Hey Professor what were your thoughts on HRW accusing Israel of apartheid and persecution? I didn't find their arguments very convincing. Some places they distorted the information.
If Israel was an apartheid state, there would be an organized anti-apartheid movement of West Bank Palestinians campaigning for full Israeli citizenship. No such movement exists.
The root cause of Palestinian hardship in the West Bank and Gaza is the conflict with Israel. There is nothing that would benefit Palestinians more than peace with the Jews. The apartheid slander does nothing but prolong the conflict.
Great podcast on JNS with Jonathan Tobin ! It is about time the leadership of the Jewish establishment was critiqued for its cowardice in confronting the anti Semitism of the woke left
Unfortunately the heterodox Jewish movements have sacrificed any sense of commitment to Jewish tradition and support of Israel in favor of the false god known as social justice and its trinity known as systemic racism, gender and climate change.
All the speeches are on line. Mark, pick the ones you think rebut my point and post them. Let the readers decide. I welcome rational debate and discussion based on the facts.
I’m not too good with technology (!) and I have to get back to finishing the build out an office (I’m just a working carpenter), but I’ll see what I can find as soon as I can. I seem to remember your colleagues like Tribe and Sunstein having clear thoughts on the constitutionality of the impeachment. .
Tribe expressed views similar to mine when we both opposed Bill Clinton’s impeachment. But he changed completely when Trump
was elected , demanding his impeachment even before he took office. Tribe doesn’t pass the shoe on the other foot test. He is a partisan zealot whose constitutional views shift with partisan winds. Mine stay the same unless I am convinced otherwise on the merits.
Tribe lost any sense of intellectual balance after Trump was elected. Tribe appears to be Biden's go to person for such clearly unconstitutional ideas as CDC being able to break leases and a vaccine mandate implemented by OSHA which were predicated on the dubious idea that Biden could announce a policy and then wat for SCOTUS to strike it down as well as expressing horror that SCOTUS actually upheld free exercise of prayer during the pandemic
I ageee that the powerless people, actors, directors, etc., who were being accused of sedition needed lawyering of course. What I’m saying is that in this case it’s Senator McCarthy who you more likely would have been defending.
I don’t pick clients von the basis of their politics or whether I agree with them. I pick them based on the need to defend the constitution against government overreach, as in the Democrats misusing the constitution to impeach Trump ( who I voted against ) in 2020.
Oy veh, if based on the evidence that was presented to the congress it was unconstitutional to impeach, then no wrong committed by a president can ever be impeached. The process was a due process, especially in the face of obstruction perpetrated on congress and the American people. Overreach? Please. You may have assisted other clients against govt overreach, I don’t know, but this was not one of those cases. If anything, not holding this shakedown artist to account was under-reach, and we all know it.
The constitution specifies the grounds for impeachment. They don’t include vague terms like abuse of power or obstruction of congress. Read my speech in the senate before you make your unfounded criticism.
Maybe I will though I remember your speech as well as that of other lawyers and remember distinctly that your argument was unpersuasive and quite inadequate compared to others. In listening to ALL the speeches and presentations, and reading the relevant sections of the constitution, I was more than satisfied that the constitutional requirements were well exceeded. Both impeachments were constitutional in my mind and to do less would have been a dereliction of congressional duty. For once the house did its duty under the constitution. That’s my personal opinion. You may be a smart lawyer but you are wrong.
I agree, don’t listen to me, read or listen to his and the other lawyer’s speeches and take into consideration the overwhelming evidence too. Come to your own conclusion as I did. Hard as it is to believe, Dr. Dersh was disingenuous and just plain wrong on the merits, and a whiting or unwitting tool in this mess. History will judge who the McCarthyites and enablers are—(which we continue to see now as trump and radicals call thoughtful sentient people like me commies or socialists— Just like Joe and Dr. Dersh just did). What an ego!
Excellent, everyone has the right to not listen to Dershowitz. Frankly I’m tired of his BS and his unethical behavior. He’s not being silenced, he still has a huge megaphone to peddle his crap. Please get off the victim bit.
