Conservatism

Conservatives Say They Care About the Constitution. Until They Talk About Criminal Justice.

Ketanji Brown Jackson will be the nation's first Supreme Court justice to have served as a public defender, and the first since Thurgood Marshall to have experience as a defense attorney. That's good.

|

GOP senators who are attacking President Joe Biden's Supreme Court pick seem weirdly unaware of how our justice system works. By focusing in part on Ketanji Brown Jackson's former role as a criminal defense attorney, they act as if it's wrong to provide a defense to people accused of a crime—and that if the government levels a charge, it must be right.

Hey, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear—or something like that. "Like any attorney who has been in any kind of practice, they are going to have to answer for the clients they represented and the arguments they made," Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) said in reference to Jackson and other Biden nominees. Apparently, defense attorneys should only defend choirboys.

Yet I guarantee if Hawley—known for his fist pump in support of Jan. 6 protestors at the U.S. Capitol—became the target of an overzealous prosecutor who accused him of inciting an insurrection, he'd be happy to have a competent defense attorney to advocate on his behalf. That attorney shouldn't be forever stained for defending someone as loathsome as Hawley.

These hearings remind me of how difficult it is to have a calm debate about criminal-justice policy—and how tilted our system is on the side of the government. As the Christian Science Monitor pointed out, if confirmed Jackson will be the nation's first Supreme Court justice to have served as a public defender, with Thurgood Marshall being the last justice to have criminal defense experience.

Marshall was born when Theodore Roosevelt was president and retired 31 years ago. A study last year by the libertarian Cato Institute found the Trump administration's judicial appointments tilted in favor of prosecutors over those who represented individuals by a 10-to-one margin. Only 14 percent of the liberal Obama administration's appointees defended individuals. Most judges strive to be fair, but their backgrounds color their worldview.

That brings us to district attorneys. Most people believe their role is to secure convictions, but that's not entirely the case. "The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict," the American Bar Association explains. They are required to "protect the innocent and convict the guilty, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the constitutional and legal rights of all persons."

In reality, DAs are ambitious political animals. As the Jackson hearings exemplify, it's much easier to get confirmed as a judge or elected prosecutor by playing the tough-on-crime card for the obvious reason that the public is fearful of crime—especially now, as long-falling crime rates are headed in the wrong direction. It's tougher for a DA to succeed by pledging a commitment to justice and balance.

For decades, prosecutors have been closely aligned with police unions, which partially explains why it's been so hard to hold accountable officers who engage even in egregious misbehavior or who are overly aggressive. Traditionally, it's been difficult for a district attorney to win an election without the backing of those unions, which represent rank-and-file officers.

That spurred a well-funded movement to begin electing "progressive prosecutors"—mainly in big, liberal cities with large populations of poorer people who have been on the receiving end of our justice system. Unfortunately, these DAs have gone too far in the other direction.

For instance, Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón initially banned "prosecutors from seeking the death penalty or life sentences without the possibility of parole, while also severely limiting the way prosecutors could use sentencing enhancements," the Los Angeles Times reported. He also refused to sentence juveniles as adults.

He's changed course amid a backlash. But by imposing hard-and-fast policies rather than seeking out the just response in each case, Gascón's approach is the mirror image of a Neanderthal prosecutor who was hard wired to always be tough. Likewise, San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin is accused of refusing to prosecute many serious crimes that are turning his city into a scene from Road Warrior.

Traditional prosecutors have overcharged people, winked at police abuse and filled the prisons with people who ought not to be there. But these liberal prosecutors have pursued an ideological agenda that has failed to consider legitimate public fears of dangerous criminals. They forget economist Adam Smith's quotation, "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."

Our nation is finally—albeit clumsily—debating justice policy. Even in law-and-order Orange County, the DA's race is pitting two candidates, incumbent Todd Spitzer and challenger Pete Hardin, who at least claim to seek some middle ground. Their race isn't more edifying than the Jackson hearings, as they prefer to trade race- and sex-related allegations rather than focus on the fundamentals of the job.

Maybe someday soon, DAs and justices can apply to the justice system the Goldilocks Principle—not too hot, not too cold, but just right.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

NEXT: Price Controls Would Make a Dire Economic Situation Worse

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. Fuck off, Greenhut.

    Every time a child pornography or abuse case came before this woman(?), she(?) significantly lowered prosecutor ask for sentencing - in cases she(?) herself(?) called egregious - for child pornographer or abusers.

    Every. Single. Time.

    1. As did most other federal judges because it was widely recognized that the sentencing guidelines were ridiculously harsh.

      1. No it wasn't. Some judges and some politicians felt they were harsh. But that was solely in the legal realm. Find one poll of Americans who agreed.

        Likewise the belief is not universal, but a subset of judges.

        Judges are not the ones who should be modifying laws and sentences to suit their beliefs either. That is for the legislature to amend.

        Saying sentences are too harsh because it is just so much easier to get child porn is ridiculous. The crime still happened.

        Bank robberies are easier because we have faster cars to get away, we should reduce those sentences too. Just ridiculous.

        1. Saying sentences are too harsh because it is just so much easier to get child porn is ridiculous. The crime still happened.

          Yup. It's one thing to publicly say, "The law requires me to punish these people too harshly." and judges have discretion on any given case, but "I'm not punishing *all* these people like this." is not being a fair and impartial judge. And I say this as someone who agrees with KBJ that some of the punishments around child porn possession border on unConstitutional in the vein vengeful puritanism. Even if I did feel she should be able to legislate from the bench, her detractors have accurately pointed out that, empirically, she's mishandled the law and done so consistently.

