The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Question I Would Ask KBJ: "How would you change the Supreme Court confirmation process?"
"Jackson’s experience gives her a perspective into every facet of the process: selection by the president, preparation before the so-called murder boards, meeting with senators and enduring the hearings."
Politico Magazine asked several scholars what question they would pose to Judge Jackson. I tried something different:
"How would you change the Supreme Court confirmation process?"
The Supreme Court confirmation process is broken. Nearly three decades ago, then-Professor Elena Kagan described the routine as "a vapid and hollow charade." And to no one's surprise, Kagan and all other Supreme Court nominees refused to answer any questions that could have jeopardized their prospects. Now, it is Judge Jackson's turn to play charades. Yet, she is uniquely suited to address a critical question: How should the Supreme Court confirmation process be changed? Jackson has already gone through judicial confirmation hearings before and is about to run the gauntlet again. Jackson's experience gives her a perspective into every facet of the process: selection by the president, preparation before the so-called murder boards, meeting with senators and enduring the hearings.
I'm fairly certain that Jackson will have thoughts on how the process could be improved. But more importantly, three follow-up questions will reveal how she understands law and politics. First, what should the president look for in a potential Supreme Court justice? Not this president — a president in general. Jackson may explain, indirectly at least, why she thinks she was selected. Second, what specific questions should senators ask a Supreme Court nominee about her record? Certainly Jackson thinks some questions are in bounds. And those questions would shed light on which aspects of Jackson's jurisprudence are fair game for the political process. Third, how should senators decide whether to vote for a nominee? Perhaps she thinks senators should vote for any nominee who meets some minimum qualifications. But she may think something more may factor into the decision — whatever that is, senators should probe further.
If phrased properly, Jackson will find it difficult to dodge these questions. No rules of judicial ethics prevent her from commenting on the confirmation process in the abstract. And through this approach, senators can gain insights into how Jackson understands the seat that she will likely fill for decades.
I look forward to watching the hearings.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I’d ask her why does she love Child Porn.
And those who produce, distribute, and collect it.
Not to mention the soft spot she has for sex offenders in general.
The Parrot Parade has its talking points!
I guess she cares more about not being homophobic and anti-black than children.
Pathetic.
So does William Pryor, and most federal judges, in your view.
So do jurors in federal cases:
https://reason.com/2015/02/23/judges-find-federal-child-porn-sentences/
https://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2013/05/4.1_9_Gwin.pdf
She should say, end this bullshit partisan attack session. Stop wasting time. Confirmation only began after Brandeis, the first Jew, was nominated. The Senate could not believe it, and had to speak to him first. The confirmation process is anti-Semitism, from old white male supremacists.
Also go back to nominating people who never attended law school, as most Justices never did.
Interesting that the Brandeis nomination coincided with the direct election of senators. James McReynolds was confirmed after the passage of the 17th amendment but by senators who had been selected under the original process.
This tends to confirm my theory that the direct election of senators has politicized the judicial appointments process.
Michael, are you implying, the Senators get on TV to grandstand for their next election in this confirmation process?
Presumably they were not grandstanding on TV when Brandeis was appointed in 1916.
Brandeis the First Jew? I always thought it was Abraham, but what do I know, I'm only 1/2 Jewish (the good 1/2)
Frankie. Jews are supposed to be smart.
We could start with objective minimum standards.
Length of time on lesser federal courts, number of opinions authored, percentage of decisions that had dissents, number of decisions overturned, etc. This would reduce the blatant political aspects like race and (assumed) gender and (assumed) sexual preferences.
Then have the senate review those opinions, and public statements, and they would get a picture free of obvious bullshit aimed at not making a mistake in the 'interview'.
"This would reduce the blatant political aspects like race and (assumed) gender and (assumed) sexual preferences."
Why would that reduce those political aspects? Nearly any one you can think of that's been appointed would be able to check those boxes as defined by most relevant experts.
I'm inferring, perhaps incorrectly, that you think minimum standards would weed out judges chosen in part because of their gender or ethnicity. Why do you think that? Once a pool of qualified applicants is established by going through the elements that you list, there will still need to be something that causes one to be nominated before the others. Do you think it's illegitimate for gender or ethnicity to be considered at all, or is it acceptable as a deciding factor within a group of qualified candidates?