The members of temple e-mail have the right to choose whether to listen to me. The chairman of the board—who made a fortune advertising dangerous products— has no right to tell them they can’t choose to listen to me if they want to.
There are plenty of outlets where they can hear you. For someone who has defended and abetted perhaps the most dangerous person to our system, liberty and democracy (Trump), it’s kind of calling the kettle black by calling out the chairman for his misdeeds. Use your intellect and position to foster democracy not to subvert it please.
Joe McCarthy would be proud of you got blaming a lawyer for his clients. You must really condemn John Adams for defending the Boston massacre soldiers , and Thurgood Marshall for defending reposts snd murderers. Shame on you.
I do hope you aren't ignoring me sir. I wouldn't think that of you as you are one of my idols but you aren't responding to any of my comments but are to others including those who are making silly ad hominem attacks on you.
It’s hard to condemn president Adams for his defense of those accused, I can’t see Justice Marshall defending Donald Trump though, I don’t think he could stand the smell. Of course everyone has the right to vigorous defense. But every lawyer has the right to select their clients. That’s your right too. Some are hard to defend I suspect, but a president who has actively been engaged in demolishing our republic via seditious acts is in another category. In defending these abhorrent treasonous actions, you are not merely a good lawyer defending an enemy of the constitution you are a smart person who is frankly part of the problem. To me it speaks to your ego and your desire for publicity. It’s not like Trump can’t find other lawyers. Plus his defenses for his various malicious and illegal acts have never been based on real principles only delays and dishonesty. That’s the kind of disingenuous legal support he got from Roy Cohn, which brings us back to Joe McCarthy as you mentioned above— I guess following Roy as Donald Trump’s lawyer must feel about right, I mean Joe M needed a lawyer too.
I got the same McCarthyism when I defended bill Clinton , Ted Kennedy, Alan Cranston, Bibi Natanyahu and many others. They all could get other lawyers but they wanted me and I wanted to defend the constitution, which I will continue to do despite your and others McCarthyism.
Ok Professor, thank you for engaging and sharing your perspective. None of the people you mention above have tried to commit sedition on their country or ruin their own democracy. That said, I recognize that you have a deeply held personal belief of your duty to defend those who ask for your help.
Marcus, the professor doesn’t need your help defending himself as you can see, and I’d hardly call my comments harassment.
I hope the professor gets paid for his service to Trump, be a shame if he gets stiffed like so many other of Trump’s contractors. Signing off!
The woke world intimidated Trump's lawyers-Professor Dershowitz was pilloried in the legacy media for speaking to Congress during the first impeachment trial and setting forth a riveting lesson on presidential power, separation of powers and the Constitution. Perhaps if Trump's lawyers had focused on the unconstitutional dilution and end around the Electors Clause combined with the strong but not overwhelming evidence of fraud in many of the swing states, the courts might have heard such claims on their merits. However, in the absence of such a strategy, the courts used such legitimate doctrines as standing, and ripeness to dismiss such claims and to deem anyone who represented Trump as almost beyond the pale of the legal community.
Everyone has the right to decide who they view more credible and worth listening to-We all have a choice to decide whose advocacy makes more sense. That is what is called democracy. If you think Larry Tribe makes more sense, that is fine. Just don't attempt to excommunicate Professor Dershowitz because of his strong advocacy and defense of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and unseemly clients and strong support of Israel. In that respect, we could all use a strong dose of intellectual honesty and less attempts at imposing the woke trilogy of false gods known as race, gender ,cancel culture and climate on all of us.
I don’t have the time now to read a long essay. Maybe in the future.
Israel is the least apartheid country in the Mideast and Israeli Arabs have more rights than any other Arabs in Arab or Muslim countries.
Hey Professor what were your thoughts on HRW accusing Israel of apartheid and persecution? I didn't find their arguments very convincing. Some places they distorted the information.
They are among the most anti Israel NGOS
Their founder quit over that issue.
If Israel was an apartheid state, there would be an organized anti-apartheid movement of West Bank Palestinians campaigning for full Israeli citizenship. No such movement exists.
The root cause of Palestinian hardship in the West Bank and Gaza is the conflict with Israel. There is nothing that would benefit Palestinians more than peace with the Jews. The apartheid slander does nothing but prolong the conflict.