          1. Watch out. Bevis is going to cry to sarc about how you're a trump cultist now.

            Just a heads up.

          2. I pretty much agree, but I will say this. Biden at least picked someone who was a judge at all, which is a marked improvement over some other Presidents who basically put political operatives in the position.

            So there is at least that.

            1. U literally have the intellectual depth of a two week old mud puddle. And I'm being kind. The "Anti-lynching" law and this pedophile pushing evil bitch go hand and hand to "combat" WHAT is coming for all these perverts. Pay attention fool.
              The Phucko Knows

        2. That "subset" is 70% of federal judges, you brainwashed MAGA sheep.

      2. Ok groomer. Maybe you and other leftists like Greenhut should realize that judges aren't in charge of creating laws and that by ignoring the legislature and executive branches THEY are the ones out of line.

        1. If you're calling (comparative) moderates like Bevis groomers, you're getting really toxic. As if that wasn't clear already.

          1. Do you support the sexualization of children and enable or apologize for those that do?

            I will not be nice. Fuck no.

          2. If you're defending those who see no problem with the sexualization and exploitation of children you might want to recalibrate your moral compass just a bit.

            1. Saying someone deserves 5 years in prison instead of 10 is not "no problem", nor is it defending them. Might want to recalibrate your hyperbole compass a little bit.

              1. Are you saying those who molest children or collect pornographic depictions thereof are being punished too harshly?

                I find it problematic molestors still can write their names in the snow instead of being surgically castrated.

        2. You sheep all bleat the same.

      3. Mandatory minimums were demanded after Republican Herbert Hoover was sworn in to enforce the 5&10 prohibition law--five years and $10,000 as increased penalties for beer, wine, liquor (especially if possessed by nonwhites). Harry Anslinger's pet Boggs Act was another such cruel and unusual enactment on the theory that vices are crimes and therefore merit deadly enforcement. Reagan's Drug-Free Federal Workforce law was another that served primarily to fill the government with Christian National Socialists and the jails with brown people.

        1. Weird how you left out Biden and Harris.

          1. A terse summation makes snowflake Trumpanzees burst into tears, so let the word go forth that Ronnie, Nancy and BIDEN, hear that America? BIDEN were co-conspirators in the exploitation of superstition to further crush individual rights. The fact is that BOTH halves of the looter altruist Kleptocracy subsidizing and defrauding elections to keep Libertarians out are as alike as even Wallace noted. Yet whenever the economy crashes, look for Republican Party prohibitionism and blam! There's your cause.

    2. These sick motherfuckers at Reason seem to be almost 100% on board the "normalize pedophilia and child pornography" train now.

      And to be brutally frank about it, there are one or two of them who should probably be on law enforcement's radar.

      1. Were those DC cocktail parties really pizza parties?

      2. "these sick motherfuckers -
        Signed,
        Weigel's cock ring"

        Yea...

    3. She is an extremist that legislate from the bench while saying Republicans shouldn't do this. She also has stated that she doesn't believe in the concept of natural rights. She is as far of an extremist activist you can get, this pick terrify libertarians. Greenhunt is part of the evil fucktard leftists that are trying to paint her as a moderate

    4. Is the law permitting her to do that unconstitutional? Did she not follow the law? Did she try and 'legislate' from the bench? No, making the questions pretty stupid and irrelevant. But if you ask me who will be judged as being one of the dumbest and worst Justices of all Time, it's going to be this woman, who can't even define what a woman is.

      1. Textbook Argumentum ab prophetiae.

    5. Bullshit Fuck off cultist

      1. Are you disputing public records on her cases?

        Good luck with that, groomer.

  2. Click bait headline unsupported by the article.

    And criticizing KBJ for clients she chose to defend pro bono after going to private practice is absolutely valid.

    1. Yeah, I had the same reaction to the headline. This was weird.

    2. Agreed. Headline was completely unsupported. Greenhut owes an apology to law enforcement and prosecutors. The vast majority do get it just right. Reporters take charge sheets and quote the maximum possible sentence in the news. Reality is sentencing guidelines and common practice is a different matter altogether, something the defense and prosecution is well aware of. Ask a DDA how often victims complain they let the defendant off easy.

    3. "...if the government levels a charge, it must be right."

      THIS is true for most jurors/Americans.

  3. "In reality, DAs are ambitious political animals."

    There is a reality here that a DA position is seen as a stepping-stone in a political career. Which is fine if we accept other backgrounds and this is sometimes the problem. In the case of Ketanji Brown Jackson it was being a public defender or in the case of President Barrack Obama it was being a community organizer. It is worth remembering that people from diverse backgrounds have a variety of opinions. Both Democrats and Republicans Congresspersons include people with military background. My own Congressional Representative, Mark Pocan, is a progressive and a business man.

    We now have a member of SCOTUS with some experience defending people. We have no member of the current SCOTUS that has every held an elected office. That means none of them have an understanding of what pressures office holders experience.

    1. None of them have ever run a business either. WTF is your point?

    2. Paedophilia support is not a valid qualification unless you're a Dem.

      1. I find accusations of pedophilia support a bit hypocritical from members of a party that includes Donald Trump, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, and Roy Moore. Best Republicans get their own house in order.

        1. Shocking how one party is pretty open about it's support for paedophilia organizations, whereas another has outliers that typically lose office once allegations are proven.

          But bowf sidez.

