Ketanji Brown Jackson nominated to be first Black woman to sit on Supreme Court
Comments
-
Roy Moore anyone?Bentleyspop said:
The people who are grasping at anything minutely negative about KBJ are the same people who don't care about tfg "grabbing them by the pu$$y" or matt gaetz trafficking a 17 yr old, or gym jordan ignoring sexual assaults, or any of the QtRUmplican politicians who regularly break laws.tbergs said:
No one defends child abuse, but you'd think that was what was going on. Generalizations make it easy to say things like this. Also, apparently once they turn 18 it's okay to be abusive and assault them, right? I mean, these same people concerned about the next justice on the bench voted for and supported Trump, but conveniently they have an issue now.lindamarie73 said:
Not anyone who has skin in the game who was abused or has a loved one who was abused. Anyone upset by a maximum sentence for a child abuser really needs to re-evaluate everything about one’s self…gimmesometruth27 said:i am sure if she had given the maximum in all cases some people would be upset for her heavy handed sentences...Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
BingoBentleyspop said:
The people who are grasping at anything minutely negative about KBJ are the same people who don't care about tfg "grabbing them by the pu$$y" or matt gaetz trafficking a 17 yr old, or gym jordan ignoring sexual assaults, or any of the QtRUmplican politicians who regularly break laws.tbergs said:
No one defends child abuse, but you'd think that was what was going on. Generalizations make it easy to say things like this. Also, apparently once they turn 18 it's okay to be abusive and assault them, right? I mean, these same people concerned about the next justice on the bench voted for and supported Trump, but conveniently they have an issue now.lindamarie73 said:
Not anyone who has skin in the game who was abused or has a loved one who was abused. Anyone upset by a maximum sentence for a child abuser really needs to re-evaluate everything about one’s self…gimmesometruth27 said:i am sure if she had given the maximum in all cases some people would be upset for her heavy handed sentences...0 -
Yup. Hugh's right about Roy Moore, too. They just completely look the other way at countless actual examples from members of their own party of the very things they twist themselves into knots to get outraged over.PJNB said:
BingoBentleyspop said:
The people who are grasping at anything minutely negative about KBJ are the same people who don't care about tfg "grabbing them by the pu$$y" or matt gaetz trafficking a 17 yr old, or gym jordan ignoring sexual assaults, or any of the QtRUmplican politicians who regularly break laws.tbergs said:
No one defends child abuse, but you'd think that was what was going on. Generalizations make it easy to say things like this. Also, apparently once they turn 18 it's okay to be abusive and assault them, right? I mean, these same people concerned about the next justice on the bench voted for and supported Trump, but conveniently they have an issue now.lindamarie73 said:
Not anyone who has skin in the game who was abused or has a loved one who was abused. Anyone upset by a maximum sentence for a child abuser really needs to re-evaluate everything about one’s self…gimmesometruth27 said:i am sure if she had given the maximum in all cases some people would be upset for her heavy handed sentences...www.myspace.com0 -
the republican way!Bentleyspop said:
The people who are grasping at anything minutely negative about KBJ are the same people who don't care about tfg "grabbing them by the pu$$y" or matt gaetz trafficking a 17 yr old, or gym jordan ignoring sexual assaults, or any of the QtRUmplican politicians who regularly break laws.tbergs said:
No one defends child abuse, but you'd think that was what was going on. Generalizations make it easy to say things like this. Also, apparently once they turn 18 it's okay to be abusive and assault them, right? I mean, these same people concerned about the next justice on the bench voted for and supported Trump, but conveniently they have an issue now.lindamarie73 said:
Not anyone who has skin in the game who was abused or has a loved one who was abused. Anyone upset by a maximum sentence for a child abuser really needs to re-evaluate everything about one’s self…gimmesometruth27 said:i am sure if she had given the maximum in all cases some people would be upset for her heavy handed sentences..."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
brianlux said:static111 said:
...so you're soft on crime?benjs said:
What did other Judges in the same position give for the same or similar crimes with similar sentencing recommendations? If we're talking about who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a comparison to recommendations without a comparison to peers and how they acted, we're missing an 'apple to apple' comparison.JB16057 said:
I take issues with any judge that doesn't give the full sentencing to any child porn offender. I'm not going to call everyone a pro pedophile but that doesn't mean her record shouldn't be looked at. She's had 14 child porn cases in front of her. The 8 listed above were ones that she went lighter on. Going light on 8 of 14 doesn't have the best optics. Say what you want but then ask victims of these crimes how they feel.