Great podcast on JNS with Jonathan Tobin ! It is about time the leadership of the Jewish establishment was critiqued for its cowardice in confronting the anti Semitism of the woke left
Unfortunately the heterodox Jewish movements have sacrificed any sense of commitment to Jewish tradition and support of Israel in favor of the false god known as social justice and its trinity known as systemic racism, gender and climate change.
Fair enough, but post also all other lawyers speeches who spoke on the other side too. In that way we can really evaluate your position.
All the speeches are on line. Mark, pick the ones you think rebut my point and post them. Let the readers decide. I welcome rational debate and discussion based on the facts.
You post what ever you think is relevant.
I’m not too good with technology (!) and I have to get back to finishing the build out an office (I’m just a working carpenter), but I’ll see what I can find as soon as I can. I seem to remember your colleagues like Tribe and Sunstein having clear thoughts on the constitutionality of the impeachment. .
Tribe expressed views similar to mine when we both opposed Bill Clinton’s impeachment. But he changed completely when Trump
was elected , demanding his impeachment even before he took office. Tribe doesn’t pass the shoe on the other foot test. He is a partisan zealot whose constitutional views shift with partisan winds. Mine stay the same unless I am convinced otherwise on the merits.
Tribe lost any sense of intellectual balance after Trump was elected. Tribe appears to be Biden's go to person for such clearly unconstitutional ideas as CDC being able to break leases and a vaccine mandate implemented by OSHA which were predicated on the dubious idea that Biden could announce a policy and then wat for SCOTUS to strike it down as well as expressing horror that SCOTUS actually upheld free exercise of prayer during the pandemic
I ageee that the powerless people, actors, directors, etc., who were being accused of sedition needed lawyering of course. What I’m saying is that in this case it’s Senator McCarthy who you more likely would have been defending.
I don’t pick clients von the basis of their politics or whether I agree with them. I pick them based on the need to defend the constitution against government overreach, as in the Democrats misusing the constitution to impeach Trump ( who I voted against ) in 2020.
Oy veh, if based on the evidence that was presented to the congress it was unconstitutional to impeach, then no wrong committed by a president can ever be impeached. The process was a due process, especially in the face of obstruction perpetrated on congress and the American people. Overreach? Please. You may have assisted other clients against govt overreach, I don’t know, but this was not one of those cases. If anything, not holding this shakedown artist to account was under-reach, and we all know it.
The constitution specifies the grounds for impeachment. They don’t include vague terms like abuse of power or obstruction of congress. Read my speech in the senate before you make your unfounded criticism.
Maybe I will though I remember your speech as well as that of other lawyers and remember distinctly that your argument was unpersuasive and quite inadequate compared to others. In listening to ALL the speeches and presentations, and reading the relevant sections of the constitution, I was more than satisfied that the constitutional requirements were well exceeded. Both impeachments were constitutional in my mind and to do less would have been a dereliction of congressional duty. For once the house did its duty under the constitution. That’s my personal opinion. You may be a smart lawyer but you are wrong.
I urge everyone to read my senate speech, which is available on line. Make up your own mind. Don’t listen to McCarthyite Mark
I agree, don’t listen to me, read or listen to his and the other lawyer’s speeches and take into consideration the overwhelming evidence too. Come to your own conclusion as I did. Hard as it is to believe, Dr. Dersh was disingenuous and just plain wrong on the merits, and a whiting or unwitting tool in this mess. History will judge who the McCarthyites and enablers are—(which we continue to see now as trump and radicals call thoughtful sentient people like me commies or socialists— Just like Joe and Dr. Dersh just did). What an ego!
Excellent, everyone has the right to not listen to Dershowitz. Frankly I’m tired of his BS and his unethical behavior. He’s not being silenced, he still has a huge megaphone to peddle his crap. Please get off the victim bit.
The members of temple e-mail have the right to choose whether to listen to me. The chairman of the board—who made a fortune advertising dangerous products— has no right to tell them they can’t choose to listen to me if they want to.
