New SCOTUS justice incoming

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

Oh the one where he was in possession of "child porn" with children who were 3 years younger than him? He was 18, the "children" were 15, she made the correct decision.

I like that it’s ok to have porn involving 15 year olds. 

[Lou]

3 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

Oh the one where he was in possession of "child porn" with children who were 3 years younger than him? He was 18, the "children" were 15, she made the correct decision.

One was 11 and he sent them to a cop, you sick fuck. 

[Jason]

It’s amazing there is anyone having a defense of child porn 

[Tank]

10 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

No it isn't. It was a trap question and she wasn't falling for it because she's not stupid. 

And where is the nation headed? 

This kind of nonsense is becoming more and more common. Look at the big push in education to teach little kids about human sexuality, kids that can’t  really understand any of this. It takes on a look of indoctrination more than information. 
 

I’m likely alone on this but there’s a slow but sure and steady effort to wipe out families and change sexuality to be whatever you want it to be. No rules apply and morality is gone. You and I have been raised very differently, and your view will be much different than mine, but all of this is also an attack on Christianity and the Bible, which is contrary in every way to what you see happening in this country right now. 
 

I imagine the nominee yesterday wouldn’t answer the what is a woman question because saw it as a gotcha question or didn’t want to give an answer that would upset her supporters or possibly both. But the fact that there is a growing segment of society that believes in proclaiming “I identify as a _________” is sacred is a very troubling thing to many. 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Tank

[Jason]

1 minute ago, Tank said:

 

It feels like humans need a do over 

[JarsOfClay]

8 minutes ago, Jason said:

It’s amazing there is anyone having a defense of child porn 

I'm not defending child porn. I'm defending her decision. She has all the facts in the case and made a decision at her discretion. You guys suggesting she's in favor of child porn because of her sentencing are sick.

[JarsOfClay]

12 minutes ago, Lou said:

One was 11 and he sent them to a cop, you sick fuck. 

Well I didn't see that part, then ya that's bad. But like I said, she saw the images, has all the facts, all you have is speculation. She is clearly a very intelligent woman who is certainly more qualified than you to make that decision.

[Lou]

1 minute ago, JarsOfClay said:

I'm not defending child porn. I'm defending her decision. She has all the facts in the case and made a decision at her discretion. You guys suggesting she's in favor of child porn because of her sentencing are sick.

I'm not saying she's in favor of child pornography. I'm saying she has been lenient in sentencing certain offenders. 

You defended her sentencing. 

[Lou]

1 minute ago, JarsOfClay said:

Well I didn't see that part, then ya that's bad. But like I said, she saw the images, has all the facts, all you have is speculation. She is clearly a very intelligent woman who is certainly more qualified than you to make that decision.

No, the facts were described. They included pics of an 11-year old boy having sex. 

You keep defending her. You're sick.  

[JarsOfClay]

6 minutes ago, Lou said:

No, the facts were described. They included pics of an 11-year old boy having sex. 

You keep defending her. You're sick.  

K, then kindly list your credentials which show you are more qualified than her to be a judge.

This is silly. She's going to be confirmed even Republicans are going to vote for her, does that mean they are sick too?

[Lou]

14 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

K, then kindly list your credentials which show you are more qualified than her to be a judge.

This is silly. She's going to be confirmed even Republicans are going to vote for her, does that mean they are sick too?

What a ridiculous argument. That means none of us can question anything not in our field. That pretty much puts an end to AW. 

At this point, I'm done conversing with you. I choose not to associate with anyone who sides with child porn sympathizers. 

[Kotchman]

49 minutes ago, Jason said:

I would not be shocked if this was accurate 

It’s the intent. A lot of these politicians were involved in the Epstein stuff. It’s part of their culture. I mean will bien down a city if a black criminal gets shot but nothing is ever done about human trafficking. Probably 50 to 100k kids sold and not one city burned over it. 

[JarsOfClay]

3 minutes ago, Lou said:

What a ridiculous argument. That means none of us can question anything not in our field. That pretty much puts an end to AW. 

At this point, I'm done conversing with you. I choose not to associate with anyone who sides with child porn sympathizers. 

Of course you can question things not in your field. There are certainly sentences I've seen that I feel are too rough or too lenient. But the intention of this entire attack is intended to make you believe she's a child porn sympathizer and that's not the case.

I see it as a lenient sentence given to an 18 year old man to try and give him a chance to turn his life around and become a productive member of society instead of institutionalizing him and possibly destroying his life. I trust her judgement based on her qualifications as a judge.

[Lhalo]

8 minutes ago, Lou said:

What a ridiculous argument. That means none of us can question anything not in our field. That pretty much puts an end to AW. 

