Ketanji Brown Jackson

Josh Hawley's Attack on Ketanji Brown Jackson Illustrates the Emotionalism She Criticized

The senator argues that questioning sex offender policies "endangers our children."

|

In a 1996 Harvard Law Review article, Ketanji Brown Jackson, then a law school student, noted the "climate of fear, hatred, and revenge" in which policies dealing with sex offenders are formulated. Before Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation hearing began this week, Sen. Josh Hawley (R‒Mo.) objected to that observation, then proceeded to demonstrate its accuracy.

Hawley's misrepresentation of Jackson's record in this area was typical of the criticism leveled at Supreme Court nominees, which often involves inflammatory, acontextual citations of a candidate's statements and decisions. But it also illustrated the difficulty of having a rational conversation about the legal treatment of sex offenders, a broad and diverse category that extends far beyond the "child predators" on whom Hawley focused.

The senator claimed Jackson, as a federal judge, had shown an "alarming pattern" of "sentencing leniency for sex criminals" who are "preying on children." But the cases he cited actually involved defendants convicted of possessing or sharing child pornography rather than defendants convicted of sexually abusing children.

Hawley averred that Jackson favored "letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes." Here, too, he obscured an important distinction: between people who produce child pornography, which necessarily entails abuse of children, and people who look at the resulting images.

Hawley also equated sentencing offenders of the latter type to, say, five years in prison rather than 15 with "letting [them] off the hook." And he ignored longstanding, widespread, bipartisan criticism of the penalties that federal sentencing guidelines recommend for nonproduction child pornography offenses, which many judges, prosecutors, and jurors view as excessive.

Federal law draws an outmoded distinction between receiving child pornography, which triggers a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, and possessing such material, which in the internet context is essentially the same crime. In possession cases, judges have more discretion, although the guidelines recommend penalties based on congressionally prescribed "enhancements" that cover nearly all defendants.

In a 2010 survey, the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) found that a large majority of federal judges thought both kinds of sentences were too long. In FY 2019, the USSC reported, 59 percent of nonproduction offenders received sentences below the guideline range, indicating that "courts increasingly believed the sentencing scheme for such offenders was overly severe."

As evidence that Jackson was especially lenient, Hawley presented cases in which she had sentenced defendants caught with child pornography to terms below the guideline range. But as Douglas Berman, a sentencing expert at Moritz College of Law, pointed out, "Judge Jackson's record of imposing below-guideline CP sentences is quite mainstream."

Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who writes for National Review, described Hawley's characterization of Jackson's sentencing record and her criticism of the current sentencing scheme as "a smear" that was "meritless to the point of demagoguery." But such demagoguery is par for the course when it comes to policies aimed at sex offenders.

In addition to criticizing Jackson's "quite mainstream" views on child pornography penalties, Hawley cited her Harvard Law Review article, which argued that courts should deem sex offender laws "punitive" rather than "preventive" when "they operate to deprive sex criminals of a legal right in a manner that primarily has retributive or general-deterrent effects." That distinction is important because punitive laws are subject to additional constitutional constraints, including due process requirements and the bans on double jeopardy, ex post facto laws, and "cruel and unusual" punishment.

In 2016, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that Michigan's Sex Offender Registration Act was primarily punitive, meaning its requirements could not be imposed retroactively. The supreme courts of several states, including AlaskaNew Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, have reached similar conclusions regarding sex offender registries.

According to Hawley, however, Jackson's discussion of this subject exemplified "a record that endangers our children." This is precisely the sort of emotionalism that Jackson rightly described as an obstacle to clear thinking on an issue that tends to generate more heat than light.

© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: 50 Years After Nixon's Commission Said Cops Should Stop Busting Pot Users, the Federal Ban Remains Unchanged

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Going all in on the kiddie porn, huh?

    1. Trannies are firmly fixed in the List of the Elect; pedophiles soon to follow.

      1. It's absolutely revolting, isn't it? This guy is a seriously sick motherfucker. I just hope the neighbors are watching him.

        1. Finally a proven way of earning money online. Yes! you can earn more than you think only by working just a few hours from home regularly. I have been doing this job for like a few weeks and my last weekly payment was exactly 2537 dollars.

          See More Information Here… http://jobscash.tk

    2. Pretty much. This is disgusting and makes me wish I had a physical copy of Reason to burn.

      1. I’ve got some from 10 years ago left.

        1. Those are actually worth reading for the most part.

          1. Ten? Maybe. Twenty? Yep.

    3. He should have accused of her gang rape. Then his claims would be "credible" in a way that citing her actual decisions is not.

      Judicial override of laws because they dislike them, not that they violate the Constitution, is abhorrent on any libertarian viewpoint.

    4. Her "inability" to offer even a lay definition for the word woman illustrates the rank dishonesty and lust for power that Sullum endorses.

    5. Buttplug approves. In fact, he should write a guest article on the subject. ‘The Reason Case for Normalizing Child Rape”.

    6. Someone really, really, needs to do a wellness check on Sullum's kids.

      1. Better book in advance. They probably have a very busy shooting schedule.

    7. Knew exactly where Reason was going to stand on the poor hapless deviants.

  2. She has such a proud distinguished record, they had to hide it from Senate Republicans

  3. Just getting pathetic st this point Jacob. We get it. Leftist Twitter has a narrative. Think for yourself.

    1. Sullum is thinking

      He's thinking he's too young and too poor to retire, while being too old to grow a spine or find another paying gig.

  4. As a general rule, the Supreme court has scant need of Harvard Law students.

    Many and excellent were the Court's decisions in the generations separating its Constitutional establishment from the spin-off of a School of Law from Harvard College.

    And that goes double for Yale.

    1. " A judge is a law student who grades his own papers." H.L. Mencken

    2. Fair assessment. Although hilariously ironic coming from an 85 year old physics professor who thinks he is an expert on climate science and climate policy despite having no training in either field.

  5. In a 2010 survey, the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) found that a large majority of federal judges thought both kinds of sentences were too long.

    That’s the same Commission she was the Vice chair of at the time, right? So, like, if you’re trying to show that she’s not biased, the fact that she wrote a policy she later used as a judge isn’t very helpful.

    1. Well she’s a liberal, so…

    2. LMAO

      Also, people 'collecting' or 'viewing' kiddie porn are not exactly sympathetic subjects.