Even if one ultimately chooses a nominee from within a group of qualified candidates, it is in fact illegitimate to exclude other qualified candidates from consideration simply because they happen to be, for example, black males or Asians or Latinos or Native Americans or gay men. Biden, at least for this nomination, was quite overt in announcing that he was deliberately excluding all of these groups from consideration.
Not if there is a history of total exclusion of those groups for the majority of our history. You might as well say self defense lethal force is murder. Facile.
Can someone please lay out the criteria for assigning individuals to "those groups"?
I like some of those, as well as the general idea, but I have concerns about others. The percentage of opinions that had dissents seems like something that can easily be gamed, and that might also vary structurally between circuits.
More importantly, I'd prefer not to have specific judgments second guessed by politicians, except to a "no reasonable judge" standard. Having judges' chances of promotion depend on whether the Senators like their specific judgments seems like a recepy for disaster.
"Length of time on lesser federal courts, number of opinions authored, percentage of decisions that had dissents, number of decisions overturned, etc. "
There should be no requirement that one has served on a court. That current cookie cutter type is a new, and bad, change.
Some of the best justices never served on a lower court.
I think a good question would be about term limits for Justices. Life seems like an odd term (though I agree terms should be of some length to preserve judicial independence) for a democracy.
If amending the US constitution wasn't so difficult, there would have long since been an amendment that set a mandatory retirement age of X to take effect Y years in the future. (Or authorised the Congress to set a retirement age no lower than Z.)
If it were easier, it would be the typical fossilized rigid mess which locks up too many fads.
If apples were oranges ....
Exactly. The purpose of making amendment difficult was to block the blowing winds of political passion, so skillfully wielded by demagogues and wannabee dictators.
This is not your friend.
Remember the Constitution is not normal law. It is the meta law about how the government operates and creates normal laws. It has only those powers granted it, and no others.
If you can't get most people to agree, it probably should not be in the Constitution. And if people agree today, they should still agree six months or several years down the road, after those passions have been processed, to use contemporary pop psych babble.
If you can't get most people to agree, it probably should not be in the Constitution
I'm not sure why you would set the bar that high, particularly since you'd probably struggle to find a single clause in the current Constitution, beyond the preamble, that "most people" would agree should be there.
Well, if that question were asked of the Republicans on the Committee they would all say, "No Black women should ever be nominated and White males should not have to go through the confirmation process at all".
On a serious note, what an irrelevant post. Confirmation is the process of the Senate, they and they alone decide.
"On a serious note . . ."
No, that is not serious. The Constitution does assign the task of confirmation to the Senate. Technically, they could decide it on a coin toss. (Would sure save time and hot air.) But as citizens, whom the Senators represent, we are entitled to opine on what is a better process.
As for your first admittedly silly comments, take a poll of Republicans as to whether they would support the nomination of Judge Janice Rogers Brown for the next open SCOTUS seat. I would bet the results would be approaching 100%.
On a serious note, what an irrelevant post. Confirmation is the process of the Senate, they and they alone decide.
Agree. And some polite version of that is exactly what I would expect KBJ to reply if the question were asked.
Why do supposedly serious people make such blatantly stupid comments such as this? You know it's not remotely true, yet you said it. Grow up.
Hi, Sydney. Can you name any jurisdiction that has been successfully governed by a diverse (since this guy, Mansa Musa, 700 years ago)? Define success any way you wish.
"If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?"
"The Charter Oak, of course."
https://www.hartfordhistory.net/charter_oak.html
I was actually asked that question in an interview.
I said "the kind that leaves" and walked out.
(it was a technical interview for a system design position)
Durbin just asked that. And she responded with the only appropriate answer:
“Court/nomination reform” is not a subject for a court nominee to discuss.
Which was also Coney-Barrett’s response, apparently?
"Coney-Barrett"
Don't mis-name her. No hypen and Coney is just used as a middle name.
He last name is Barrett.
“Piss off” is also un-hyphenated.
Ever see the cartoon shoeing a boss writing at his desk while an employee is entering the room? The caption says "Oh, Smith, come on in. I was just finishing your performance review; is asshole one word or two?"
shoeing = showing
The answer is "I wouldn't because I got through it successfully."
