Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Republican Senators Trivialize Crimes against Children
This is what the RepubliCAN’T leadership of Mendacious Mitch McConnell has always been, is now, and will be if we let him and his gang control the Republican Party in the Senate. Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Supreme Court nominee with a long history of supporting the latest supposedly victimized, misunderstood sexual minority, proudly promoted her record as one of progressive enlightenment. AND. Mittens Romney defended her and proudly voted for her confirmation, alongside Mitch’s Alaskan agent, Lisa Murkowski, and the Arlen Specter splinter faction member, Susan Collins. They did so with the full permission of Mendacious Mitch, and with the cover distraction of posturing conservatives like Senators Josh Hawley, Marsha Blackburn, and Ted Cruz.
There were at least three currently active leftist judges matching the Biden regime’s additional screening criteria: African American AND Woman. Never mind the trans-agenda “problematization” of “Woman.” The left understands that the real agenda is to negate Justice Clarence Thomas, providing a counter-narrative to each opinion he writes defending religious liberty or distinguishing blacks’ real civil rights struggle from the social-sexual revolution of the alphabet alliance, started by Hugh Hefner. So, the official story was that three women were interviewed for the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy caused by Stephen Breyer’s pending retirement at the end of this Supreme Court term in June.
. . . D.C. Circuit Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, and South Carolina District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs. …
Ketanji Brown Jackson
The 51-year-old judge has been rumored to be the President’s top choice since she was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last year.
Having served as a D.C. district judge since 2013, Jackson was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to the Circuit Court in June 2021 by a vote of 53-44, with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voting in her favor. …
From 2007 to 2013, [Leondra] Kruger served as an assistant to the United States solicitor general and the acting principal deputy solicitor general, arguing 12 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including a high-profile religious rights case in which the court ruled against the Obama Administration. Kruger then joined the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, where she helped strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, which banned same-sex marriage, and uphold the Affordable Care Act.
In 2014, California Gov. Jerry Brown named Kruger to the California Supreme Court when she was 38 years old. In her seven years on the bench, Kruger has developed a reputation as an attentive incrementalist, telling the Los Angeles Times in 2018 that she strives to perform her job in a way that “enhances the predictability and stability of the law and public confidence and trust in the work of the courts.” …
Judge J. Michelle Childs, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, has powerful allies within the Beltway.
South Carolina Democrat Rep. Jim Clyburn has been openly campaigning for Childs’ nomination, telling Axios that he’s been advocating for Childs to the White House for the past six months—long before Breyer’s retirement was even announced. Childs, 55, also has earned plaudits from South Carolina Republican Sen. Graham, who sits on the Judiciary Committee. Graham told reporters on Feb. 2 that Childs is “somebody I could see myself supporting.” He warned that if Biden’s pick isn’t Childs, it could be “much more problematic.”
A senior statesman of the civil rights movement actively promoted a candidate for nomination, and her name was Childs, not Jackson. This candidate already had one senior Republican on board, so was sure to get “bi-partisan” confirmation. Rep. Clyburn delivered the southern states’ Democratic Party primary elections to Biden when he was feeling the Bern. Childs would seem to have been the best choice. Instead, the regime nominated a woman who spent her entire legal career, starting in law school, promoted leniency for a class of sex offenders against children. There could hardly be a more in-your-face nominee for lifetime tenure on the highest court in our land.
The Republicans, supposedly led by Mitch McConnell, were handed a golden opportunity to show they really stood for something about which ordinary Americans of every region and demographic care. They knew there was a massive popular movement against the radical sexualization of children by school officials. McConnell had a clear opportunity to score a win, forcing the Biden regime to withdraw a sexual politics radical candidate, replacing her with the preferred candidate of black leaders in Congress. Instead, Mendacious Mitch signaled surrender from the very beginning.