      Christ.

    3. I really don’t have a dog in this fight. There are points to be made on either side. I am, as usual, arguing for a bit of intellectual honesty in the discussion. Hawley pointed out every case of child pornography on her record, and every single case was a downward departure.

      This is after she had been in positions to affect public policy and she’s being questioned about another position she will hold where she be able to shape public policy. The fact that she has a pet issue she carried from her time on a federal commission to the bench is noteworthy even if you ignore the allegations that she is soft child porn creators.

      1. She supports making judicial policy with CRT in mind and you cannot see large portions of her records.

        As if it wasn't already enough to know that Dems favor her.

        1. She said nothing of the sort about CRT and her records are completely accessible. What parts do you think are inaccessible?

          1. "I also try to convince my students that sentencing is just plain interesting on an intellectual level, in part because it melds together myriad types of law — criminal law, of course, but also administrative law, constitutional law, critical race theory, negotiations, and to some extent, even contracts."
            -Ketanji Brown Jackson, 2015

            There's also the fact that CRT is supported in just about every single organization she has been involved in. This all was documented and presented in the hearings so far.

            And yes, years of her records ARE sealed by Biden's office under Presidential Records Act and FOIA exemptions. Specifically, 48,000 pages from 2010 to 2014, when she served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

            Which she totally did not apply CRT to, of course.

            1. "criminal law, of course, but also administrative law, constitutional law, critical race theory, negotiations, and to some extent, even contracts"

              So she makes a non-exhaustive list of various things that can factor into sentencing and you only hear CRT? I think that is more illustrative of you than her.

              Are you one of the people who think that the only reason she was chosen is because she's black and a woman? From your analytical approach to CRT, it wouldn't be surprising.

              1. So we've gone from, "there was no CRT" to, "what difference does it make, you racist?"

                You also conveniently ignored that she has, as brought up in the hearings, supported CRT, declared approval of the 1619 Project and generally surrounded herself with like-minded CRT-endorsing individuals.

                But mentioning that is racist.

                This is a large part of why Dems are gonna do so poorly in November.

                1. I didn't say "there was no CRT". I pushed back against your assertion that "She supports making judicial policy with CRT in mind". Because she not only has a long list of factors that influence sentencing, she said absolutely nothing about policy.

                  Perhaps you were just being careless with your words, but I think you probably meant to infer that she wanted to have everyone follow the formula she, personally, uses in making decisions.

                  And no, it isn't racist. It's polemic, but it's not racist.

                  And the Dems are going to get shellacked in November for a number of reasons, some historical, some geographical, and some infighting between the moderates and the wingnuts.

                  1. Squirm and shift those definitions harder.

                    She supports CRT. She has stated she will go against the legislature to follow her own judgement. Four years of her records on when she had input on sentencing policy are sealed by Biden.

                    These all are cited to you throughout the forum.

                    1. He’ll still want a cite. Nelson is a sea lion.

                    2. She has said that CRT plays a part in *her* decision-making process. She said nothing about it being something that *everyone* should use in their process.

                      That's the difference berween a personal belief and a policy position. You falsely said that she wanted it to be policy.

                      As I said above, you may have just been careless with your words, but I think you were intentionally trying to infer that she would require CRT to be a factor for everyone (a policy) if she were confirmed.

                      And I don't have a deep enough knowledge of what a Supreme Court Justice can, on their own, institute as policy for anyone else. But I'm almost certain they can't institute anything unilaterally.

              2. So she makes a non-exhaustive list of various things that can factor into sentencing and you only hear CRT? I think that is more illustrative of you than her.

                So you lied about her discussing making judicial policy with CRT in mind, then when presented with evidence that proves you utterly, miserably, and completely wrong, you only hear everything EXCEPT CRT? I think that is more illustrative of you than Salted Nuts, sarcasmic. Maybe if you stopped lying about literally every goddamn thing you wouldn't have these issues so often. You know you can be a slimy, partisan fucking hack without also being an abject liar, right? Like, there actually do exist honest Democrats, honest leftists, honest Marxists.

                1. No, I am pushing back against the idea that she will be making policy as a Justice. Although I admit I don't have a deep knowledge of the prerogatives of a Justice, I'm almost certain none of them can unilaterally impose policy on anyone in the judiciary. If you know differently, please let me know.

  6. It would be nice if everyone could get-off the doggin train and start interviewing for the job.

    Like how (if at all) would kbj uphold the U.S. Constitution.

    1. She said she would go against the legislature and lower sentences on her own accord. She said she would use race and crt in her judgements of length of sentences.

      1. She said neither of those things.

        1. Yes she did, I quoted her in the other thread.

          You don't have to lie.

          Just because Vox and Politico ignored those statements and are ignorant of her 2015 statements doesn't mean she didn't say something.

          1. A sentencing recommendation is just that. It doesn't have to be followed. A minimum sentence does.

            Both of them are the legislature infringing on the judiciary. And minimum sentences are hugely problematic, with massive sentences often handled down for minor posession cases or for people who are connected to a criminal, but not the crime (frequently partners, wives, and girlfriends).

            If you think decades in prison are justified for being in a relationship with a criminal, you might want to question your definition of 'justice'.

            1. So is using CRT to sentence.

              1. If it saves just one black pedophile...

              2. Using CRT as a factor in her sentencing is similar to ACB using her Catholic faith for the same purpose. As long as it doesn't break the law, it isn't disallowed.

                I'm getting the feeling that the objection isn't to the fact that there are many factors to a sentencing decision. It's *which* factors a judge (and this one in particular) uses.

                There isn't one "correct" set of factors. Some judges/Justices use conservative or originalist or liberal or libertarian or a myriad of other viewpoints to inform their decisions. That's what makes them all different. And that's not a bad thing.

                Nor is it unexpected. Was anyone surprised that ACB has different decision factors than Sotomayor? That Scalia was different than RBG? That Alito is different than Gorsuch?

                You think CRT is bad, perhaps even in an "actually evil" way. I think it is bad, but in a "weak, unconvincing, and overreaching in its conclusions" sort of way. But there are plenty of Justices who use bad ideas to inform their decisions. Several of them are already on the Court.

        2. Her response Day 2.

          Judge Jackson: Sentencing guidelines for child pornography offenders are "leading to extreme disparities in the system."