I still like the idea of the senate proposing a list of people and the president picking one from the list.
That's actually pretty interesting.
You'd need a process to make sure it isn't a list designed by the Senate leaders to force a particular choice. For example, a list of five consisting of one someone like Chuck Schumer or Mitch McConnell wants, plus four non-lawyer war criminals from foreign countries.
Maybe a rule that any twenty senators can add a name to the list.
Make it 40 with each senator having 5 votes and a maximum pool of 10 and it would be more likely to include the most qualified (and more moderate) people.
Of course the sad spectacle of people coming to Capitol Hill to kiss 40 rings would be pretty pathetic.
"plus four non-lawyer war criminals from foreign countries"
Wait, you mean Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot would not qualify for a SCOTUS seat?
Pretty sure that Supreme Court nominees have to be alive.
Listened to some of the hearings this morning and have to say she's way better than I'd been led to expect.
Actually said at one point her philosophy relies on "original public meaning", I believe CJT says the same thing. Specifically and categorically rejected her old boss Breyer's idea that foreign law has a place in constitutional interpretation.
Even if it's phony not a bad performance.
What, exactly, were you "led to expect," by whom, and why?
Take a look at the first sets of comments in this thread for a sample.
Why, you ask? I guess it's just what they do.
Just because they led doesn't necessarily mean I was following. However, I was expecting someone more like a Ginsburg or a Breyer and she doesn't come off that way.
That's hardly reassuring.
Where did Breyer use foreign law other than 8th Amendment cases (which, in interpreting a clause that basically says 'only humane punishments allowed' would seem fine in looking at changes in world opinion)?
Yeah, that's the example, and she (ostensibly) disagrees with him on that issue.
On your parenthetical statement....I don't think there is anything one could call world opinion on what is a humane punishment, much less "cruel and unusual".
FWIW I believe the 8th only prohibits going outside of US norms ("unusual") in the direction of harshness ("cruel"). Unusual leniency is not violation. Harshness that is part of what legislatures have generally been willing to approve (e.g. death penalty) is not a violation.
"I don't think there is anything one could call world opinion on what is a humane punishment, much less "cruel and unusual". "
So you don't recognize trends?
What do you mean by "recognize" trends? Acknowledging they exist, or some obligation to align? I deny the second.
Right now there is a rather undeniable "trend" for state legislatures to shorten the time window for abortions. Almost all changes seem to be in one direction. Do you believe the SC needs to "recognize" this?
What's considered 'cruel' is something that the Founders generation knew might change.
"Right now there is a rather undeniable "trend" for state legislatures to shorten the time window for abortions"
A trend for state leguslatures in safe red states? Absolutely. A trend in American opinion? No, it's heading the other way.
You're probably correct. Which shows what the problem is with the idea that the SC should be basing their decisions on social trends.
Whose social trend? The state? The country as a whole? Or as QA suggests, "world" opinion, which one assumes really means "European opinion when it supports something the judge wants to do and US opinion isn't quite there yet".
I'd ask her the following.
If a law gives an agency head "sole and unreviewable discretion" in regards to a matter, does that mean that the courts have the right to review their decisions on the matter, and reverse their decisions?
Who cares. She [like all of them] just will lie.
She said “I decide cases from a neutral posture." After that whopper she'll say anything.
Come on, Bob. Judges are required to say that.
You probably interrupt Shakespeare performances: "LIAR! You're not really Romeo! You're an actor named Bill Smith! LIAR!"
Still a lie. Do you have any doubts that her vote is totally predictable on abortion, religion, guns, race, crime?
You certainly don't know at all how she'll vote on "crime". That's an awfully broad topic and the court usually doesn't split left-right on those cases.
On the other topics, one could guess which way she leans, but I bet you'd score less than 75% on predicting her votes in advance. Which isn't "totally predictable".
He said predict her votes on certain issues.
There are many topics which for the most part are not ideologically controversial. I doubt you could predict her vote on a question of patent law or ERISA law.
On abortion and gun control, yes. You could do so with very high accuracy. As you could for Breyer, Sotamayor and Kagan. Same for affirmative action. (Agreed that "crime" is too broad and vague a category.)
