Republican Senators Trivialize Crimes against Children

 

Ballot boxThis 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 post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 101 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    But how dare you look!?

    Sounds like a great book title for a treatise on contemporary politics.

    • #91
  2. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    Closing the barn door after the horses he accused Justice Jackson of letting off easy were long gone.

    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.

    Again, Justice Jackson’s sentencing is unremarkable, completely consistent with current law and practice.

    • #92
  3. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    Closing the barn door after the horses he accused Justice Jackson of letting off easy were long gone.

    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.

    Again, Justice Jackson’s sentencing is unremarkable, completely consistent with current law and practice.

    And?  That was actually the least of the problems with her.  Tell me why it’s okay to have a Supreme Court Justice who doesn’t believe in natural rights, which are the entire basis we have for our freedoms?

    • #93
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Rodin (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    But how dare you look!?

    Sounds like a great book title for a treatise on contemporary politics.

    I’d prefer “How dare you notice we’re lying?”

    • #94
  5. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    Closing the barn door after the horses he accused Justice Jackson of letting off easy were long gone.

    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.

    Again, Justice Jackson’s sentencing is unremarkable, completely consistent with current law and practice.

    And? That was actually the least of the problems with her. Tell me why it’s okay to have a Supreme Court Justice who doesn’t believe in natural rights, which are the entire basis we have for our freedoms?

    I’m disappointed at the number of people I’ve heard say that rights come from the state. When I quoted the Declaration to a Stanford Ph. D. who claimed that rights come from the state, his response was, “Well, I dispute that.” 

    • #95
  6. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    Closing the barn door after the horses he accused Justice Jackson of letting off easy were long gone.

    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.

    You are just digging a deeper hole because you cannot admit that you were dead wrong, instead you make excuses.  You cannot continue to argue anything after such an egregious blunder because you lose credibility.

    • #96
  7. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    Closing the barn door after the horses he accused Justice Jackson of letting off easy were long gone.

    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.

    You didn’t give Hawley any benefit of the doubt whatsoever.  You didn’t even bother to look up whether or not he introduced legislation to curb child pornography, you just made it up out of thin air.

    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?

    Yes, I can imagine.  It would be a joke.  Clarence Thomas never sexually harassed anyone, and Brett Kavanaugh never raped anybody.  Keep digging.

    • #97
  8. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    Closing the barn door after the horses he accused Justice Jackson of letting off easy were long gone.

    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.

    You didn’t give Hawley any benefit of the doubt whatsoever. You didn’t even bother to look up whether or not he introduced legislation to curb child pornography, you just made it up out of thin air.

    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?

    Yes, I can imagine. It would be a joke. Clarence Thomas never sexually harassed anyone, and Brett Kavanaugh never raped anybody. Keep digging.

    I looked it up at the time he was smearing Judge Jackson.

    Judge Jackson never enabled a pedophile either.

    • #98
  9. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    Closing the barn door after the horses he accused Justice Jackson of letting off easy were long gone.

    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.

    Again, Justice Jackson’s sentencing is unremarkable, completely consistent with current law and practice.

    And? That was actually the least of the problems with her. Tell me why it’s okay to have a Supreme Court Justice who doesn’t believe in natural rights, which are the entire basis we have for our freedoms?

    And it was wrong to attack her as a pedophile enabler on this basis.

    Whether of not there are other reasons to oppose her nomination doesn’t justify that attack.   

    • #99
  10. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    Closing the barn door after the horses he accused Justice Jackson of letting off easy were long gone.

    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.

    Again, Justice Jackson’s sentencing is unremarkable, completely consistent with current law and practice.

    And? That was actually the least of the problems with her. Tell me why it’s okay to have a Supreme Court Justice who doesn’t believe in natural rights, which are the entire basis we have for our freedoms?

    Also, a very interesting article on the different conservative or originalist views on how natural law fits into our jurisprudence, https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/two-kinds-of-originalism

    • #100
  11. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    And it was wrong to attack her as a pedophile enabler on this basis.

     

    I suppose that would be a matter of opinion.  I’m done.  

    • #101
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.