          "Courts are adjusting their sentences in order to account for the changed circumstances..."

          Also refer to her 2015 discussions on CRT.

          1. Nelson is a waste of time.

            1. Nelson just doesn't think paleoconservatives are good for America.

              And he thinks that the justice system needs some serious reforms in sentencing. Whether it's drugs or fraud or something else, sentencing guidelines, minimum sentences, and three strike laws, which seemed like such a good idea at the time, have turned out to be vehicles of injustice.

              1. Nelson just doesn't think.*

                He also fails literacy checks when the subject matter is outside his programming.

                1. Since my issue profile doesn't follow any of the standard 'programs', I"m not sure whose North Star is guiding me. Do you?

                  1. Bull shit. You keep saying that but doing everything to defend only the left while condemning the right. Jeffy is that you?

                    1. I almost completely support conservative economic and free market ideals. I am very vocal about my objection to cultural conservatism and state coercion being used to impose cultural ideas that have been rejected by most Americans.

                      There is a difference. I am socially liberal because I think that a country where everyone can live their lives free of coercion (especially on moral and cultural issues) is the definition of liberty.

                      But cultural conservatives don't just want to be left to follow their own conscience. They want to prevent the freedom to choose for everyone else. That is wrong.

                      This is what I mean by heterodox. I try to examine things without starting with a conclusion and working back. That's how I can think that trans people, while baffling to me, should be left to live their lives unless they are actually hurting anyone (which doesn't include the hyperbolic and overheated moral panic of cultural conservatives), but trans women who went through puberty as a male shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sports. And I have supported both of those things in these comments.

                  2. Another faux libertarian who always seems to side with the left claiming he doesn't. How many does that make now?

                    1. Spoiler: Nelson is a sarcasmic sock. A pretty old one, too. He hasn't busted it out in a while. He likes to change them up periodically hoping people will have forgotten when he makes it back around the batting order. Shreek does the same shit. Busted out his Dajjal, AddictionMyth and MollyGodiva socks for the first time in 4 or 5 years right after the Biden coronation.

                    2. Lucinda, if you look back I've only been here for a few months. Definitely less than a year. I was gone for a little while because I was dealing with my mom's breast cancer and it wasn't a priority for me.

                      I think it's pretty easy to see that my writing style is distinctive. If it makes you feel better to pretend I'm not my own person, you do you. But that doesn't make my points any less valid.

                    3. Since libertarians are, generally, socially liberal and fiscally conservative I think I fit into the category.

              2. You’re a democrat shill. So you are with Jackson and want to reduce sentences for pedophiles.

                1. I don't support a lot of Democratic fiscal policies, I have never been a Democrat, and I am a split-ticket voter, especially at the state and local level.

                  KBJ wouldn't be my choice, although her answers about the Constistitution being fixed surprised me in a good way. But ACB and Kavanaugh also weren't my cup of tea for different reasons. In my oerfect world we would have five moderates and two each of consevatives and liberals. But the politics of the day won't allow that. It may never be possible again, but a man can hope.

                  I don't think Jackson will be any worse than ACB or Thomas. All three are qualified, although obviously very different judges.

              3. Actually, Nelson is a sockpuppet for someone named "sarcasmic" who has admitted publicly that he lost custody of his children because his wife credibly accused him of molesting his daughter, and therefore he has a vested interest in defending the rights of accused and convicted pedophiles.

                1. I'm not married (never have been) and I don't have any kids. I have been with the same woman for almost 23 years now, but we aren't interested in getting married. Neither of us see the point.

      2. Have you noticed that a Buttplug is staying far away from this?

        1. Too stimulating.

  7. I'm presuming this is the sole issue they're discussing about her record, because Reason certainly seems to be focused on it.

    1. They're really focused on propping her up and attacking any conservative or republican criticism. It's quite the stark contrast in coverage vs. any of Trump's nominees, but especially Kavanaugh (who I really wish wasn't on the bench, but the fake attacks on him couldn't be rewarded)
      It's really getting old how far Reason will go to defend progressives (socialists)

      1. Get ready, they’re just getting ramped up for the midterms.

      2. They're really focused on propping her up and attacking any conservative or republican criticism.

        What other criticism is there going to be?

        1. Remember when they attacked all the Democrat criticism of the last three Republican scotus nominees?

          Oh wait, they supported that.

          1. If it weren't for double standards, sarcasmic wouldn't have any.

      3. And for another reason to distrust the FBI…..

        https://freebeacon.com/politics/read-the-emails-advertising-fbi-event-to-honor-ketanji-brown-jacksons-nomination/

        FTA:

        An FBI field office canceled a celebration for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court nomination after supervisors concluded the event violated the agency's commitment to nonpartisanship.

        “The Washington Free Beacon received an internally circulated email from the FBI's Los Angeles Women's and Black Affairs Committees, dated March 11, that advertised a "save the date" for an interview with the agency's assistant director in charge for the L.A. field office and a "nomination party" for Jackson on March 23. The event was first reported on Tuesday by Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

        1. Yeah, that should never happen. The FBI has no business doing something like that.

          1. Your party owns them. This is what happens with democrat influence.

            1. I'm an independent, so I don't have a party to own anything.

  8. The left really, really, really, does not want anyone interfering with their love of sexually abusing children. The left's position is that criticizing child abuse illustrates conservatives "emotionalism". I mean, why get upset with someone viewing children being abused? It's just a picture and no one is really harmed by such actions. So, those viewing or possessing porn shouldn't really be sentenced to prison for more than a couple of months.

    Is this really the position the left wants to take?

    1. Based on years of this rhetoric... Yes. I think they are firm behind the little kids.

      1. They’re definitely doing this for the kids.

    2. No one "does not want anyone interfering with their love of sexually abusing children".

      "So, those viewing or possessing porn shouldn't really be sentenced to prison for more than a couple of months."

      No one thinks this, either. The point, espoused by a wide swath of judges from across the political spectrum, is that people who *view* child pornography shouldn't be treated the same as people who *create and distribute* child pornography.

      But if you believe these things, you should check out Q-Anon.

      1. To pretend that it isn't a controversial subject that is open to criticism and questioning is simply disingenuous.

        1. Agreed. But pretending that it isn't about the inherent problems in sentencing guidelines, minimum sentences, and three strike laws is equally disingenuous.