          And yes, universal push to castrate child molestors. Do not care what political alignment.

          Now how about Ashley Biden and the badtouch? Has anyone contacted Hunter's prepubescent prostitutes?

          1. Gee I wonder which party you think is "open about its support" and which one has "outliers." You are a fucking tool.

            Most of you idiots don't even know what paedophlia means! But that's mostly due to media misusing the term and idiots that cannot think for themselves.

            1. I think it means you're awfully touchy about not being allowed to badtouch kids.

              Now, what is the Prostasia foundation? Who is normalizing "minor attracted persons" aka paedophiles?

          2. Which party elected a child rapist as SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE?
            Hint: It wasn't the democrats.

            https://twitter.com/Cajsa/status/1045329000334155778?s=20&t=ITU_K4utT9FPeJm9mG9PHQ

            1. Which party's president flew 26 times on Epstein's Pedo-flyer?

      2. Former Trump aide & RNC operative, Ruben Verastigui has just been sentenced to 12+ years in prison for child porn. He posted about how the sexual abuse of babies is his “absolute favorite.”

        Chase Tristian Espy, staff attorney for Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, has been arrested on a child solicitation

    3. SHE’S NUTS!

      1. What are you, a botanist?

        1. Testicologist.

  4. "Likewise, San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin is accused of refusing to prosecute many serious crimes that are turning his city into a scene from Road Warrior."

    As usual, Greenhut's terrible prose continues to single himself out as an embarrassment, rather than a compelling voice of liberty. Notice the line above, and square it with a similar quote from a previous article:

    "Despite what some commentators have argued, San Francisco does not yet resemble Road Warrior"
    https://reason.com/2021/12/24/look-past-partisan-rhetoric-to-understand-californias-recent-crime-problems/

    There are a couple funny things about this:
    1) The only people talking about Road Warrior, are Greenhut and Greenhut. His previous article tried to paint Gascon critics as hyperbolic, suggesting that *they* coined the Road Warrior criticism. But they didn't...he supports his accusation with a link to IMDB, not an actual article. The quote in this article only supports the fact that people are criticizing Boudin...as Greenhut himself has now decided to do. Again, the Road Warrior label is his construction- no one else's.

    2) The tone has changed substantially here. In the prior article, Greenhut was trying to downplay the notion that SF was becoming post apocalyptic. But now, Greenhut is passing on the Road Warrior claim (that he made up) without contradiction but rather as evidence of exactly what his prior article denied: that in fact permissive DAs are creating lawless environments in big cities that encourage crime.

    Once again we see a basic fact on display: Greenhut is more interested in making articles that criticize Conservatives, than articles that promote liberty. Greenhut will make up the Road Warrior hyperbole to smear critics, and then use it again with a straight face if it supports his attack on conservatives.

    And that is the really sad thing here. It is a fact (that even Greenhut finally acknowledges) that crime in big cities is a big problem right now. It is a fact (that even Greenhut finally acknowledges) that this is at least partly due to the lawless and permissive atmosphere created in blue cities. And as usual, Greenhut's concern is not returning peace to these cities, it is that Conservatives might be over-reacting (or, dare I say, winning) as a result of these blue mistakes.

    California is 60% blue, and its dysfunctions are largely a result of that majority. If Greenhut ever wants to see the state moderate its approach, he is going to have to stop shitting on the 40% of red voters that would otherwise join him in reform.

    1. Great comment.

      Neo-journalism 101 sadly. Build the narrative by yourself or with colleagues and then keep using that as the basis for all subsequent articles. You also saw this in the mythical 1 in 4 college women raped narrative that still permeates our discourse.

    2. Greenhut is more interested in making articles that criticize Conservatives, than articles that promote liberty.

      Ding. Winner.

    3. I mean just read Greenhut's article. He says Conservatives are wrong to hold KBJ's permissive history against her. And then he goes on to point out that in fact Conservatives have a point...The left engaged in a campaign of permissive, one-size-fits-all decriminalization from the Prosecutor's office across the country.

      This has been the problem with Reason's coverage of KBJ- rather than explain why people ought to vote FOR KBJ, they explain that it is wrong to criticize her. And Greenhut is not really any different here. Maybe she is different and her record *isn't* evidence that she will judge in the same way that DAs have prosecuted. But we don't know, because rather than make that case, Greenhut just wants to divide moderates and conservatives who are EXTREMELY concerned about decades of improvement on crime being reversed.

      1. This has been the problem with Reason's coverage of KBJ- rather than explain why people ought to vote FOR KBJ, they explain that it is wrong to criticize her.

        One of many, iteratively. The debate over KBJ is the value her documented judicial indiscretion brings to the bench. The debate over Kavanaugh and Thomas was the disservice their *alleged* personal behavior brought to the popular perception of the bench regardless of their jurisprudence.

    4. The other problem is Greenhut and the rest of the writers here seem to think the word "reform" is a guarantee that the proposal plus an unalloyed good thing. In truth most reforms are 10% good, 90% crap but we're supposed to ignore the crapand not seek better or ignore the predictable consequences on offer

  5. Obviously Koch-funded libertarians wanted Biden to win primarily because he'd open our borders. But another important factor was the Supreme Court — we knew he'd only pick justices who support the Koch / Soros / Reason soft-on-crime #FreeTheCriminals and #EmptyThePrisons agenda.

    #LightSentencesForCPEnthusiasts
    #CheapLaborAboveAll
    #LibertariansForBiden

  6. First Step Act. Fuck off now.

    15 months if no bail ore trial detention for j6 non violent actors. Fuck off now.

