SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[PleaseBlitz]

I was about to post the thing above by Aaron Rupar. Everyone has already made up their mind, this is all just performance art. 

[tshile]

Imagine appealing to the idea that she shouldn’t be a justice because her faith is the wrong one

 

or that it’s not strong enough

 

or that she has the audacity to sidestep the question with this idea that she thinks it’s important to separate her personal views from the duty of the law and constitution 

i get it’s theater - but they choose this theater because there’s a sizable group of people it appeals to. 

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, tshile said:

Imagine appealing to the idea that she shouldn’t be a justice because her faith is the wrong one

 

or that it’s not strong enough

 

or that she has the audacity to sidestep the question with this idea that she thinks it’s important to separate her personal views from the duty of the law and constitution 

i get it’s theater - but they choose this theater because there’s a sizable group of people it appeals to. 

 

By golly, I think you’ve gone and identified the fundamental problem with the GOP. 

[The Sisko]

1 hour ago, superozman said:

Each one of these comments are horrific and disgusting. 

I get where you’re coming from. I just don’t have it in me to feel otherwise about fascists. Note that the vast majority of us on my side of things (including me) are content to hope for something bad to happen while the other side builds gallows, and plans kidnappings and attacks, etc.  So uh yeah, sorry, not sorry.

[tshile]

Democrats hard hitting questions:

how do you address these multiple accusations of assaulting/raping women?

how do you defend your lack of judicial experience?

what’s your stance on abortion/voting rights?

 

republicans hard hitting questions:

shouldn’t we wait months until the election so someone else should fill this seat (but only when the other team is in charge)?

what is your faith and, assuming it’s the correct one, please assure us you’re a zealot?

Why do you have the audacity to think everyone deserves representation in the court of law?

Why do you follow the vast majority of judges, even the ones I support, in downgrading many federal sentencing guidelines?

 

 

 

i used to at least criticize the Dems for making every god damned appointment about abortion. 
 

but, uh, *looks around* I’ve kinda realized they had a good reason for that. 

 

 

[Larry]

35 minutes ago, tshile said:

Imagine appealing to the idea that she shouldn’t be a justice because her faith is the wrong one

Recall once observing a Republican debate among candidates for the GOP Presidential nomination. 
 

And observing that out of like 11 candidates on the stage, only one of them was still married to his first wife. And the wisdom (which turned out to be wrong) was that he stood no chance of getting the nomination, because he wasn't the right kind of Christian. 

[tshile]

Didn’t hear the whole Sasse line of questioning, not even sure how much I missed, but what I heard was excellent. Both him and her did great I thought 

 

(not that I know what I’m talking about with these things, way out of my wheelhouse)

[TradeTheBeal!]

LULLLLZZZZ 

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

[tshile]

It’s easy to write hawley’s line of questioning off - and there was a bunch of crap in there like repeatedly mentioning he was 18 but completely ignoring that the bulk of the crimes occurred while he was in highschool (hence peers, unusual case, etc)

 

but, between Hawley, Jackson, durbin, and whoever was recognized after Hawley (sorry don’t recall or recognize her voice, listening on npr), there was somewhat of a good conversation about the issue. 
 

You have to wade through the muck a bit but it’s in there. At least for someone like me where this is the only exposure to the topic. 

[skinsmarydu]

Hawley actually did have a good topic for a hearing, but this ain't the one.  ( the one case he brought up (Hawkins) is actually disturbing, even to her sentence.)  

I need to do some research. 

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

Hawley actually did have a good topic for a hearing, but this ain't the one.  ( the one case he brought up (Hawkins) is actually disturbing, even to her sentence.)  

I need to do some research. 

it sounds to me - the issue was he was really a kid while doing it. 
 

she also implied that there was something going on re: how he fell into it. 
 

Even the prosecutor came down with a recommendation well below the guidelines. So did the probation office. 
 

I think Hawley found a very unique case, and tried to ream her for recognizing that and trying to do what’s best. 
 

i wish she would have just been direct about the shunning comment:

 

they are shunned. Convicted criminals are shunned. That’s what society does, and we do it pretty universally. Recognizing that doesn’t mean you think it’s wrong; it doesn’t mean you feel bad for them. It means you’re being honest about what reality is. 
 

I’m not in a position to defend her. For many reasons. That was just my takeaway based on that interaction. 
 