          1. See it's not though, because judge Lafawnda Shaniqua Ubuntu gave lighter-than-asked-for sentences to actual pedophiles, actual producers of child porn, and actual distributors of child porn AS WELL AS giving lighter-than-asked-for sentences to consumers of child porn.

            There is also no universal agreement on the part of judges, lawyers, or citizens that consumption of child porn deserves light or no punishment, no matter how hard you beat the frame of the Overton window with the sledgehammer of your pedophilia apologia.

            1. I don't know who LSU is, nor do I know her (or his?) record on these issues. However, my point remains that criminal justice reform is necessary surrounding sentencing.

              It has been widely reported that Jackson isn't outside of the mainstream in her sentencing. Pointing that out doesn't make anyone pro-pedophile. The narrative that the left are pedophiles and the right are champions of children is as extreme as it is false. The Catholic Church has run an international pedophile ring for decades, if not longer, and no one could call them liberals.

      2. So if the perp pays someone to abuse the children they are not really guilty of child abuse. They just view the pictures of the abuse. No big deal. They themselves aren't harming anyone, right?

        Yeah. As I said, The left really loves their sexual child abuse and they are not ashamed of shouting out their support.

      3. Bullshit. One of the pedos in question took and sent photos of his own child along with the other photos he downloaded and shared. She proceeded to give him a sentence below guidelines. For her at least, there is no difference between the two scenarios.

    3. It gives the government too much power to frame anyone they want to. Same thing with drug position. Any corrupt official could plant drugs or child porn on you and the latter would be much easier in a digital world.

      1. The only thing more pathetic than you pedophiles is the fact that you think everyone else is as fucking stupid as you are. You don't come into possession of child porn without wanting to. There has not been a single case in history of a cop planting child porn on a perp. Computers are not cork boards where any old cop can walk past and pin up child porn whenever they want. And even if they were, even the sort of last-in-his-class public defender that a piece of shit like you could afford would certainly raise the 4th amendment issue if it were tenable in court. If you want to watch videos of little kids getting fucked by adults with impunity, take some steps to secure your shit. If you're too fucking stupid to do that, take the L when you get caught, you sick piece of shit.

  9. Putting the merits of the argument that sex offender sentencing is excessive aside for a moment, the fact that it is mainstream for the judiciary to ignore the legislature's guidelines should be more concerning to a Senator than if the current nominee is a rogue "soft on crime" judge.

    1. People who bitched about the cruelty of Three Strikes legislation seem to forget WHY legislatures passed those laws.

      1. People who like three strikes laws seem to forget WHY they have failed.

        Trying to show people that you are "tough on crime" by creating one-size-fits-all bills that end up imposing overly harsh penalties on people who are peripheral, at best, to the crime demonstrates why judicial discretion is important. The judge is the one on the ground, looking at the case in front of them.

        Granted three strike laws and the war on drugs create some of the most egregious examples, but that's what happens when decisions are made that far away for reasons unconnected to actual justice.

        1. People who like three strikes laws seem to forget WHY they have failed.

          Locking up criminals after their third conviction is not a failure to anyone except criminals on their third conviction, sarcasmic. Those laws have not failed. They have succeeded. Spectacularly. In the faces of you and the rest of the criminal underclass, including pedophiles like yourself. Now obviously you are pretty severely mentally challenged, and I'm sympathetic to a judge taking that into account on the first offense. But you should have learned your lesson. You didn't. Be thankful you got to sit in a climate-controlled jail cell for a few months instead of getting your face pounded into hamburger by the fathers of your victims. Our collective restraint as a society is why you weren't beaten to death after the first kid you fucked.

          1. Jesus. I have no idea who you are, since I haven't seen you around before, but you are clearly not a reasonable person. Calling me a criminal and a pedophile because I see three strike laws as a travesty of justice is completely outside of realm of the rational.

        2. Who says anybody LIKES them?

          Necessary evils are evil regardless.

          1. Apparently Lucinda is a huge fan.

    2. there can be no sentence too harsh for these perverts. lock 'em up and throw away the key.

  10. "But the cases he cited actually involved defendants convicted of possessing or sharing child pornography rather than defendants convicted of sexually abusing children."

    Stop minimalizing the sexual exploitation of children, please. Child pornography exploits children, and when a person consumes child porn, they are knowingly consuming a product that was produced through exploitation of children. It is what it is.

    1. Yeah but locking people up for extended periods hurts Reason.com's benefactor Charles Koch by reducing his supply of cost-effective labor.

      Get your priorities straight.

      #InDefenseOfBillionaires

      1. Are child sex fiends really cost effective, though? You have to spend a lot of resources policing them to keep them away from the unaccompanied minors. Both wasted resources and wasted man-hours not spent creating additional billions for Koch.

    2. Sullum is lying there. In one case the defendant expressed desires to travel to meet with an 8 year old. Another the defendant was taking pictures of his own 8 year old daughter.

      1. Have you noticed a bunch of comments disappearing today?

  11. The Koch / Soros / Reason soft-on-crime #EmptyThePrisons agenda applies to literally all criminals except the HEAVILY ARMED INSURRECTIONISTS of 1 / 6. Because their crimes were worse than 9 / 11.

    Sex offenders, though? CP enthusiasts? Release 'em early. Get them back on the streets. Because people on the margins of society are usually willing to work for low wages. And that's in the financial interest of Reason.com's billionaire benefactor Charles Koch.

    #CheapLaborAboveAll

    1. What about child labor?

      1. The fight for 15!

  12. What's up with the recent interest in Josh Hawley?

    1. He was one of very few that voted against Ukraine aid, wasn’t he? He was one of the bigger names on that list (with Gaetz, Boebert, and Taylor). I may have this wrong.

      Perhaps they think Hawley is the bigger threat… which he is out of the 4.

    2. Twitter hates Hawley so Sullum and Reason also hate him

      1. Because the WEF hates him.

  13. Josh Hawley's Attack on Ketanji Brown Jackson Illustrates the Emotionalism She Criticized

    Yes, it does. And what it also illustrates is that she is an arrogant technocrat with a political and social agenda, someone who substitutes her personal preferences for the will of the people and the Constitution. And the article illustrates that Reason is on board with that kind of government.

    1. “And the article illustrates that Reason is on board with that kind of government.”