Faced with this planned failure of leadership, younger conservative Senators had the choice of mere rhetorical posturing or leading up. Hawley, Cruz, and Blackburn could have gone to the Senate floor and called out any senator who dared support Judge Jackson for normalizing her radical views on a class of sex crimes against children. In 1987, Judge Douglas Ginsburg, no relation to RBG, was forced to withdraw from nomination to the Supreme Court over personal marijuana use and reports that his wife, as a medical student, had participated in performing two abortions. Ketanji Brown Jackson’s career-long pattern of support for a class of offenders against children would seem to be the easiest possible case for forcing a nomination withdrawal or open defeat, as every Democratic senator facing the voters this year could foresee the political hit pieces running in the general election. It would have been an easily understood case for changing nominees.
Instead, Hawley and Blackburn settled for fundraising video clips and Cruz monetized his fake opposition with his podcast side hustle. The fake fight and the preemptive surrender on the Supreme Court nomination campaign reminds us of the disgraceful conduct of Republican congressional majorities after passage of Obamacare, and their long sabotage of our national sovereignty through perennial subversion of effective immigration control. McConnell even used the planned surrender on Judge Jackson’s nomination to promote his own return to power, claiming court nominees would be less radical if voters would just return Republicans to the Senate majority.
Yet, how radical could Jackson be if three Republican senators in good standing with McConnell voted to confirm her, with not a word from McConnell against Murkowski, Romney, or Collins? Why won’t they do the same again with every Democrat regime nominee, even if voters give Republicans a three-seat majority? So, we know that there will be no real opposition, no consequential legislative victories against the regime, if we allow the current crew of incumbent “leadership” to keep power through their preferred candidates in the primaries and the general election.
Published in Law
This is how the law traditionally works in our legal system. We use this thing called the “Common Law,” which is essentially the theory that there is a set of laws that are valid for all people at all times and everyone should know it and be held responsible for it. In the Common Law system, judges decide what the law is based on past decisions and their interpretation of what the law should be and how it would be applied to the case in point.
Common law is practiced by pretty much all former British possessions. Judges’ decisions in Australia have often been cited by American courts. For instance the Wagon Mound cases in Australia were very influential in shaping tort law throughout the English speaking world.
However, judge made common law is trumped by statutes. Legislatures have been quite busy replacing almost all common law by statutes for quite some time now, and the common law is almost dead. Nowadays, we don’t rely on the common law for business transactions because our legislatures have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code which supplants the common law for businesses; but for sales transacted by those not in a business practice the common law still applies (unless other statutes are in effect).
Judges are expected to know common facts, such as what a woman or a man are, they are expected to know what common behaviors and traditions are. Judges are not supposed to be tabula rasa on a case, they are supposed to be well educated.
When that bitch said that she couldn’t say what a woman is, she was tweaking noses of the panel. When she said she wasn’t sure that there were “natural rights” she was exposing her utter contempt for the very basis of American law.
De facto and de jure are do not always correspond with each other. Judges are properly concerned with the latter.
And there’s a legal term for what is considered common knowledge.
But there’s a category for what is considered common knowledge. It would have been best to ask Ms. Jackson, “Are you a woman?”
I’m guessing you haven’t studied law. Not every act or behavior or circumstance has a law associated with it. The courts quite regularly adopt common business practices for an area of commerce as enforceable in interpreting contracts, for example.
What does that have to do with whether de facto and de jure may not correspond with each other?
You claimed that judges have no business looking at anything that is not law.
No, I stayed judged are concerned with what the law says regardless of whether it comports to what he, she, or you believe to be reality.
Okay. So what you’re saying is that you have no idea what you’re talking about. The reason we have judges is because it isn’t all that common for reality to fit neatly into whatever the laws expect. If we could just go through check boxes like a grocery clerk then we could just get rid of courts.
What I’m saying is that in those instances where the law and reality (or someone’s conception of it) are at odds, judges are properly concerned with the law.
