for what Gillespie has. We call it TDS for now.

  27. He’s principled. Good.

    So why is he not featured here anymore?

    Asking for a friend’s friend.

  28. People who feed from the tax trough don’t have principles.

    1. Nor imagination

      1. And should be excluded from voting.

  29. NO ! He is not principled. He was strongly for Trump until he asked him for appointment as a judge. When he wasn’t given the appointment he became strongly anti-Trump.

  30. Freedom Watch was an incredible show…the judge was on fire every night and who he brought on were def not on the 3×5 card of allowable opinion (shout out to Tom Woods). Then Nappie went south…not sure why but assume the wokes had some incriminating images or something.

    I think he is right on abortion and to some degree Lincoln violated the constitution and natural rights but his obsession with “orange man bad” is getting a little boring. Hell we are in an existential battle with statists and bolsheviks..Trump is a short term comet but one that is protecting us from some very bad wokes…the last few year have proved the visceral hatred the media and public sector elites have for American of certain background and beliefs …it’s Trump or getting sent to the gulag by former Russian bolsheviks who have taken way too much power in this country. Nappie needs to get on the right team…

  31. Drunk morons are a dime a dozen, Napolitano is nothing special.

  32. Judge Napolitano recently wrote an article published in Fox in which he suggests that Trump should be removed.
    In it he repeats the same tired reasoning that we’ve been seeing in all the left wing media, reasoning that has been thoroughly and very completely discredited.
    Three things worth noting: one, the left now loves Judge Nap, with even Pelosi tweeting favourably about him. Secondly, the article is in Fox – yet Fox is supposedly the bastion of right wing thinking, the ‘faux news’ people, never to be trusted.
    The third is more to the point I want to make – the article’s comments section is obviously very full of remarks. However, no one is calling for Napolitano’s killing, no one is being unutterably rude, no one is suggesting that Nap be outed in public, etc. etc. In fact, the worst comment I’ve seen is that Napolitano has lost his mind, or is “flaky”. The overall tone of the responses is disappointment.
    Consider what happened to Professor Turley and Alan Dershowitz, both democrats, when they spoke out, not to say Trump was innocent but to state that he was deserving of due process and/or that the articles were not valid or appropriate.
    The left went bonkers, bat sh*t crazy. Both men were vilified online and by the media, both faced death threats and, in Dershowitz’ case, he has been personally shunned in his northeast vacation home area, which is a haven for wealthy democrats.
    The response to these two men as compared to the response to Judge Napolitano is remarkable. The judge was treated
    disdainfully by some on the right, but with no hatred. The two other men and how they were treated by the ‘tolerant’ left?
    I’m surprised they haven’t requested personal protection.
    And yet conservatives are the evil ones? Colour me deplorable.

  33. Judge Nap pretends that his opinions about constitutional meaning has validity, but they are just his opinions. Same goes for SCOTUS, where one judge gets assigned the job of defining constitutional meaning, for each case decided. Judicial decisions interpret the meaning of laws and constitutions, according to the biases and values of the judges. Judges twist and torture language and legal history and facts, to suit their own view of a preferred outcome. Law is necessarily subjective because men and women decide what it means, on an ad hoc basis.

  34. Judge N may be on meds. His very latest Op-Ed is erroneous. He claims Trump is being impeached for “Contempt of Congress” (the Judge’s own words). He goes downhill from there. Sad.

    1. It’s hard not to have contempt of Congress.

  35. The Fox News legal analyst is driven by principle, not power. That’s a rare commodity in today’s environment.

    In other words, he is an intellectual who makes his money by saying things that get him media gigs; he never has to make actually hard choices and live with the consequences.

    Thanks, but we don’t need people like him.

  36. The comments on this article are a microcosm of the division within America

  37. What we need is for one of this legal beagles to come clean on the deceptive tactics in law. I’m still waiting for that one.

    I’ve always admired the judge, despite his vocation. I’ve been through the system and I’ll be the first to admit: I know first hand what is meant by circler arguments. Oh, I had the misfortune of having a court appointed professional liar.

    If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then why don’t they teach us? I never thought I’d be telling my 12 year old son to never, ever talk to the police.

    I’m just dying to hear an explanation for the all CAPS name. You can’t tell me it means nothing. You try to file a document without falling the rules of grammar. Let me know how that works for you. No, there’s something to this, but you’ll never get it out of the judge nor any attorney.

    BTW, If they (attorneys) find out that you know a little bit more than they think you do, they’ll consider you as belligerent, hostile, and rebellious.

    1. We have rule of man for various reasons but one reason is corruption of rule of law.

      Rule of law entails firm law thatis hard to change that we all know and understand the consequences. Crime of murder is an example. Its been around for centuries, the reasoning behind murder is Reasonable to most people, and the punishments are well understood.

      Lawyers want to make money off complexity of law and exploiting vagueness in constitutional and statutory law. Its why many people consider lawyers scumbags.

      1. judges are just politically connected lawyers.

  38. Now that the TRUTH is coming out concerning the FISA court clown judges, it is best to NOT trust any of the biased and misdirected legal scum.

  39. Judgie POO Napolitano forgets AG and plotter Rod Rosenstein said not 1 vote in the 2016 election was changed by Russian meddling.. PS. USA meddles in elections all over the world so what do you expect?

  40. This sentence is incredible:
    “The president, says the judge, is acting like Henry VIII and refusing to abide by the limits of his office; if we let that stand, then there will be no grounds upon which to limit future presidents.”

    The author is comparing Trump and what he has allegedly done with Henry VIII whom we have paper work on ordering the trial and giving blessing to the execution of Thomas More.

    For starters; I have not heard a single allegation of Trump ordering the execution of one of his own subjects because Trump didn’t like the person’s beliefs. But more over, MOST Presidents have done far graver things in ordering military actions without a Declaration of War.

    Lastly, Henry VIII did give Thomas More a trial. That was mentioned in these comments that some recent presidents did not even extend that much their subjects.

  41. In truth, this assholito slug is pissed because trump refused to make him a federal judge. Tell the truth in your articles fart face.

  42. Yeah we need more delusional nevertrumpers who are incapable of parsing truth from pure fiction.

  43. If you had to choose, which would you rather have on the bench:

    Nancy Grace
    Napolitano

  44. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page……………..> http://www.money34.com

    1. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week

      Hello “Judge” Napolitano!

  45. Single Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job But Was Able To Stay On Top By Banking Continuously $1500 Per Week With An Online Work She Found Over The Internet… Check The Details….. Read more

  46. which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page……………..> Read more

  47. Being principled about being wrong is no principle at all. It’s vanity and smugness. Give the Devil his due process, by all means, but do it with a long spoon.

    This comment not approved by Silicon Valley brain slugs.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.