      And child pornography.

      1. That might just be Sullum. He seems very focused.

        1. Binion was justifying her sentences as well, although definitely not as vociferously.

          1. I love Binion defending her while condemning Kavanaugh's "emotional outburst" over being accused of raping multiple women.

        2. Well Sullum and Shackford and Soave and Britches and since it's pro porn ENB. there is no DNC lie these people will not shill for.

    2. Indeed. When personal politics and agenda remain at the forefront of such decisions, nothing good happens.

  14. Biden's Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson refuses to define the word 'woman' because she's 'not a biologist' as she is grilled on day two of her confirmation hearing

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10642895/Bidens-Supreme-Court-nominee-Ketanji-Brown-Jackson-refuses-define-word-woman.html

    Really?

    1. This is so absurd. Why are we doing this?

      1. Cuz most humans are hairless, retarded apes?

        1. I’m pretty sure even Koko the gorilla could define “woman.”

    2. Is sarc being red pilled?

      1. I think he's lonely.

      2. Are bennies red?

    3. It's almost as if there are multiple federal laws dependent on the definition of woman or something.

    4. Isn't there an acceptable entry in the latest edition of the newspeak dictionary she could have cited?

  15. Fuck off Sullum. Turn yourself in for child pornography while the Dems are in office and get a light sentence.

  16. Having child porn is enaballing child porn, someone has to produce it. So true the holder is not personally harming anyone but they are paying people to harm someone. So yes the crime is equal and requires punishment.

  17. Josh Hawley was not being emotional. He was coldly calculating his hyperbolic emotional base where he gets most of his grift from.

    "We must stop child molesters from reaching the highest court in the land, or your kid may be next! Give now, give generously!"

    1. Sounds more like a very sober dispute over her, you know, actual record.

      He is not accusing her of raping people. He is saying her decisions are bad. And he cites the decisions he finds to be bad.

      Shame the Left seems unwilling to do the same.

    2. so you're ok sentencing a child porn possessor to 3 months? this is what hawley called into question. she's clearly an incompetent judge.

    3. Yeah if Hawley was a real sober, serious person like you he would have spent the last 5 years impotently raging about a conspiracy between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump to hack every voting machine in America and steal the election from Hillary Clinton on account of Trump getting peed on by hookers in a Moscow hotel room 20 years ago, right pardner?

      Why do you even bother with the socks, sarcasmic? You're just as obvious and just as bad at it no matter which banner you fly, and you're so utterly autistic and incapable of recognizing your own rhetorical tics to suppress them long enough to pretend to be somebody else.

      Anyway, don't worry. If your wife was going to pursue charges against you for raping your underage daughter for all those years, I'm sure she would have done it by now. She's probably happy enough to have the child safely away from you.

      1. Is everyone a sarc sock puppet to you? You seem to say it to a lot of people.

        1. That's because he makes a lot.

  18. Reason really disappoints me with this one.
    “Here, too, he obscured an important distinction: between people who produce child pornography, which necessarily entails abuse of children, and people who look at the resulting images.”
    People who look at the resulting images, which are necessarily the results of abuse of children, would be unable to do so without people who produce child pornography, which necessarily entails abuse of children.
    Sure, possessors might not be abusers, but they are the beneficiaries of the abuse.
    Under current drug laws the end user is treated more leniently than the upstream suppliers based on the fact that they are not the ones growing/importing, packaging, selling, and profiting, but drug use is (more or less) a victimless crime involving consenting adults.
    EVERYONE in the child pornography chain is equally tainted and equally guilty because the entire enterprise is founded on those who c͟a͟n͟ n͟o͟t͟ give consent.

    1. More importantly, it's a distinction without a difference in KJB's case. One of her cases involved a pedo who produced CP of his 10- year old daughter before sharing it, and she sentenced him well under the guidelines as well.

    2. Someone pointed out that cartoons that abuse nobody nevertheless draw the boiling wrath of every unemployed wannabee GOP SWAT teamster, tax collector, grant spender and parasitical oaf spewing venom here to keep coathangers bloody. The GOP cast its lot with inbred, moronic, superstitious snake jugglers and BECAUSE of that idiotic move is being unseated, deplatformed, ousted, defeated and humiliated, and I LOVE IT... Just not here where people are busy using spoiler votes to reduce coercion.

      1. You’re celebrating the rise of Marxism in America. You need to commit suicide. Or hopefully you’re nurse turns the morphine drip up all the way. You are a disgrace to the LP and likely a pedo yourself.

      2. I'll certainly cast my lot in with superstitious snake handlers before I cast it in with demented 85 year old boomer pedophiles who believe in an absolute right to fuck children on video tape, you sick piece of shit. Nobody who protects children from the sexual abuse and exploitation of piece of shit pedophiles like you is, was, or will ever have any reason to be humiliated. On the other hand, you posting very nearly incoherent, historically illiterate, NAMBLA propaganda is pretty fucking embarrassing. Or rather it would be to anyone with a conscience whose brain wasn't rotted away by dementia.

        It's also pretty interesting that you consider "inbred" to be a devastating insult considering your homeboy Biden fucked his own (underage) daughter, while his son fucked his own (underage) niece, but only after fucking his dead brother's wife. Something tells me the people who tarred and feathered Mormon pedophiles and ran them off into Mexico a century ago are less likely to be inbred than sub-80 IQ retards like you who celebrate grown men fucking their underage family members. But then logic has never been your strong suit.

        Make sure you keep that obese, wrinkled old fat sack of shit in your inpatient care facility, Hankie. Because you were a pathetic faggot pussy bitch who would have gotten curb stomped even 50 years ago when you were just a sub-80 IQ pedophile with a functional body. It wouldn't be too difficult for even the great-grandaddies of any of the little girls you've fucked to make you into a puddle of goo the first time you step out on your Medicare-provided motor scooter.

        1. Wow. I have no idea where you came from, but welcome to my mute list. You can hang out with Nardz, Sevo, and Rev. Kirkland and have fun making psychotic, unhinged rants full of wild and implausible generalizations and hatred of anyone who doesn't agree with you.

          1. Totally not sarc...

  19. Apparently Jackson doesn't know what a woman is. Nor does she know when a child is conceived.
    And the liberals want someone like that on SCOTUS?!!!
    Never voting for another Dem. never again.