    52 month please agreements for non violent j6 actors. Fuck off now.

    Reason is becoming worse somehow.

    1. The asshole even invokes j6

      Yet I guarantee if Hawley—known for his fist pump in support of Jan. 6 protestors at the U.S. Capitol—became the target of an overzealous prosecutor who accused him of inciting an insurrection, he'd be happy to have a competent defense attorney to advocate on his behalf.

      But hasn't written one fucking article on the treatment of them. What a fucking asshole.

      1. +1000, I think it's a Reason ban. Have you seen even one article on the J6 plight? Volokh posts daily boring as crap stuff and he's the edgy legal guy.

        1. He has generally stayed away from criminal stuff. Usually one of thenother conspirators does the criminal takes. Volokh is a 1a professor first and foremost.

        2. Good point. Articles like this are just figments of the imagination.

          1. That is your fucking defense? The discussion from this week? That ignored no bail pre trial detainment? Than ignored 400 other cases? That ignored arrests of people not even at the Capitol?

            What the fuck point did you think you were making?

            That article doesn't even support applying it to others in the same situation.

            You really have become a statist.

            1. It's really laughably contextually ignorant too. He may as well have just said "But Gorsuch!".

              We got more articles in the first couple days of "journalists" being "detained" (and released) in less than 24 hrs. in Washington State than we've gotten in months-to-years of detainment of J6 protestors. Were the vehicles that apprehended J6 mostly peaceful protestors fully marked and clearly identified? Who knows? I do know, from a half-dozen articles, that the vehicles that apprehended and detained the people actively assaulting a Federal Courthouse weren't.

              1. Those vehicles were unmarked sir. Literal Hitler trains.

              2. Ha, we've been told false equivalence. We've been told not only by biased leftist media but by our justice system that political viewpoint does play a factor in justice.

                If you have the correct viewpoint crime is OK. We'll stand back and kneel. In fact we will erect statues and paint your name on the streets. literally.

                If your viewpoint is incorrect we will hold you indefinitely and make you recant your views to be afforded your constitutional right to bail and a speedy trial.

                These same folks run around accusing everyone that disagrees with them as being Putin. Yet the above is exactly Putin.

                This judge supports this definition of justice which is actually injustice.

          2. Hitting the pipe or the bottle this AM?

            1. You're the one claiming that that article doesn't exist. Yet I am the one hitting the bottle or pipe?

              1. closing italics fail

              2. That article doesn’t address the topic at hand

          3. How DARE you resort to the appeal to evidence?

            1. That’s not evidence of Reason covering the violation of 1/6 protestors rights.

  7. Steve lets discuss the criminal injustice of incarcerating folks for over a year for glorified trespassing. While months of Burn Loot and Murder were overlooked.

    Yeas there is injustice just not the type you think.

    But I realize that its not allowed to write about this at Reason.,

  8. And Steven, the criticism of KBJ are almost entirely her answers and her leniency for certain crimes, not her past as a defense attorney. Calling an 18 year old peers of 8 year olds is disturbing. Reducing a sentence of someone trying to transport their own daughter for a pedophile is disturbing. Saying sentences should be less because child porn is simply easier to get is disturbing.

    Not being able to say what a woman is is disturbing.

    Saying there are no natural rights is disturbing.

    Lying about not knowing what CRT is despite a 2015 speech where you said you used it in decisions is disturbing.

    Lyijg about CRT in schools despite a school whose boars you sit on is disturbing.

    So fuck off with your gaslighting.

    1. Ted Cruz on public defenders “people go and do that because their heart is with the murderers”.

      Tom Cotton “She would have defended Nazis at Nuremberg”

      Hawley quoted above criticizing defense attorneys.

      But no, she’s not being criticized for her past as a defense attorney. Who is it that’s gaslighting?

      And she probably wouldn’t have been approved if your hero hadn’t thrown the Senate in a temper fit because he got his ass kicked by a senile asshole.

      1. You are falling for the same ignorant narrative trap that you seemingly do often.

        There was more to the 3 days of her hearings than the 2 sentences you quoted above. There are 48 other GOP senators. Yet you seemingly think the sole discussion is 2 lines out of 3 days. You ignore Hawley introducing her actual legal arguments at brief to back his judgment on her views.

        Cruz was messy with his phrasing, but he spoke in general terms that is even backed up slightly by this article as overt points out above.

        Are you able to discuss any other aspect of her hearing, or do we have to stay couched in this narrow specific narrative trap in order to ignore everything else?

        The headline itself is bombastic given it was the GOP who actually acted on criminal reduction with First Step Act.

      2. Oh, and see you still have your case of trump hate making you blind. Yes. Let's ignore the J6 abuses by the doj and the left because you seemingly have issues with the president not being a daddy figure. Lol.

        Again, I will focus on actions. You can waste time focusing on words and narratives.

      3. Ted Cruz on public defenders “people go and do that because their heart is with the murderers”.

        And? Are you saying their heart shouldn't be with murderers? Are you saying they should? Unless you state how Cruz is wrong and why, you're being more disingenuous than Cruz.

        1. Yeah that’s certainly right. There are tens of thousands of public defenders in America and every one of them is a big fan of murder.

          Does this idea also apply to private defense attorneys? Cruz didn’t say.

          It’s a pitifully stupid thing for a smart guy like Cruz to say, but y’all just gobble it up hand over fist because he’s on the right team.