He literally said crime.
And I literally said "Agreed that 'crime' is too broad and vague a category."
"I bet you'd score less than 75% on predicting her votes in advance"
I hope you don't gamble. When was the last time a lib on the court voted to uphold an abortion restriction?
She's a typical soft on crime bleeding heart on crime too. Utterly predictable.
When the abortion restriction actually targeted an issue that is relevant to safe and legal abortion prior to 21 weeks.
That is an interesting question but she may not be in a position to answer it. I wish the question was asked of candidates to the Senate.
The real problem with the entire process is, IMO, it’s extreme politicization. That is an outcome of having a directly elected Senate and for all intents, a popularly elected head of state. I foresee no change to the process other than its continued degradation due to politics and changes to the way we choose presidents and senators.
I believe the Founders sought to keep the judiciary further removed from politics with the indirectly elected Senate and POTUS chosen by electors who themselves were chosen by the states. That has not becomes little more than a formality.
My best solution would be to create a head of state position, separate from that of head of government, with the power of judicial appointments and pardons and little else other than ceremonial functions.
As for the Senate, I would expand it to three per state, each delegation votes as one, each senator chosen by their legislature, each staggered by 2 years and each legislature could recall them.
This moron likely thinks of himself as an anti-elitist, but he wants his state career pols (who draw their own election lines!) to make his decisions for him and the other people in the state.
You can't make this up, folks.
Ahh, Queen, now you have to resort to name calling. Obviously I am a moron, I mean the Founders believed in the state selection of Senators and the Articles of Confederation established Congress as a council of the states with each state delegation having one vote. I suppose, all those people who formulated these ideas were also morons?
If they are morons, does that also mean their work product was moronic? Was not their work product the Constitution itself?
I think I will stand in the company of the Founders rather than some self described Queen.
You can’t make this stuff up, folks.
I would require Senators to submit their questions in writing. The questions for the be nominee would be asked by staffer representing the Chairman and Ranking members. The nominee could then respond.
Hopefully Senators would ask better questions if they don't get TV time.
Or just dispense with the questions altogether. That's how they used to do it. The live questions add nothing. You can learn all you need to learn (or all you will ever learn) by the person's paper trail.
That's not bad idea, but telling Senators they can't bloviate on TV is unlikely to be successful.
There is the extreme option of all the citizens not watching the proceedings.
Good God! That would be a Hamlet moment. Senators can't bloviate? Then what's the point of living?
That's actually a great idea.
Prof. Blackman has proposed a lucid, intelligent, well-thought-out questions.
It deserves better comments, although this blog generally does not.
OK, so she admits she goes easy on pedos. Does not apply the law, just "lightens up" because the crime is "so easy".
She is not fit to serve on ANY bench. She does not apply the law, she is an advocate for this behavior.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-nominee-gave-pedophiles-lighter-sentences-because-internet-makes-it-so-easy
Is it awesome that this Behar-esque dude doesn't get what forum he's posting on, or that maybe he does?
Hi, Queenie. Still working on the letter. What diverse boxes may I check off for you?
Darth Chocolate's contribution reminds me that this blog gets the comments it deserves.
You're being lied to by omission within the first three paragraphs of that 'article.'
You really need to choose your sources better. No wonder you spout such stupid shit.
"Senator Hawley’s Disingenuous Attack against Judge Jackson’s Record on Child Pornography"
- by Andrew McCarthy at NRO.
Don't tell me, McCarthy's a pedo apologist too, right?
1: what kind of Electric Car does she drive?. 2: How many guns does she own? 3: How many guys with guns provide her personal security? 4: Has she ever broken a State, Federal, or local law?
Those questions would say more about the questioner than any plausible answers would say about the nominee.
Star Wars or Star Trek?
It makes as much sense as a question as anything an actual senator will ask her.
This might get me to watch the hearings.
This hearing is bringing out the culture war crazies. Senator John Cornyn questioned Judge Jackson about whether Obergefell v. Hodges correctly recognized same sex marriage as a constitutional right.
Senator Marsha Blackburn suggested that Griswold v. Connecticut is constitutionally unsound.
Senator Mike Braun blathered that Obergefell, Griswold and Loving v. Virginia each involved questions that should be left to the states.