  20. This vile woman is a literal idiot, a virulent racist, and a pathological liar. She is as unqualified -- unfit -- to be any kind of legal officer, let alone a Supreme Court justice--as it is possible to be.

    1. she's unqualified to work as a walmart greeter

    2. More! More! Cry for me... Southern Cracker!

      1. No libertarian would ever support her nomination. You fucking Marxist.

      2. She's not gonna fuck your flaccid, shriveled, 85 year old chode, Hankie.

      3. Oh by the way, shove your racism up your asshole sideways, NIGGER

  21. Hawley averred that Jackson favored "letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes." Here, too, he obscured an important distinction: between people who produce child pornography, which necessarily entails abuse of children, and people who look at the resulting images.

    There IS an important distinction.

    One sexually abused children, and one paid someone to sexually abuse children.

    And the sentences should be different.

    The one who paid for kids to be sexually abused should get the ol' woodchipper.

    And the one who did the sexual abusing should get the meatgrinder, set on slow, and fine.

    Neither should be allowed to continue breathing.

    How Harsh, you say?

    Yes--because of the thing REASON WRITERS are obscuring.

    Both the abuser and the one who paid for pictures of that abuse need a sexually abused child. And NEITHER of them was lehiwnt on that child. In fact NO ONE can be. EVER.

    Do none of you get that? Not one? Are all of you so corrupt that you can accept the vile idea that this disgusting woman is shitting from the diseased mass of sexually abused childrens underwear that she calls a brain?

    It was one thing to make fun of Q Anon's over the top rhetoric---until we started finding all these fucking people with kiddie porn. Politicians, media personalities, royalty, business leaders. And the hideous shit that's going on in the UK.

    Can we still laugh?

  22. "It's so unfair that Kavanaugh got grilled over his obvious alcoholism and rape accusations. And in retaliation, we're going to call you pro-pedophile over and over."

    Republicans are sick motherfuckers. I'm just going to assume Hawley and Graham have hard drives full of child porn. What, are they going to be the first Republicans in history who aren't protesting too much on sexual perversions?

    1. “I'm just going to assume Hawley and Graham have hard drives full of child porn.”

      Baselessly assuming things to confirm your own hateful views? Sounds like a very progressive form of masturbation.

    2. As opposed to the Democratic Party overtly promoting the sexualization of children?

      Your projections are getting more extreme. Seek help for your TDS before midterms.

      1. No, that is more Republican projection. They are the ones talking about "sexualization of children" literally ad nauseam. They are the ones doing that.

        1. "They are the ones talking about "sexualization of children" literally ad nauseam."

          Abusers need silence to do what they are doing. That's why progressives love their communication bans. Is that why you love progressives?

          1. I just don't think of politics as the art of mass murdering people who make me uncomfortable, like all you authoritarian retards.

            1. Says the guy who calls for totalitarian one-party rule and the culling of dissidents at least once a week.

            2. Hey remember the time when you literally excused Stalin for murdering 50 million Russians? You're right though, I guess that's not really a big deal when you stack it up against bringing forward the public record of a judge who has a history of leniency in sentencing pedophiles.

    3. Reason readers should pay attention to what socialist intellectuals and republican sockpuppets say about each other. Both strive to crowd out any comments from card-carrying, dues-paying, voting Libertarians.

      1. Well you have certainly ‘infiltrated’ the LP. Of course, you aren’t really libertarian, and are too chickenshit to engage.

      2. card-carrying, dues-paying, voting Libertarians.

        Makes it easier to keep track of you pedophiles, so that's nice of you.

    4. Their hard drives? I’m guessing you have terra Ute’s of man/boy porn. You sick piece of shit.

  23. After Jackson failed to define the word woman, Blackburn could have checkmated her by asking “Am I a woman?”

    Then Jackson would have either had to say “depends on your identification”, revealing her activism. Or, if Jackson answered “yes”, Blackburn could have asked “How can you know that without a definition?”

  24. No joke, Pizzagate seems more plausible all the time.

    Rich, politically connected group of paedophiles - confirmed. Lots of frequent flyers for the Lolita Express. Lots of Dems. Bill Clinton.

    And then there's the ceaseless stream of attempts to sexualize children from the left.

    1. *reply to Azathoth. Sigh.

    2. Trump has been pictured with Epstein more times than you can count. Why isn't he part of the conspiracy, especially considering he has a known history of preying on teen beauty pageant contestants and his own daughter?

      1. Wow, do you have a way with reality.

        I take it you also disapprove of Joe Biden's showers with his teenage daughter, Ashley, as she wrote in her journal that was confirmed genuine?
        And you, of course, strongly disapprove of Hunter having nude photos on his FBI-verified laptop of his underage niece, Natalie as well.

        1. So your contention is that stealing the private effects of the children of politicians is fair game?

          1. You don't deny your President and family are pedos, then?

            1. I know for a fact that every single James O'Keefe "sting" used doctored video and actually uncovered no wrongdoing whatsoever.

              1. O‘Keefe wasn’t the one who verified this stuff. And way to dodge. But then, we all know you would never admit how guilty anyone is if they’re a democrat.

                1. What am I gonna do, vote Republican? Don't be ridiculous.

                  1. Keep this one bookmarked, folks. Tony officially confirms that he voted for a known pedophile because fucking little kids is not as big a deal as lowering the marginal tax rate.

            2. Notice how Tony deflects,

              1. Notice how rightwing assholes have a salacious conspiracy theory for every single Democrat with any power. You only get to cry wolf twice.

                1. Crying wolf when there's an actual wolf isn't problematic, Tony. Hunter Biden had nude pics of his 14 year old niece. That is a fact. Joe Biden's daughter wrote in her diary that he showered with her when she was a teen and that it was inappropriate. That is a fact.

    3. You mean the conspiracy theory that says that child sexual abuse was happening in the basement of a building that doesn't have a basement? Sure, that seems totally valid.

      1. Did you read any of what I wrote beyond the buzzphrase of "Pizzagate?"

        1. Yes. You referenced a batshit crazy conspiracy theory, pretended that Republicans like Trump weren't as prominent in Epstein's circle as Dems, and finished with a completely baseless generalization that "the left" is engaged in "ceaseless stream of attempts to sexualize children".

          It's almost like you are so far in one camp that anyone who isn't as extreme as you is "the left" and they are all evil.