          1. So there isn't a set of DAs letting violent criminals put even after violating bail over and over?

            Defense attorneys are not pure souls. Just like prosecutors aren't blindly evil. They both do their jobs.

            But what Cruz was hinting at is what overt addressed above. Feel free to read it.

          2. Cruz: "Some people like to fuck goats because that's where their heart is."
            bevis: "I can fuck more goats harder than Ted Cruz ever could!"

          3. Why are you more concerned with the questions of a couple senators, than the actual positions of a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS?

    2. "Not being able to say what a woman is is disturbing.

      Saying there are no natural rights is disturbing.

      Lying about not knowing what CRT is despite a 2015 speech where you said you used it in decisions is disturbing.

      Lyijg about CRT in schools despite a school whose boars you sit on is disturbing."

      These can all be explained away that the Republicans asking those questions were not asking for anything but to get a "gotcha" comment because we know they have no other purpose.

      Witness how she passed with only 3 Republican votes. Their questions were inane and they were simply 1) throwing red meat to their idiot base and 2) looking for any half justification to do what they were already going to do- vote against her.

      So fuck off with your feelings snowflake.

      1. Youre complaining only 3 gop members, the most left fearing ones, voted for her? Lol. Go look at gop nominated vote totals.

      2. "...Saying there are no natural rights is disturbing...."
        ...Their questions were inane...
        So fuck off with your feelings snowflake.

        Evil. Pure evil.
        (This refers to the commenter I'm replying to, Justice Ketanji, the guy who nominated her, and their whole evil party.)

      3. Odd there was no outrage when Sen. John Kennedy, Sen. John Cornyn, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, Sen. Chuck Grassley, Sen. Josh Hawley were all unable to say what a woman is either.

        1. Odd how you can't distinguish between questions and statements.

          But obviously, if they had to ask KJB they have no clue what a woman is either.

    3. Then let me disturb you more: There are no natural rights. If rights were natural, they'd've been confirmed scientifically and all but a few cranks would believe them, to the point where there'd be practically no use discussing them.

      1. Precisely so. "Natural" is a convenient fiction.

  9. She also can't define a woman so that disqualifies her from a clerk job at Walmart.

    1. Neither could Sen. John Kennedy, Sen. John Cornyn, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, Sen. Chuck Grassley, & Sen. Josh Hawley

      1. You sure? They were asking the questions not answering them. Get with the program.

  10. About time there was a defense attorney in the Supreme Court. Hopefully she'll stand up to the authoritarian conservatives.

    1. Not a leftist guys.

    2. Sarcastic, you’ve got to support every bit of idiocy that comes out of the right or Jesse is gonna call you a communist. Hell, I bet you’re a pedo as well.

      Criticizing the idiocy that comes out of the left doesn’t count unless you’ve got Trump’s balls in your mouth when you do it.

      1. Conservatives liked Reason when Obama was president. They could bask the Democrat and libertarians went along. Then when Trump was elected libertarians continued to be critical of the president from a libertarian point of view. Trumpsters couldn't handle it. They decided libertarians are all leftists. Now there's a Democrat in the White House and we libertarians continue doing the same thing we were doing all along, and Trumptard brains are exploding. How can we consistently be critical of both Democrats and Republicans in a principled manner? One team or the other. Do we switch teams every time power changes hands? It just doesn't compute in the tiny Trumpista brain.

        1. How about you actually give examples instead of making blind generalized statements and then when people point out it's a baseless charge screaming they are just upset you're attacking their team. That is fucking sophomoric fucking anti-intellectual shit posting. It takes absolutely zero fucking skill or thought. And here is a big fucking hint, Trump isn't fucking president, it's a fucking Democrat again. Bringing up fucking Trump is fucking imbecilic and why everyone piles on you and insults you. You made an unsupported statement and then when called on it, you fucking go off on a screed blasting conservatives and Trump. Fuck, you're hopeless and have a persecution complex.

          1. You know as well as I do that while a Democrat is president conservatives like libertarians because they can gang up on the Democrat. But during both the Bush II and Trump years conservatives were getting really pissy at libertarians for criticizing their guy, going so far as to label us leftists like you're doing now. Why? Because we're not on either of your fucking teams. I'd think that by now you'd have figured that out.

            1. Wrong. Plenty were against the wars of Bush. Most criticized TARP and bailouts.

              Youre just wrong.

            2. Whatever, Reason is still going after conservatives harder than progressives with a Democrat in office. And you are too. It really hasn't been like that since 2008. Just in your fevered wishful world. Many of us long time readers have been telling you this ad nauseam and you've been ignoring it. Reason has gone definitively leftward, with a few stories for the pretense of balance. They virtually ignore major stories, oh they might run a story on hit n run yesterday but other than that it's basically radio silence, but they'll run three stories in a week misrepresenting the Florida parental rights bill. Yesterday, it was two to one stories attacking conservatives and Republicans. And has been virtually all week. No, it's a pattern you refuse to see because you are biased against the right. You can't help but attack Trump two years after he's left office, on a daily basis, usually unprovoked.

              1. Reason has made a turn to the left. Yes. But so what? They're still more libertarian than any media outlet that I know of. Unless you have some suggestions. Doesn't mean they're full on leftist as most of the posters here claim.

                1. Thefederalist, postmillenial, legalinsurrection, mises.org.

                  All have far more takes closer to libertarianism than the last 2 years here. Probably closer to 7 years at this point.