The core doctrine of substantive due process individual rights is under attack. SCOTUS is on the cusp of disregarding stare decisis and overruling Roe v. Wade.
A federal district judge in Ashland, Kentucky has granted summary judgment as to damages liability against Kim Davis for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, with the amount of damages to be determined by a jury. https://lc.org/PDFs/Attachments2PRsLAs/2022/031822DavisMSJOpinionandOrderErmold.pdf When that decision makes its way up the appellate ladder, will it present an occasion to reconsider Obergefell?
A chill wind blows.
Wow, when the right's got nothin' they really show their ass.
White resentment, Hunter Biden, and scurrilous 'soft on pedophilia' straw-grasping.
So far, looks like KBJ is hitting it out of the park. She answers clearly, and builds in lucid explanations of the various reliances Justices avail themselves of to make legitimate decisions. The overall impression is an ordered legal mind, and a great judicial temperament.
What were you expecting?
Her to start crying about how she loves beer and her father's beautiful calendar?
I'd ask her what it will be like knowing for the rest of history that you were chosen for your genitalia and level of pigmentation above all other considerations, everything else being secondary.
She should reject the premise and point out to the questioner that her credentials are far far better than theirs are anyway, so who cares?
"Then I'd ask her how she'd deal with, as a judge, child porn on the computer of the sitting president's son."
What do you mean? As a trial judge? She's not one anymore so she wouldn't be dealing with that...but I suppose she would just sentence them using the guidelines like every federal judge does (many of whom think the child porn guidelines are too high (as do jurors)). As an appeals court judge she would review the sentence for abuse of discretion. Sentences within the guidelines range are presumptively reasonable. And even outside of that you just review for abuse of discretion. As a SCOTUS justice? Well....she would have to vote for cert if there was a circuit split on the issue or the sentencing guidelines somehow became a question of "national importance." I'll never say never, but post-Booker, there are a lot established procedures and standards for federal sentencing...so it's unlikely that this issue would come up on review.
Unless you mean generally...in which case the question is nonsense because it would turn on the facts of the case and the legal issues it raises of course. Is there a Fourth Amendment issue? Brady issue? Self-incrimination issue? Plea Colloquy issue? Etc. Etc. Etc. None of these are answerable under the question: how would you deal with X case, without more specific facts.
"If giving the "much democratic norms treatment": I'd ask her if Heller is a "super-duper precedent" in order to get my re-election sound bites."
And she would just ignore the question like every other nominee.
You misspelled everything else being equal.
SCOTUS isn't some position where there's one true Best Qualified Person, it's a position where's there's lots of qualified people. It's also a position of immense power and clout which many groups in our nation have never seen anyone that looked like them on it. So given you have a bunch of qualified people it's not wrong to use as a factor that you can rectify the second point.
"Then I'd ask her how she'd deal with, as a judge, child porn on the computer of the sitting president's son."
Yawn. You really need to pull your head out of right wing media's behind.
Did you want Thomas and Barrett asked those questions as well?
I'd ask her what it will be like knowing for the rest of history that you were chosen for your genitalia and level of pigmentation above all other considerations, everything else being secondary."
Let's ask Clarence that question first. Then ask Kav also.
But let's see if the Dems are willing to be fair, and treat her like Kav, that is, bring in all the witnesses who have accused her of sexual misbehavior and sexual assault. Shouldn't take too long, should it?
I'd ask her what it will be like knowing for the rest of history that you were chosen for your genitalia and level of pigmentation above all other considerations, everything else being secondary.
First of all, this is not true, no matter how many times you repeat it.
If I have a set of qualifications in mind for a position I'm hiring for, and one of those conditions is that the new hire be a Black female, while others involve experience, educational credentials, performance in similar positions, etc, then the race/gender were not "above all other considerations."
You may dislike making that a qualification. Guess what. I'm not wild about it. But it's no more above the others than they are above it.
Oh. And don't expect to be taken seriously unless you have similar complaints about O'Connor, Thomas, and Barrett.
That's what I would have answered as well.
What's there to rationalize? It's correct. She's certainly more accomplished at law than practically everyone on that committee. Marsha Blackburn is an obvious dolt and KBJ is obviously much smarter than her.