          That is the mindset that is tearing America apart. You happen to be a fanatic on the far right, but there are equally zealous people on the far left that are creating the same schisms.

          The fringes aren't just incapable of "disagreeing without being disagreeable". They are incapable of ascribing any decency or humanity to those they perceive as "enemies".

          I still can't tell if the ones like me who hold heterodox views are considered better or worse than the opposite extreme. But it seems so.

          1. Trump doesn't appear on flight logs that lead directly to a private island where child sex abuse was knowingly occurring. And also hasn't had anything to do with Epstein in close to 20 years. And banned him from his Mar-A-Lago club.

            On the other hand, actual elected Democratic Party politicians, most prominently, THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE GODDAMN UNITED STATES have verifiably done things like shower with their teenage daughter and kept nude photos of their teenage niece on their personal computers.

            I still can't tell if the ones like me who hold heterodox views are considered better or worse than the opposite extreme. But it seems so.

            Well, it's quite true that supporting child porn is a heterodox view, sarcasmic. It's probably the worst thing you've supported in your constant obsequious worship of Democratic Party politicians, but it's only a small part of the reason why everyone with eyes to see knows unquestionably that you are a radical left wing extremist.

          2. Wow. This entire thread people gave been providing examples of the ceaseless attempts by the left to sexualize children - and you totally ignore it.

            This is why people say you're a faithless lefty shill, sarc.

            1. I haven't seen any examples of "the ceaseless attempts by the left to sexualize children". I've seen a lot of assertions that it's true, but not a lot of actual examples.

              It's one of cultural conservatives' weirder obsessions. This constant barrage of accusations of pedophilia and support of pedophilia by "the left" is as vague, generalized and unsupported as it is relentless.

              1. Besides LGBTQ+ youth groups' how-to guides to masturbation, Teen Vogue's guide to sodomy, your favored token judge's consistently lenient child abuse sentencing and yes, expressing opinions that she would change or ignore policy and law if empowered, which is further supported by a host of leftist groups, Bill's Lolita Express trips, the incestuous Bidens... Oh yeah, maybe Matt Gaetz. Pedos on all sides. Definitely not concentrated into one party that has been following the Communist Manifesto you disingenuous moppet.

  25. Sullum really like his kiddie porn. Defended Netflix's Cuties with zeal. Now, he's smearing Hawley's fair questioning to protect a judge that clearly is soft on child porn enablers. This tells me MUCH more about Sullum than anybody else.

    And no surprise to see Tony show up and defend child porn, as well.

    1. I try not to think about child porn, unlike you folks who are talking about it every other sentence. Ever hear of projection? You look like freaks to us normals.

      1. Tony, you will never be normal. You'll always be a totalitarian deviant.

      2. Not surprised Tony *tries* to not think about child porn. Alcoholics try not to think about alcohol.

        1. He just like to fuck the children.

      3. Yep, faggots like Tony who like to dress up in leather harnesses and have ass sex in front of children in the middle of the street are the "normals". It's you freakish Christians who say "Hey, maybe it would be better if we had some sense of decorum and didn't fuck each other in bondage gear on public streets in front of children" who are the real pre-verts!

        1. But they are. They believe in childish fantastical nonsense and use it to justify the mass hatred of minority groups, the corruption of the brains of children, and the destruction of the environment.

          Christians could try being a benign, even do-gooder, religion, like Buddhism. But no, they have to be terrible.

          Leather daddies on the street one evening a year never hurt anyone.

          1. Public sodomy > Bible sessions says Tony, surprising nobody.

            You're such a sick, totalitarian piece of shit.

  26. the author is an idiot. he says: "but the cases he cited actually involved defendants convicted of possessing or sharing child pornography rather than defendants convicted of sexually abusing children". are you actually serious? if you possess or share child porn you are just as guilty of child sex abuse as the person who commits the physical abuse. if you drive the get away car for a robbery and your accomplices commit murder then you are also guilty of murder. same principle applies here. why do you liberals want to try so hard to be lenient on the perverts? are you all also the same perverts? anyone convicted of any child porn crime should get a life without parole sentence. and jackson did in fact sentence a perverted child porn possessor to just 3 months. that is a crime in itself. this woman is not qualified to serve on the supreme court and should not be confirmed. hell, she doesn't even know what a woman is. she's a moron.

  27. I am constantly amazed at how quickly cultural conservatives jump to extreme accusations of evil.

    Transforming an issue that bothers people across political ideologies like sentencing, where over 2/3 of liberal, conservative, and moderate judges have done the exact same thing as KJB, into a vehicle to accuse over half the country of being pro-pedophile is extremism.

    No one (except, presumably, other pedophiles) supports pedophilia. The constant accusations otherwise are unworthy of being taken seriously. Much like the people making those accusations.

    1. Hm. Then why is it "Republicans pounce" when people decry consistently lenient sentencing for those who procure child pornography?

      In each instance she gave a lower sentence than requested by the prosecutor, including cases of actual abuse.

      This is called a pattern, like her pattern of verbal and associative support for CRT.

      1. "lenient sentencing for those who procure child pornography"

        This is a bigger issue than just child porn sentencing. Try to see the bigger picture. Sentencing guidelines, minimum sentences, and three strike laws have at least two major problems: they frequently result in sentences that don't serve justice (especially in the war on drugs) and they represent the Legislative encroaching on the Judiciary.

        Those who support strong separation of powers as well as checks and balances should be concerned. To me it is similar to the way that Executive Orders are the Executive encroaching on the Legislative.

        1. Were her sentences uniformly lower than prosecutor ask? Yes or no.

          1. Only 100% of the time was she lower. The only times she wasn't substantially lower was when she lowered it to the mandatory minimum.

          2. Like a large percentage of other judges. The part that you keep avoiding is that a large percentage of judges (not just liberal or leftist judges) have and continue to make the same determination about sentencing guidelines.

            The fact that you don't want to discuss the problems with sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimums, and three strike laws, but instead attack anyone who doesn't buy into your point of view as "pro-pedophile", just highlights how empty your position is.

            1. The fact that you don't want to discuss the problems with sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimums, and three strike laws, but instead attack anyone who doesn't buy into your point of view as "pro-pedophile", just highlights how empty your position is.