I also wish she would have taken a moment to address the analysis she did at Harvard review better. The idea that sometimes legislation is passed that doesn’t reflect what is just and right, but instead to placate fears and anger. We even go so far as to give the name of the bill one that includes the name of the victim that caused the fear and anger. The intention of doing that is obvious. Just like when we called a bill that sweeping violated our rights, the “patriot act.” This obviously produces fundamentally unfair sentencing guidelines. She could have spoke to that better. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by tshile

[skinsmarydu]

No, the kid was 18 looking at 8 and 11 year olds, some of which were being abused and others that were doing the abusing.  That came up at the end of the questioning, and that's what made me go, "huh?"  And the perp had more than 600 of those vids on his puter.  That's a lot, jmho.

[tshile]

One of the npr hosts, speaking once they took a break for roll call, made a good point.  The reason why congress will never revisit the child porn guidelines issue, despite being asked to, is because no one wants their name attached to a bill that seeks to lower the sentencing guidelines for someone caught with child porn. 
 

 

16 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

No, the kid was 18 looking at 8 and 11 year olds, some of which were being abused and others that were doing the abusing.  That came up at the end of the questioning, and that's what made me go, "huh?"  And the perp had more than 600 of those vids on his puter.  That's a lot, jmho.

He was 18 when he was arrested and tried. 
 

it sounds to me like he wasn’t 18 when he was committing the crimes (at least, not all over them) And hawley mentioned those ages but there were other ages too. 

I mean he pointed out she referred to the victims as his peers. Hawley tries to paint this as her being soft on child sexual abuse and rape - but pending someone presenting evidence, my assumption is that she was referring to the fact that he was a 15/16/17 year old looking at other teenagers (as well as the younger ones Hawley mentioned.). That seems to be the most obvious explanation. 

 

I think when you look into it you’re going to find hawley was very careful in the case he picked, very careful in which victims he discussed, etc. 

 

hawley conducted himself well. But. The entire back and forth reeked of one person having the ability to carefully review and select what they wanted to talk about for a very specific purpose - while the other was left trying to recall the specifics of something from a long time ago. Ie: a setup. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by tshile

[The Evil Genius]

 

[skinsmarydu]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

One of the npr hosts, speaking once they took a break for roll call, made a good point.  The reason why congress will never revisit the child porn guidelines issue, despite being asked to, is because no one wants their name attached to a bill that seeks to lower the sentencing guidelines for someone caught with child porn. 
 

 

He was 18 when he was arrested and tried. 
 

it sounds to me like he wasn’t 18 when he was committing the crime. And hawley mentioned those ages but there were other ages too. 
 

I think when you look into it you’re going to find hawley was very careful in the case he picked, very careful in which victims he discussed, etc. 

 

hawley conducted himself well. But. The entire back and forth reeked of one person having the ability to carefully review and select what they wanted to talk about for a very specific purpose - while the other was left trying to recall the specifics of something from a long time ago. Ie: a setup. 

Oh, I noticed when he said, "I'm choosing one case".  And I've never had a child, just took over a teenage girl who had nothing but dick on the brain, and I never got control...it was because her dad discovered boobs on the internet and stopped bothering to be a FATHER.  Then when everything went nuts and she's having kids by every dude in the neighborhood...I digress.  Parents have responsibilities greater than those of us who aren't, and we love you when you get it right, like what you posted earlier this morning.  

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[tshile]

Another item mentioned on npr during the break:

the bill in question was written when child pornography was done by mail and in person. The effort to get child pronography was immense compared to today. Which is why the number of images and videos one possesses was weighed so heavily in the sentencing guidelines

 

part of the issue people take with those guidelines is that now you can click your mouse, wait 15 minutes, and download a 1 gb file full of thousands of pictures. The effort is not the same. The crime is not

necessarily the same. The punishments should reflect this. 
 

 

the only real issue I take with all of this is that it ignores the idea that demand drives supply. By simply consuming child pornography, you are furthering the desire of someone to supply it to make money. I think that needs to be a bigger part of the conversation. Though in a different forum I would imagine (like debating legislation, if our legislators even do that anymore…)

[tshile]

Also. Just my gut feeling. But if you find an esteemed judge taking the time to speak to a defendant and their family, the way hawley highlighted, there’s a damned good reason for it. You’ll find incompetent and corrupt-ish judges, but one with a high quality reputation… in a general criminal case… a heinous one… I’d bet my salary we get an article in a few days from someone objective that dig into it and we find out it was a super messed up case. 
 