At this point, I'm done conversing with you. I choose not to associate with anyone who sides with child porn sympathizers. 

I say a lot of stupid shit on this website but Jars take makes my blood boil. 

[Lhalo]

3 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

Of course you can question things not in your field. There are certainly sentences I've seen that I feel are too rough or too lenient. But the intention of this entire attack is intended to make you believe she's a child porn sympathizer and that's not the case.

I see it as a lenient sentence given to an 18 year old man to try and give him a chance to turn his life around and become a productive member of society instead of institutionalizing him and possibly destroying his life. I trust her judgement based on her qualifications as a judge.

Newsflash motherfucker: He won’t change his life around and many innocent people will be hurt. 

[Lou]

8 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

I say a lot of stupid shit on this website but Jars take makes my blood boil. 

Yes, you do. 

You're welcome.

[JarsOfClay]

1 minute ago, Lhalo said:

Newsflash motherfucker: He won’t change his life around and many innocent people will be hurt. 

What a terrible assumption. That case was a few years ago, and as far as I know he hasn't reoffended. 

The prosecution mentioned cases in which at least two men who got child pornography from online chat rooms or from an undercover officer were sentenced to a full year in prison. The defense pointed to cases of men who had larger collections of illicit material than Mr. Hawkins did but did not serve prison time at all.

The relatively lenient sentence was not unusual for child pornography cases — especially for those of defendants who possess such material, but are not involved in making it. Nor was the decision out of keeping with comparable cases in the Federal District Court in Washington where older defendants with larger child pornography collections have not served prison time at all.

 

___

This story really helps understand her decision: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/who-is-wesley-hawkins-republicans-zero-in-on-jacksons-sentencing-of-a-teen-in-a-child-sex-abuse-case.html

 

[JarsOfClay]

While court records show that Jackson did impose lighter sentences than federal guidelines suggested, Hawley's insinuation neglects critical context, including the fact that the senator himself has voted to confirm at least three federal judges who also engaged in the same practice.

Federal appeals court Judges Joseph Bianco of the Second Circuit and Andrew Brasher of the Eleventh Circuit, both Trump appointees, had each previously sentenced defendants convicted of possessing child pornography to prison terms well below federal guidelines at the time they were confirmed with Hawley's support, an ABC review of court records found.

----

I told you it was all theatre, you guys are so naive, my god.

[JarsOfClay]

Judge Ralph Erickson of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, confirmed in 2017 with support from Sen. Lee, sentenced defendants in at least 11 child porn cases to prison terms below the recommendation, records show.

Sixth Circuit Judge Amul Thapar, who was on Trump's Supreme Court short list in 2018, sentenced a man convicted of distribution of child pornography to 73 months behind bars when the guidelines suggested 97-121 months.

District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump-appointee who served alongside Judge Jackson on the U.S. Sentencing Commission for a time, also issued below-guidelines sentences in at least four child porn cases, records show.

Hawley accused Jackson of advocating "for drastic change" in sex offender sentencing by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for child porn while on the Commission. But he failed to mention that the panel's Republican appointees – including Judge Friedrich – also supported revising the sentences in a unanimous vote.

"There were three Republicans on the Commission at the time including Judge Bill Pryor of the 11th Circuit, Ricardo Hinojosa, a judge in a border district, and Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed to the bench by Donald Trump," said Rachel Barkow, vice dean of NYU Law School and a former Sentencing Commission member. "I don't think the three of them would be labeled soft on crime."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-check-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-child-porn/story?id=83565833

[Lou]

4 minutes ago, cals said:

Question for the room: Anyone other than me fuck in high school? 

Are there actually people who didn't?

[Lou]

1 minute ago, cals said:

 

Nobody likes pedos, but jars in right.  It was all theater.  And I commend him for spelling it in the douchey British way just to make old white American male blood boil (borrowing the term for a few days, Larry).  You are all very easily manipulated and triggered.  Congrats on being women at a liberal arts college, fellas.

Nobody is saying any of those judges are right. 

[Lou]

1 minute ago, cals said:

Fair enough.  Then why is the confirmation hearing of a Supreme Court justice the proper forum to debate sentencing guidelines?

It's not the guidelines that are being debated, it's the adherence to them that is in question. 

 

[Lou]

4 minutes ago, cals said:

Understood.  You are right then.  Ted Cruz should have totally grilled her on why she did her job the way she was required to do it.

Cool.

[arch stanton]

News flash fellas, women and minorities are going to get positions of authority. You can whine about or you can do the most white male thing imaginable and figure out how to monetize it

[Lhalo]

5 hours ago, arch stanton said:

News flash fellas, women and minorities are going to get positions of authority. You can whine about or you can do the most white male thing imaginable and figure out how to monetize it

I like your style.