                2. How about this media outlet — namely, me? We're all media outlets now, and it's clear that the "left" has gone so strongly authoritarian that it's not even close any more: the "right" in the USA and many other countries is clearly more libertarian. That may not be saying much, but it's significant.

                  50 years ago libertarians could plausibly triangulate between "conservatives" and "liberals" in North America. Even 25 years ago that was no longer true, but now it's ridiculous. Part of the reason is good news: the libertarian movement benefited from progressives on a great many "social" issues. But now we've gotten as close to any of those as that rail line gets (except maybe there's a tiny bit left to be squeezed out on pot and psychedelics), and it's long since time to get off.

              2. I know I'm harder on conservatives than I am on progressives because I expect more. I don't expect anything at all from progressives. They just want power. Conservatives are supposed to be the good guys upholding the constitution and stemming the tide of the progressive administrative state. But they aren't. And lately they've become a cult of personality. So I'm disappointed.

                Anyone who reads that as me being a leftist has brain damage.

                1. So THAT'S why you constantly fellate the left. It's for pity you spread those cheeks, and you schlep water for the unfortunate.

                  What a guy.

          2. Fuck, you're hopeless and have a persecution complex.

            Do fuck off. Libertarians aren't on either team, so we are critical of both teams. So when one team is in power the minions of that team like us while the minions of the other assume we're on the other team. When power changes hands the same thing occurs, but with the teams switched. From what I've observed the minions cannot comprehend someone not being on a team. Does. Not. Compute. But when libertarians are consistently critical of both teams from a libertarian point of view, the minions' heads get bigger and bigger until *pop*.

            1. You aren't critical of both teams. Find 5 posts you've made in 2 years critical of the left. You can't.

            2. Keep in mind that I don't read trollbait. So if JesseAz speaks for you, I'm not listening.

              1. I thought that was because he consistently took the time to deconstruct your bullshit and go point-by-point why you were completely wrong?

            3. I had that backwards. The minions of the team that isn't in power likes us because we are critical of the one in power. Whatever. I don't think team players can even begin to understand anyway. It's like trying to explain a lack of faith to a religious person.

              1. Denial you have a team is a sign you are simply lying to yourself.

              2. There really isn't such a thing as lacking faith, since religion can't be scientifically proven one way or the other, so any stance, except straight agnosticism requires some form for faith. Either you believe God exists or you believe he doesn't exist. As for team, I've explained this to you, you have a team too. Libertarian is a team.

                1. Libertarian with a capital 'L' is a party. Libertarian with a lower case 'l' is herding cats.

                2. Either you believe God exists or you believe he doesn't exist.

                  I wish it was that simple. This is something I've been struggling with for decades. I want faith. But I can't grasp it.

                  1. "I want faith. But I can't grasp it."

                    That was the absinthe fairy.

                3. "Either you believe God exists or you believe he doesn't exist."

                  "Do you believe Liverpool will win the Premiership?"

                  "I have no belief that they will".

                  "Oh, so you must believe that Man City will win it"

                  "I have no belief about that"

                  "But look, they're the only two teams who can win it so if you don't believe that Liverpool will win, you MUST believe that Man City will win"

                  "Listen, schmuck, I have NO belief on the subject".

                  "Chelsea then...?"

            4. The only one throwing insult names here is you sarc. I've responded to your arguments.

              Makes you look like a hypocrite when you claim otherwise and people can read the comments.

      2. Awww. Sarc has a new concert buddy.

    3. Which ones would those be, specifically?

      1. It was a snark. Get the sand out of your panties.

        1. It was poorly fucking done, and I don't buy it was snark after your diatribe above regarding conservatives and Trump. If you switch teams than why are there still more articles attacking conservatives in the past 72 hours than progressives, despite progressives controlling two of the three branches of government. If you switch teams why are you attacking Trump supporters when fucking Biden is President? No, you might believe you do, but the truth is you really don't. You really do have a bias against the right. It's self evident to everyone except you.

          1. It isnt snark. He believes this shit. Another example.

            sarcasmic
            October.28.2021 at 3:21 pm
            Flag Comment Mute User
            Show me a racist Good 'ol Boy and I'll show you a red hat.

          2. You really do have a bias against the right. It's self evident to everyone except you.

            Anyone on the left will tell me that I've got a self-evident bias against the left.

            I figure I've got a bias against both.

            1. No. Jeff and Mike think you're on their team. Which you are. I mean you told Mike to run for fucking office lol.

            2. “Anyone on the left will tell me that I've got a self-evident bias against the left.”

              Cite? Seriously, just one comment telling you this.

          3. You really do have a bias against the right. It's self evident to everyone except you.

            Anyone on the left will tell me that I've got a self-evident bias against the left.

            I figure I've got a bias against both.

            1. Then cite examples of your bias against the left instead of uncited generalities.

            2. You really don't show it very often. One could even say almost never.

              1. When have I ever said anything in support of the left. One could even say almost never.

                1. But first in line to man the fortifications. Purely coincidetal bowf sidezisms.

              2. Keep in mind that criticism of the right does not equal endorsing the left. If I say pears suck that doesn't mean I've love dragon fruit.

    4. And which ones are those? Really? If anything, it seems the progressive wing is far more willing to give more power to the government, especially the executive branch, as long as it's not an R in office. I'm really wondering where the evidence is of conservatives routinely acting as authoritarians on the court. And you wonder why people accuse you of being on the left. You could have said stand up to authoritarians but no you had to specifically target the conservative justices, who aren't 100% libertarian but head and shoulders less authoritarian than the progressive justices on almost every issue.