Btw - we see this in computer crime law. Where a bill was enacted as a response to a problem Congress didn’t (and still doesn’t) understand, which broad definitions of the crime, and very harsh punishments. Which allows every step of the criminal Justice system (officers, investigators, prosecutors, and judges) to be unfairly harsh, lacking in nuance, and subject to the court of public opinion (and building a career off it) - and for the over prosecuted all they get for hope is that their defense lawyer is competent and willing to fight for them *AND* their judge is capable of understanding and caring about the unfairness or unjustness. 
 

I’m kind of painting myself into a corner I didn’t mean to - I sound like I’m trying to fight the good fight for child pornographers. I’m not. At all. I think people that participate or manufacture child sex abuse should be stoned. 
 

but someone is being dishonest in that back and forth. And I’m sure as hell not betting it’s Jackson, based on information I currently have. 

[skinsmarydu]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

I’m kind of painting myself into a corner I didn’t mean to - I sound like I’m trying to fight the good fight for child pornographers. I’m not. At all. I think people that participate or manufacture child sex abuse should be stoned. 
 

but someone is being dishonest in that back and forth. And I’m sure as hell not betting it’s Jackson, based on information I currently have. 

Cotton being a complete dick on whether we need more police or not...shhesh.  "So you won't answer..."  He's actually a c-word.

 

And the above is what I need to research.  I'm gonna watch the Caps game, then probably dig into it when I'm close to tornado conditions later on and unable to sleep (if I have electricity and all that good stuff  )

[PleaseBlitz]

19 minutes ago, tshile said:

Another item mentioned on npr during the break:

the bill in question was written when child pornography was done by mail and in person. The effort to get child pronography was immense compared to today. Which is why the number of images and videos one possesses was weighed so heavily in the sentencing guidelines

 

part of the issue people take with those guidelines is that now you can click your mouse, wait 15 minutes, and download a 1 gb file full of thousands of pictures. The effort is not the same. The crime is not

necessarily the same. The punishments should reflect this. 
 

 

the only real issue I take with all of this is that it ignores the idea that demand drives supply. By simply consuming child pornography, you are furthering the desire of someone to supply it to make money. I think that needs to be a bigger part of the conversation. Though in a different forum I would imagine (like debating legislation, if our legislators even do that anymore…)

You should read this, it explains the logic behind the applicable sentencing guidelines. 
 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/senator-hawleys-disingenuous-attack-against-judge-jacksons-record-on-child-pornography/
 

Note that it is by the National Review, a right wing outlet, and a right wing author. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by PleaseBlitz

[tshile]

28 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

You should read this, it explains the logic behind the applicable sentencing guidelines. 
 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/senator-hawleys-disingenuous-attack-against-judge-jacksons-record-on-child-pornography/
 

Note that it is by the National Review, a right wing outlet, and a right wing author. 

Excellent read. @skinsmarydu you’ll want to read it too. Stay safe!

40 minutes ago, tshile said:

I’d bet my salary we get an article in a few days from someone objective that dig into it and we find out it was a super messed up case. 

I’ll also take “super messed up law” and use that article pleaseblitz posted as justification for collecting 💸

[skinsmarydu]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

Excellent read. @skinsmarydu you’ll want to read it too. Stay safe!

I’ll also take “super messed up law” and use that article pleaseblitz posted as justification for collecting 💸

I ain't bashing through that paywall.  Send it. 

[Fergasun]

I spent the time to watch the GOP opening statements, but probably won't have time for much question and answer. I think it is sad that while they all will congratulate her and be polite, none will support the nomination.  But it speaks more towards politics than anything personal.  The right-wing has already villified her so much that the Senators can't support the nomination.  

 

Hawley:  Lists a bunch of child porn cases he wants to know why she was lenient, even lower than the prosecutor wanted (it seems like that shouldn't be a rule).

 

Graham:  What was it about her that the left was drooling about.  And we won't treat you bad the way Democrats did to Kavanaugh.  They raked him through the mud and withheld evidence.

 

Sasse:  Our government is way out of control and not the limited government the founders wanted.  Executive, Legislative and Judicial all overstep their bounds.

 

Cruz:  Democrats pretend they for diversity but blocked Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada.  The left and Democrats are disgusting and do things the right and Republicans never do.

 

Balckburn:  Something about parents being concerned.... and I think I got tired of listening.  

[Cooked Crack]