Hey Professor I sent you the email on Israel a few days ago. Could you please respond to it. Thanks.
Stop spamming that. Professor Dershowitz is clearly not interested in talking to you.
There are plenty of outlets where they can hear you. For someone who has defended and abetted perhaps the most dangerous person to our system, liberty and democracy (Trump), it’s kind of calling the kettle black by calling out the chairman for his misdeeds. Use your intellect and position to foster democracy not to subvert it please.
Joe McCarthy would be proud of you got blaming a lawyer for his clients. You must really condemn John Adams for defending the Boston massacre soldiers , and Thurgood Marshall for defending reposts snd murderers. Shame on you.
Sorry for typos. For not got. Rapists not reposts.
I do hope you aren't ignoring me sir. I wouldn't think that of you as you are one of my idols but you aren't responding to any of my comments but are to others including those who are making silly ad hominem attacks on you.
What specifically would you like me to respond to?
Professor did you not receive my email? Or do you not want to respond to it since you are busy. Could you please tell me. Thanks.
It’s hard to condemn president Adams for his defense of those accused, I can’t see Justice Marshall defending Donald Trump though, I don’t think he could stand the smell. Of course everyone has the right to vigorous defense. But every lawyer has the right to select their clients. That’s your right too. Some are hard to defend I suspect, but a president who has actively been engaged in demolishing our republic via seditious acts is in another category. In defending these abhorrent treasonous actions, you are not merely a good lawyer defending an enemy of the constitution you are a smart person who is frankly part of the problem. To me it speaks to your ego and your desire for publicity. It’s not like Trump can’t find other lawyers. Plus his defenses for his various malicious and illegal acts have never been based on real principles only delays and dishonesty. That’s the kind of disingenuous legal support he got from Roy Cohn, which brings us back to Joe McCarthy as you mentioned above— I guess following Roy as Donald Trump’s lawyer must feel about right, I mean Joe M needed a lawyer too.
I got the same McCarthyism when I defended bill Clinton , Ted Kennedy, Alan Cranston, Bibi Natanyahu and many others. They all could get other lawyers but they wanted me and I wanted to defend the constitution, which I will continue to do despite your and others McCarthyism.
Ok Professor, thank you for engaging and sharing your perspective. None of the people you mention above have tried to commit sedition on their country or ruin their own democracy. That said, I recognize that you have a deeply held personal belief of your duty to defend those who ask for your help.
Marcus, the professor doesn’t need your help defending himself as you can see, and I’d hardly call my comments harassment.
I hope the professor gets paid for his service to Trump, be a shame if he gets stiffed like so many other of Trump’s contractors. Signing off!
The woke world intimidated Trump's lawyers-Professor Dershowitz was pilloried in the legacy media for speaking to Congress during the first impeachment trial and setting forth a riveting lesson on presidential power, separation of powers and the Constitution. Perhaps if Trump's lawyers had focused on the unconstitutional dilution and end around the Electors Clause combined with the strong but not overwhelming evidence of fraud in many of the swing states, the courts might have heard such claims on their merits. However, in the absence of such a strategy, the courts used such legitimate doctrines as standing, and ripeness to dismiss such claims and to deem anyone who represented Trump as almost beyond the pale of the legal community.
Everyone has the right to decide who they view more credible and worth listening to-We all have a choice to decide whose advocacy makes more sense. That is what is called democracy. If you think Larry Tribe makes more sense, that is fine. Just don't attempt to excommunicate Professor Dershowitz because of his strong advocacy and defense of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and unseemly clients and strong support of Israel. In that respect, we could all use a strong dose of intellectual honesty and less attempts at imposing the woke trilogy of false gods known as race, gender ,cancel culture and climate on all of us.
Amen! Professor, as a Jewish American and a Civil Libertarian, I commend and thank you for fighting the fight all of my life!
The fact that you have had so much undeserved politically motivated slander saddens me!
So this is what happens when someone stands up for their interpretation of the Constitution? Shameful.
Is the congregation behind Rabbi Davidson's decision?
I doubt it. They loved my biblical trials.
The congregation needs to be more vocal. If my Rabbi banned you, he would get an earful from me.