Criticism of Extremism in Politics
On Friday, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, expressed his concern about a worrying trend he sees among Democrats, suggesting they are moving towards extremism.
Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri has initiated an investigation into a Democratic organization based in California, alleging possible financial backing for the violent protests that took place during the recent riots in Los Angeles. During an appearance on “Ingraham’s Angle,” Turley commented on the party’s motivations, suggesting that they are fueled by unchecked rage, which leads to extreme actions and decisions.
“It feels like they’ve transformed into a Jacobin party,” Turley stated while talking to host Laura Ingraham. “I’m currently writing a book about this age of rage, and this behavior exemplifies what rage does—it provides a sort of permission to act in ways that people might not otherwise consider.”
He also reflected on how anger can be an addictive force.
“What these individuals fail to recognize is that they thrive on it. It’s almost a necessity for them. Anger is contagious, and I believe it’s quite addictive,” he remarked.
Turley then shifted focus to the legal scenarios involving political figures.
On Thursday, a federal judge ordered President Donald Trump to relinquish control of the California National Guard back to Governor Gavin Newsom. Judge Charles B. Breyer, appointed by Clinton, temporarily halted the Trump administration’s decision to deploy National Guard troops in Los Angeles, extending that order until noon on Friday.
Turley expressed his discontent with the judicial ruling, suggesting that the matter could escalate to the Supreme Court, which historically respects presidential decisions regarding military deployment. “We’re supposed to discuss the law. Public conversations should revolve around what the law necessitates—not the individual in the presidency, their political affiliations, or their parties. This, in my view, crosses a significant line,” he argued.
“This opens the pathway to the Supreme Court, and since Madison’s era, this has been contentious. The Supreme Court has endorsed the notion that the President deserves considerable respect when it comes to military decisions,” he continued. “This opinion seems more like a second-guessing rather than a legal interpretation, which is where much of the issue lies.”
On Friday, a federal appeals court intervened, blocking a lower court’s mandate that required Trump to assume control of the National Guard in California. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals permitted Trump to keep the National Guard in Los Angeles until at least the following Tuesday when a hearing is set to address the matter.