              Pretending that reducing the non-mandatory, non-legislatively-determined, prosecutor-suggested sentences of convicted child abusers is somehow a valiant defense against legislative encroachment on the judiciary just highlights what a mendacious piece of shit you are, sarcasmic. Then again we know that you lost custody of your kids because you fucked your own daughter, so it shouldn't be terribly surprising that you would support this nominee and bend over backwards trying to rationalize her pro-pedophile sentencing.

    2. Also, where is this outrage against people who have actual evidence of pedophilia against them like Matt Gaetz?

      It seems like if you are willing to call someone who just supports judicial discretion in sentencing a pedophile, someone who actually has credible accusations of pedophilia should be even more deserving of your wrath.

      1. Gaetz is a greaseball.

        Now, how about incestuous Joe and Hunter Biden?

        1. What does that even mean? Hunter is a first-class fuckup, but neither of them is incestuous.

          1. Joe Biden's daughter wrote in her journal that he showered with her "inappropriately" and Hunter Biden foolishly kept the evidence of his having had sex with his underage niece on the laptop that the NYT has deemed legitimate 2 years after the fact, sarcasmic. It seems if you are willing to call someone against whom a baseless accusation was made a pedophile, a man who showered with his own teenage daughter in a way that she herself described as "inappropriate" and a man who kept nude pics of his 14 year old niece on his laptop should be even more deserving of your wrath. It's almost as if you're nothing but a partisan asshole and a pedophile apologist.

      2. Actual evidence? So he's been charged, then? Or is this merely an allegation?

        1. Fair point. Can we all agree with 'a lot more evidence than is availble to justify calling "the left" pedophiles en masse'?

          1. No, sarcasmic, we can't all agree that the absolute complete and total absence of evidence is the same as mountains of evidence and self-confessions. Because those things are not the same.

    3. The accusation of extreme Evil here is another argument from intimidation to the effect that the Court nominee did NOT react with apoplexy to some insinuation that a defendant complied with the Massachusetts statutory age of consent when the Reconstruction Union was banning books. See "Vices Are Not Crimes," by Lysander Spooner. Why not admit your fellow Landover Baptists made the Republicans lose, and that women voters now stand at Armageddon ready to nail your scalps to the nearest fencepost?

      1. Yep, some of these are English words. Good job Hank!

    4. 2/3 of judges aren’t up for a seat on the SCOTUS. This one is currently. You really use a lot of weasel arguments to deflect.

      1. 2/3 of judges also don't give lenient sentences to pedophiles to the exclusion of all other categories of crime.

  28. EXTRY, EXTRY: "Republican mystical bigot Trumpanzee looks for ways to attack non-nazi nominee." Are we supposed to act surprised? Nobody cared about kiddie porn when the LP platform demanded it be mandatory and popes, bishops and cardinals kept getting caught. So is THIS the best "issue" Republican National Socialists can come up with to keep coathanger abortions common and deadly?

    1. Abortion is not in the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights..as such it falls to the States to decide not the SC or Congress. Or if you wish pass, an amendment to legalize it. Absent of that Roe should go.

    2. Notice how Tony deflects,Hank either wants to kill babies, or rape them.

    3. Oh look, Hank the mentally ill 75 year old boomer welfare case likes to fuck little kids. There's a huge fucking shocker for you.

  29. You don't have to have a BA in Biology to understand animals have come in two sexes for millions of years. A woman at the chromosome level is different up to reproductive parts a man does not have. JC..how insane is the emperor's new clothes now to placate a group that honestly is working through "issues." She is totally unqualified for the SC if she virtue signals at the drop of a hat.

    And as someone who had to deal with a pedo in the family who abused cousins and sisters, these SOBs should be burned at the stake for the harm they do. From his defense of "Cuties" to this, Jake way wrong.

    1. So what do you want the government to do to trans people?

      1. WTF are you talking about? Why should the government do anything to them?

        1. So why are we talking about them? As libertarians, shouldn't you just leave people and their bodies the fuck alone?

          1. So why are we talking about them?

            Because the government places the barrel of a gun up to our temple and tells us that unless we want them to pull the trigger, we must indulge the fantasies of men who think they are women and women who think they are men. Nobody cares about your degenerate faggotry, Tony. They only care when they are made to participate in on pain of being shot in the head.

            As libertarians, shouldn't you just leave people and their bodies the fuck alone?

            Who here has violated the bodily autonomy of a tranny, Tony? And keep in mind before you answer: refusing to fuck a tranny or making them wait until they are legal adults before they mutilate their healthy sex organs is not violating anyone's bodily autonomy.

            1. The government is not threatening you with execution for being a bigot against trans people. It's a free country, and you can (clearly) be the smallest-minded bigot you want.

              If you don't want the government to force trans people to do anything, then why are you speaking about them?

              1. Really? Guess you missed the Babylon Bee's banishment for mentioning Admiral Ben Franklin was a dude for 54 years.

                Nobody here would give a fuck about trannies if we didn't have to pay for it and weren't forced to participate in their delusions.

            2. Do you remember a time when 'Tony' came off as the crazy one? Pepperdidge farms remembers...

              While he's still wrong more often than not he isn't the one coming across as if they're foaming at the mouth while spewing vile slurs rather than engaging in honest discussion of the issue.

              1. Because mean tweets are SO much worse than child molestation, let's be real about the impacts here.

  30. so why is any "normies" interested or responding to Sullum's pablum supporting AntiAmerican pedopornomentalretard BS???

  31. Yeah we get it Sullum, you like watching kiddie porn.

  32. Appropriate and mild compared to what Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were subjected to by the Democrats that had no basis on their being a judge.
    Again Reason presents a one sided story supportive of the Democrats and negative on Republicans.

    1. Does anyone know if she's a beer drinker?

  33. It Seems the reason commentariat set out to exemply irrational emotionalism and pearl clutching what-about-ism today.

    1. Meanwhile, NAMBLA is mobilizing.

  34. What goes around, comes around. She is getting off easy even if unfairly. Note the questions for her are directed at the party in power through her. Biden was such a flaming ass when he was in charge of the judiciary committee that the chickens are are looking for a place to roost.
    She will get the nod and republicans will be evil. Condemned by their evil counterparts - democrats

  35. "Emotionalism She Criticized" How do you know Ketanji is a she? Are you biologists?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.