Read that one as well. Essentially Mr McCarthy is arguing that Judge Brown was within her rights to give light sentences to purveyors of child porn. In fact in the most egregious case Mr McCarthy makes note that Sen Hawley notes that the adult male was looking at thousands of images of children but that because he was, exactly, 18 that is some mitigating factor. If anything, Mr McCarthy seems to be exposing a serious flaw in our justice system that allows such light treatment of child porn. It really makes it easier to understand how Epstein was able to skate so easily and why people are ready to believe things like Pizzagate. It’s because our justice system appears to not take this very seriously.
No, McCarthy is arguing the judge’s sentencing was consistent w/ other judges. Judges receive three sentencing recommendations after a conviction, one each from the defense, the prosecution, and the Probation Dept. She, like most other judges, gave great deference to the Probation Dept recommendations in sentencing. The issue of whether the law treats possessing child porn seriously enough is one Hawley is in a position to change. He can introduce legislation applying mandatory minimum sentences in such cases. That he hasn’t speaks volumes.
This glib assertion has never been the case, anywhere. It is, in fact, the main purpose of having a court and a judge.
Let me explain: Let’s pretend we live in a different society where laws are new and none are yet in place. Crug lives in the society and doesn’t like Orf for some reason and kills him. The people in the society are not happy and vote that killing is illegal. The next day Crug tries to attack Gurf but instead Gurf defends himself and while doing so kills Crug. The law says that Gurf broke the law. They go to court and the judge says that there is an obvious exception to the law that the voters didn’t consider: Self-Defense. The judge creates the self-defense exception to the law. Now, if the people don’t like what the judge did, they can rewrite the law to specifically condemn self-defense, but unless they do so self-defense will be the law’s exception.
As a matter of fact, there are several modern examples of this that many commentators in today’s society lament. One is qualified immunity for police officers. That is an example of the common law at work, though it’s a particularly odious example in my opinion. We have the ability to over turn the qualified immunity law, but until we do it is still the law. That is our responsibility as voters. In this case it’s a difficult course of action because many people are afraid of the consequences of overturning that judge-made law.
Laws will never be so refined as to never have occasion for judges to clarify, add to, subract from, or (in the case of constitutionality, for example) nullify completely. That’s how our legal system works.
He did introduce legislation to ensure strong penalties for child porn possession. You might want to check before making assumptions.
https://news.yahoo.com/hawley-introducing-bill-ensure-strong-221957182.html
He did, after the hearing. 🤔
And your point?
So? Perhaps he was not aware of the light sentencing going on with child porn until he questioned Judge Brown.
Closing the barn door after the horses he accused Justice Jackson of letting off easy were long gone.
Some horses got out. Should we let all the other horses out too? I think you’re just trolling by now.
That’s been clear for awhile.
No, it simply has nothing to do with her. She followed normal process in a manner consistent with existing law and common practice.
I’m not buying your answer. You are obviously trying to make an excuse for why you were dead wrong in your statement that Hawley never introduced legislation. Why don’t you just admit it and move on?
Whether you “buy” my answer is not really my concern. Hawley tried to use an issue against a nominee before ever attempting to rectify the issue himself. If you don’t see a problem with that your tribalism is stronger than your reason.
Or maybe he was delaying in the hope of getting it more attention?
Right 🙄
I guess everyone must only think like you think or they’re not sincere?
Not at all. I’m actually giving Hawley the benefit of the doubt because publicly attacking someone as a pedophile enabler in order to generate publicity is possibly even worse than doing so to defeat her nomination.
Imagine if Joe Biden came out and said the attack on Clarence Thomas was only about raising public awareness of sexual harassment or Kamala Harris said the attack on Brett Kavanaugh was about gaining attention for the issue of date rape?
Except where’s the evidence that Clarence Thomas actually committed sexual harassment, or that Brett Kavanaugh actually committed date rape? The evidence on Judge Jackson’s sentencing is available for anyone to see.
And even if he were to have made a very odd joke about pubic hair, it’s hardly sexual harassment.
But how dare you look!?