      She's extremely authoritarian in her views with the exception of some fringe beliefs on justice reform and sentencing reform. On the 1, 2, 9, 10 amendments she's absolutely terrible. On federal authority she's terrible.

      You sound as blindly partisan as Tony. And you wonder why people ridicule you.

      1. The conservative justices are really good at giving deference to law enforcement. I don't have specific examples off the top of my head, but that's traditionally how it goes.

        And my comment was in no way an endorsement of progressives.

        Talk about reading things that aren't there.

        1. Like the Capitol Police, gotcha. D's are all in and then some when it comes to using force to prosecute their political enemies.

        2. I thought it was snark, but you now claim it is about deferment to law enforcement and it's only some, and since she is a progressive, and you are cheering on a progressive judge because she'll stand up to authoritarian conservatives doesn't require you to say anything about progressives, it's called a logical continuation of the subject. It is one that 99% of literate adults would make. You've changed your story three times, to three different respondents. You can't list who you consider authoritarian or what decisions you mean. I'm betting it's because you blindly accept what ever Reason authors state, without doing any critical thought yourself, exactly like what you accuse Fox viewers of doing.

          1. I was making a snark about a former defense attorney hopefully standing up to the former [conservative] prosecutors on the court. Full stop. Take a deep breath. It wasn't a personal attack on you.

            1. He didnt say it was. He called put your bullshit in general terms. But because he did you now have to call him a conservative and claim it is personal to him.

            2. Why did you have to mention conservatives at all, couldn't you have just said prosecutors? No, you had to specify conservative. The thing is I really believe that you don't see how biased you come off, and are convinced everyone that is telling you that's is doing so only because they're the biased ones. Here is a hint, Mike and Jeffy are also unconsciously biased, everyone but you sees it. This isn't some grand Trumpian conspiracy, hard core libertarian posters have told you that. We aren't lying. We aren't trying to get you. It's the truth. You really do need to maybe reflect on why the majority of us are telling you this. You've admitted I've been posting here longer than you, I'm not some fly by nighter who showed up to bash Obama and stayed to praise Trump. I'm just being honest.

              1. Why did you have to mention conservatives at all, couldn't you have just said prosecutors?

                You're right.

        3. Alito and Gorsuch are both big 4th amendment justices..

          1. Gorsuch is great. Maybe my favorite justice.

            Alito not so much.

            1. United States v Jones as an example.

              1. Gps tracker case.

        4. You are either fer or agin' kleptocrat Trumpanzees. It therefore follows by ordinary disjunction that anyone hesitant about licking the blacking off The Don's shoes is on the side of Mohammed, Ayn Rand, Justice Ginsburg and baby-killing pederasts in general. The other looters are the same way about warmunism, yet they help Trumpanzees export vice=crime laws to wreck foreign economies and cause ragged paupers to stream hither for "asylum."

    5. Hopefully she'll stand up to the authoritarian conservatives.

      If she couldn't stand up to 18 yr. old pedophiles with the wind at her back, why would she stand up to a 79 yr. old pedophile with a hurricane-force storm propping him up?

      1. Are you saying pedophiles like category 5 year olds?

  11. Conservatives say a lot of bullshit. They pretend to care about the constitution (which they haven't read) and then go against it when it suits them. Nothing new here.

    Speaking of- where is that idiot "loveconstitution89"? He was the shining star of the dumbass parade when it came to that.

    1. I'm thinking he got tired of JesseAz's personal attacks eclipsing his feeble efforts to be mean, so he retired.

      1. When EVERYONE sprays a sockpuppet with "Zom Be Gone"...

    2. Give me an example. I'll give you a counter example. Which side endorses the censoring of speech they don't like? Yea yea I know its disinformation, lies or propaganda but most of it boils down to stuff you don't like or agree with,

      By he way disinformation, lies and propaganda are all free speech.

    3. I disagree somewhat.

      I think that true conservatives do care about the Constitution. Remember that Justice Scalia defended flag burning. I don't think the people attacking Justice Jackson-Brown were conservative. I number of Republicans who voted against KJB gave conservative reasons (Sass, McConnell) often noting that she is well qualified for the position. There is also portion of authoritarian populist in the Republican Party that hid behind the label conservative. These are easy to spot as they talk a lot but say nothing.

      1. I number of Republicans who voted against KJB gave conservative reasons

        How about the plain and simple reason that she lied to Congress (about not knowing much about CRT and not using it)?

        often noting that she is well qualified for the position

        Yes, in the sense that there are no qualifications for the position at all.

      2. “These are easy to spot as they talk a lot but say nothing.”

        Imagine ending that post with this statement.

        1. That is true of many commentators to this side, myself included.

  12. Conservatives aren't denying anybody the right to counsel. What some conservatives are saying is that the mindset of a public defender doesn't make them a good SCOTUS justice. You can reasonably make the same argument for someone who is a priest, a psychiatrist, or a kindergarten teacher.

    In any case, KBJ shouldn't be a SCOTUS justice because she lied to Congress, because she is using neo-Marxist ideology to guide her legal decisions, and because she was selected using a racist and discriminatory process.

    1. She also said she doesn’t believe in natural rights. And Reason doesn’t care because there’s Republicans to bash.

      1. Reason doesn't care because they aren't really libertarians, they're "progressives" masquerading as libertarians.

      2. Lots of libertarians don't believe in natural rights. I don't know whether it's a majority of libertarians, because it doesn't come up that often. Most libertarians who've made prominent statements on the subject from the early 19th Century to the middle of the 20th have been opposed to natural law. It was Ayn Rand who revived natural law thinking among libertarians, and then only in the USA, but the movement has mostly outgrown her influence by now.