Next point - it's been explained numerous times that the sentencing guidelines (on which presumably sentencing recommendations are generated) are dated and flawed, particularly with pornographic content in the era of the internet. This adds more credence to needing to see what Jackson's peers have done on similar cases.
Next - on giving the full sentencing, think about the impact on the USA's notoriously overcrowded prisons.
Finally, the comment about giving full sentencing to any category is a great reason for you not to be a judge, who by definition are meant to be reasonable and nuanced. To me, a fixed sentencing policy from a Judge to me, would be outrageous, unreasonable, and lacking the nuance the job requires.Are you having trouble reading?HughFreakingDillon said:
static is being sarcastic brianbrianlux said:static111 said:
...so you're soft on crime?benjs said:
What did other Judges in the same position give for the same or similar crimes with similar sentencing recommendations? If we're talking about who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a comparison to recommendations without a comparison to peers and how they acted, we're missing an 'apple to apple' comparison.JB16057 said:I take issues with any judge that doesn't give the full sentencing to any child porn offender. I'm not going to call everyone a pro pedophile but that doesn't mean her record shouldn't be looked at. She's had 14 child porn cases in front of her. The 8 listed above were ones that she went lighter on. Going light on 8 of 14 doesn't have the best optics. Say what you want but then ask victims of these crimes how they feel.
Next point - it's been explained numerous times that the sentencing guidelines (on which presumably sentencing recommendations are generated) are dated and flawed, particularly with pornographic content in the era of the internet. This adds more credence to needing to see what Jackson's peers have done on similar cases.
Next - on giving the full sentencing, think about the impact on the USA's notoriously overcrowded prisons.
Finally, the comment about giving full sentencing to any category is a great reason for you not to be a judge, who by definition are meant to be reasonable and nuanced. To me, a fixed sentencing policy from a Judge to me, would be outrageous, unreasonable, and lacking the nuance the job requires.Are you having trouble reading?
Hugh always gets my sarcasm. NP Bri hope all is as good as it can be.brianlux said:HughFreakingDillon said:
static is being sarcastic brianbrianlux said:static111 said:
...so you're soft on crime?benjs said:
What did other Judges in the same position give for the same or similar crimes with similar sentencing recommendations? If we're talking about who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a comparison to recommendations without a comparison to peers and how they acted, we're missing an 'apple to apple' comparison.JB16057 said:I take issues with any judge that doesn't give the full sentencing to any child porn offender. I'm not going to call everyone a pro pedophile but that doesn't mean her record shouldn't be looked at. She's had 14 child porn cases in front of her. The 8 listed above were ones that she went lighter on. Going light on 8 of 14 doesn't have the best optics. Say what you want but then ask victims of these crimes how they feel.
Next point - it's been explained numerous times that the sentencing guidelines (on which presumably sentencing recommendations are generated) are dated and flawed, particularly with pornographic content in the era of the internet. This adds more credence to needing to see what Jackson's peers have done on similar cases.
Next - on giving the full sentencing, think about the impact on the USA's notoriously overcrowded prisons.
Finally, the comment about giving full sentencing to any category is a great reason for you not to be a judge, who by definition are meant to be reasonable and nuanced. To me, a fixed sentencing policy from a Judge to me, would be outrageous, unreasonable, and lacking the nuance the job requires.Are you having trouble reading?