    2. The job of a public defender is to make sure their clients rights aren't violated.

      When a defendant's rights are violated it's either the prosecution or the judge doing it, but some conservatives think a career as a constitutional watchdog doesn't make one a good SCOTUS pick.

  13. "In reality, DAs are ambitious political animals."

    So take the politics out of it. Hire "government lawyers" and assign them to both defense and prosecution at random.

    1. Exactly.

  14. the author sounds exactly like the soft on crime jackson. scum.

  15. Warren Harding appointee Mabel Walker Willebrandt once defended working girls in Los Angeles by issuing subpoenas for wealthy customers. The Supreme Court was so eager to please her that Mencken dubbed her Prohibition's Portia. Yet Republicans struggle to disbelieve that her syndicated newspaper explanation of how drug and beer Prohibition confiscations warned of disaster. Clark Warburton explained how financial damage wrought by dry robbers tipped the nation into the Crash and Depression. Comprehension dawned, Republicans lost, freedom recovered somewhat.

  16. Headline doesn't match the article. I think Greenhut spends over half of it opining about District Attorneys and the current state of activist DAs who don't prosecute crime. There's only single allegation that a GOP Senator had something negative to say about KJB having worked for defense. You could add the stupid remarks Ted Cruz delivered as well, which makes it a grand total of two.

    I don't think you found any consistent pattern of conservatives impugning the Constitution or Constitutional rights. So why is the gaslighting headline?

    1. ^ you know why

  17. DA is the lowest form of human life. bar none.

  18. I support them, just not for 80 IQ simians.

  19. The Goldilocks Principle &mash; that public policy matters should be decided quantitively — sucks ass. It cuts out the work of looking qualitatively at fine distinctions in favor of meeting in the middle between any conceivable set of poles on any conceivable axis. You want abortions legal, and you want them illegal? OK, toss a coin anytime someone wants an abortion, so 50% of the time it's legal. Hold some of my calls.

  20. Humorously B.S. Insurrection charges have nothing to do with the charges at hand. But we shall see if she really would dismiss such B.S. charges and also if she cares one penny about the U.S. Constitution....

    Frankly; I'm guessing not. But only time will tell.

  21. Are there any actual libertarian writers at Reason anymore?

  22. Now if only she knew what a woman was

  23. Obviously sex offenders and child porn producers should get the book thrown at them, especially given recidivism rates. But it's pretty ironic that just looking at illegal anything is in the same galaxy as production. Anyone can log onto YNC or dozens of other similar sites and watch an innocent child, guilty of nothing more than his father ekeing out a living as a Mexican cop, being tortured to death by cartels, or innocent captives being burned alive in the middle east, or thousands of other fates I'd rather be raped by a gang of gorillas for a decade than have to endure. Even downloading any of this is perfectly legal. And most of this is only performed because people are watching it. Anyone who watched the Nicholas Berg video is just a bit complicit in the hundreds of incidents since. How about dashcam/gopro getaway videos you can watch right on YouTube? Very illegal and similar stunts costs thousands of lives annually. Should we arrest people who watch those for driving demand and endangering lives? Personally I'd rather be molested than get a bumper through my spleen. The line isn't as black and white as it was when there was a clearcut, personal link between sicko producers and sicko consumers driving and compensating these producers as there was when the laws were written.

  24. I must have missed the Reason article complaining about the over charging and excessive sentences of the people ushered into the Capitol on Jan. 6th by the Capitol police.

    1. Ha ha Reason won't even discuss it. Not even Volokh. He just posts the same dumb canned articles daily.

      I guess its not allowed.

  25. Public defenders at least in DC seem to be for their ideology not their clients rights. Just heard Mathew Perna's (the J6 protestor who committed suicide) aunt in an interview state that his PD was a progressive piece of garbage who might as well been the prosecutor.

    That story has been repeated by others,

  26. "experience as a defense attorney' jesus f'ing christ you can't possibly be this stupid. She's an affirmative action fraud and phony who, like all of them, has NO actual experience as ANYTHING other than being a cardboard puppet putting a black face on work actually done by a white. This congenital idiot of a woman (like Obama) can't even write her own name without a white person holding the pen for her--let alone perform ANY actual tasks of an attorney.

    Grow the F up.

  27. A vacancy in the highest court in the nation filled by a CRT sympathizer who gave several months of jail sentence to a pedophile creep with hundreds of kiddie porn is not a cause of celebration.

    Criminal justice reform cannot be reduced to "let's be as fair to criminals as we can and release them at the most earliest moment". We have already seen this approach blow up as recently as the Sacramento mass shooting incident. Even Seattle and NYC voted for law enforcement friendly mayors in the face of crime out of control. Gascon and Boudin might be thrown out in the bluest of cities.

    Reason made wrong friends during the Floyd riots, and the policy they appear sympathetic to have imploded spectacularly. If the LP was actually a serious political party, they would have to answer to voters about whether this is the kind of society they envision.

    This woman is not an ideal fit for the SC at a time of pandemic authoritarianism and weakening societal foundation. Look at Garland and how he turned out as AG. These people radical, and their support of criminal justice reform is rooted more in identity politics than individual liberty. Jackson would have voted to expand OSHA's covid power over private business.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.