Oops, sorry static!Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
HughFreakingDillon said:
Roy Moore anyone?Bentleyspop said:
The people who are grasping at anything minutely negative about KBJ are the same people who don't care about tfg "grabbing them by the pu$$y" or matt gaetz trafficking a 17 yr old, or gym jordan ignoring sexual assaults, or any of the QtRUmplican politicians who regularly break laws.tbergs said:
No one defends child abuse, but you'd think that was what was going on. Generalizations make it easy to say things like this. Also, apparently once they turn 18 it's okay to be abusive and assault them, right? I mean, these same people concerned about the next justice on the bench voted for and supported Trump, but conveniently they have an issue now.lindamarie73 said:
Not anyone who has skin in the game who was abused or has a loved one who was abused. Anyone upset by a maximum sentence for a child abuser really needs to re-evaluate everything about one’s self…gimmesometruth27 said:i am sure if she had given the maximum in all cases some people would be upset for her heavy handed sentences...How about Dennis Freaking Hastert? Hey JB and Linda, big favor, is there a way to get the headline fonts any bigger? And expecting this to be addressed by you both, with a specific comparison to Judge Jackson, who we are assuming is not a pedophile ? Why is it ok for Republican voters to repeatedly support a party who protects child abusers?
Your party has REPEATEDLY protected sex offenders, let alone a judge who may or may not have handed down slighted less tough sentencing?Republicans rush to defend Dennis Hastert, plead court for leniency in alleged pedophile hush money case
On Wednesday, former Republican U.S. House speaker Dennis Hastert will be sentenced for his part in an elaborate hush money scheme to cover up his years long molestation of teenage boys while he was a Illinois high school wrestling coach from 1965 until 1981. But if his fellow Republicans have their way -- he won't see a minute of prison time.
According to federal prosecutors, Hastert “made payments to a man who was sexually abused at age 14 by Hastert when he was the boy’s wrestling coach. Prosecutors said the abuse also involved ‘other minors,’ and included touching their genitals or engaging in oral sex.” Court filings in Hastert's case highlighted “private one-on-one encounters in an empty locker room and a motel room with minors that violated the special trust between those young boys and their coach.”
The Republican firebrand is charged with lying to FBI investigators about a tax-evading scheme to pay $3.5 million to keep at least one former student quiet about the abuse before falsely accusing the man of trying to extort him. Hastert pleaded guilty to illegally structuring $900,000 used as hush money to the one individual, a violation of banking laws. Prosecutors are now seeking the harshest possible penalty, asking that the 74-year-old Hastert be sentenced to six months in prison while his attorneys are asking for probation. A former wrestler who said Hastert abused him decades ago is expected to speak at Hastert's sentencing hearing on Wednesday.
.
0 -
Oh my goodness...Dennis Hastert. The OG of Republican pedophiles.www.myspace.com0
-
static111 said:brianlux said:static111 said:
...so you're soft on crime?benjs said:
What did other Judges in the same position give for the same or similar crimes with similar sentencing recommendations? If we're talking about who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a comparison to recommendations without a comparison to peers and how they acted, we're missing an 'apple to apple' comparison.JB16057 said:I take issues with any judge that doesn't give the full sentencing to any child porn offender. I'm not going to call everyone a pro pedophile but that doesn't mean her record shouldn't be looked at. She's had 14 child porn cases in front of her. The 8 listed above were ones that she went lighter on. Going light on 8 of 14 doesn't have the best optics. Say what you want but then ask victims of these crimes how they feel.
Next point - it's been explained numerous times that the sentencing guidelines (on which presumably sentencing recommendations are generated) are dated and flawed, particularly with pornographic content in the era of the internet. This adds more credence to needing to see what Jackson's peers have done on similar cases.
Next - on giving the full sentencing, think about the impact on the USA's notoriously overcrowded prisons.
Finally, the comment about giving full sentencing to any category is a great reason for you not to be a judge, who by definition are meant to be reasonable and nuanced. To me, a fixed sentencing policy from a Judge to me, would be outrageous, unreasonable, and lacking the nuance the job requires.Are you having trouble reading?HughFreakingDillon said:
static is being sarcastic brianbrianlux said:static111 said:
...so you're soft on crime?benjs said:
What did other Judges in the same position give for the same or similar crimes with similar sentencing recommendations? If we're talking about who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a comparison to recommendations without a comparison to peers and how they acted, we're missing an 'apple to apple' comparison.JB16057 said:I take issues with any judge that doesn't give the full sentencing to any child porn offender. I'm not going to call everyone a pro pedophile but that doesn't mean her record shouldn't be looked at. She's had 14 child porn cases in front of her. The 8 listed above were ones that she went lighter on. Going light on 8 of 14 doesn't have the best optics. Say what you want but then ask victims of these crimes how they feel.
Next point - it's been explained numerous times that the sentencing guidelines (on which presumably sentencing recommendations are generated) are dated and flawed, particularly with pornographic content in the era of the internet. This adds more credence to needing to see what Jackson's peers have done on similar cases.
Next - on giving the full sentencing, think about the impact on the USA's notoriously overcrowded prisons.
Finally, the comment about giving full sentencing to any category is a great reason for you not to be a judge, who by definition are meant to be reasonable and nuanced. To me, a fixed sentencing policy from a Judge to me, would be outrageous, unreasonable, and lacking the nuance the job requires.Are you having trouble reading?
Hugh always gets my sarcasm. NP Bri hope all is as good as it can be.brianlux said:HughFreakingDillon said:
static is being sarcastic brianbrianlux said:static111 said:
...so you're soft on crime?benjs said:
What did other Judges in the same position give for the same or similar crimes with similar sentencing recommendations? If we're talking about who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a comparison to recommendations without a comparison to peers and how they acted, we're missing an 'apple to apple' comparison.JB16057 said:I take issues with any judge that doesn't give the full sentencing to any child porn offender. I'm not going to call everyone a pro pedophile but that doesn't mean her record shouldn't be looked at. She's had 14 child porn cases in front of her. The 8 listed above were ones that she went lighter on. Going light on 8 of 14 doesn't have the best optics. Say what you want but then ask victims of these crimes how they feel.
Next point - it's been explained numerous times that the sentencing guidelines (on which presumably sentencing recommendations are generated) are dated and flawed, particularly with pornographic content in the era of the internet. This adds more credence to needing to see what Jackson's peers have done on similar cases.
Next - on giving the full sentencing, think about the impact on the USA's notoriously overcrowded prisons.
Finally, the comment about giving full sentencing to any category is a great reason for you not to be a judge, who by definition are meant to be reasonable and nuanced. To me, a fixed sentencing policy from a Judge to me, would be outrageous, unreasonable, and lacking the nuance the job requires.Are you having trouble reading?
Oops, sorry static!
All's good, thanks kindly for forgiving my misunderstanding!
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
-
Post edited by Renfield on0
-
good. now expand it, and add at least two indigenous judges.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0
-
-
history made.Renfield said:
imagine how difficult the next one will be. especially if biden gets to appoint someone to replace a conservative.
my bet is the gop will not allow it, like they did with scalia."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
Great newswww.myspace.com0
-
Probably depends on the timing (i.e., how long before the election) and the breakdown of the Senate. If they get a majority, can't Moscow Mitch just not allow it to happen? Isn't that what he did with Garland?gimmesometruth27 said:
history made.Renfield said:
imagine how difficult the next one will be. especially if biden gets to appoint someone to replace a conservative.
my bet is the gop will not allow it, like they did with scalia.1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
I was always confused why Obama didn't just install Garland anyway and say you didn't advise or consent me and the opportunity was there and take that case to the supreme court?OnWis97 said:
Probably depends on the timing (i.e., how long before the election) and the breakdown of the Senate. If they get a majority, can't Moscow Mitch just not allow it to happen? Isn't that what he did with Garland?gimmesometruth27 said:
history made.Renfield said:
imagine how difficult the next one will be. especially if biden gets to appoint someone to replace a conservative.
my bet is the gop will not allow it, like they did with scalia.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
mitch said it was too close to the election and he wanted the american people to decide on whether the nominee gets a hearing and a vote."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
-
Yeah....and with far less time before the 2020 election, he made sure to get Kavanagh through. He makes it up as he goes. If the GOP had a majority in the Senate, that seat would probably* have stayed open for the next three years.gimmesometruth27 said:mitch said it was too close to the election and he wanted the american people to decide on whether the nominee gets a hearing and a vote.
*I suppose there's a chance he would not have done that if he thought it could jeopardize any GQP Senate seats this fall. But if they get the majority this fall, you can 100% bank on this: regardless of how many SCOTUS justices die or retire, those seats will stay empty until at least 2025.1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help