Of the preeminent republican lawyers on that committee: they're barely lawyers anyway. How many actual human beings did they ever represent? How often did they have to navigate someone through a challenging system? Ted Cruz was Solicitor general of Texas, that's a political/lobbying gig more than anything. He was in the senate by 42. Hawley basically went straight to politics after a brief big law gig. Senator before 40. Cotton had even less time in law, Senator before 40. Mike Lee is the closest to a real lawyer, as a former AUSA...but they rarely have to do heavy lifting at convincing courts of things. And again...was in the senate before age 40.
So, even if she won't do it, it is correct to say she's better at law than anyone asking her those questions.
How do I have imposter syndrome for her? it's obviously true that she is an eminently accomplished lawyer and judge.
And really the point of this exercise is to expose that "race and gender" question as absolute nonsense. Who cares if race and gender played a role, when she's pretty much better than everyone anyway?
Actually a better answer would be: Why didn't you ask Barrett this question? Trump explicitly picked Barrett for her gender.
Or Kavanaugh/Gorsuch for that matter (or the comparatively large amount of white men Trump picked for federal judgeships). Why do we always assume race, gender, and connections have nothing to do with anything when a white guy with rich parents gets a powerful gig? Maybe you should start questioning why you have that assumption baked in.
"Maybe it will wake up the milquetoast conservatives of this country that, you know, while they try not to see race, everyone else does. What will the result of everybody putting race first be, do you think?"
Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself to go full white supremacist. Good luck with that.
"She's was picked because, first and foremost, she had a vagina and African DNA."
The dude who named her said so. The denials and rationalizations are pathetic.
"he milquetoast conservatives of this country that, you know, while they try not to see race"
Lol, you're hilarious dude.
"She's was picked because, first and foremost, she had a vagina and African DNA."
Only in your fevered imagination. No one has to pull a black woman up into the "emmimently qualified" talent pool. There are plenty of black women who would be an excellent choice for the Supreme Court. Joe Biden just said he was going to pick one of them.
Just like Trump had a pool of eminently qualified people to choose from, but because he promised he would pick a woman he chose ACB. She was eminently qualified, but she moved to the top of the list because she was a woman. Also, most likely, because she is on the religious fringe, but that didn't make her unqualified.
Unless you believe that there are NO black women who are qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Which you don't, of course, because only a bigot with beliefs decent people left behind decades ago would think something as stupid as that.
Well if anyone knows what's pathetic, its you.
And again, so what? Trump did the same with Barrett. Do you think he's pathetic? And why don't you ask yourself these questions about white guys? Why is it always assumed that their race and gender have nothing to do with anything? Don't you see how thinking they're the default norm in every situation is in itself a type of racism?
She's married dude.
Yes, I can't praise an accomplished woman without wanting to bang her. Are you twelve years old? Grow up you pathetic little troll.
But she's not anything other than she appears to be: she is in fact a very accomplished lawyer and judge. Why is this so hard for you to acknowledge?
"And why don't you ask yourself these questions about white guys?"
I'm not asking any questions. Biden said he was only appointing a black woman, he set her up for all of this. Not me.
"I'm not asking any questions. "
I know you aren't, that's the problem. I'm saying you should interrogate your assumptions.
"[I]f I hadn't at least seen the images and videos myself."
YIKES. You need to log-off and talk to a lawyer ASAP.
So, you not only intentionally accessed child pornography but are also encouraging other people to do the same?
What is your obsession with Hunter Biden. He traded on his father's name and power to get named to a corporate board that was more interested in his connections than his abilities.
Welcome to corporate America. Apologies if this burst your bubble about the integrity, decency, and meritocracy of corporate boards. Cry it out and come join the real world.
If I were you, and I'd just admitted to deliberately seeking out what I believed would be child pornography, I'd be hoping that nobody here bothers to contact the FBI.
You're so obsessed with your partisan war that you intentionally clicked on something you believed would be child porn, dude. Because YOU had to 'verify' that's what was on Hunter Biden's laptop - according to someone who put a link to child porn on the internet and claimed it was such.
You have no defense for that decision. We have the FBI and other entities who are tasked with evaluating and authenticating evidence of crimes. You are not one of those people.
You are a pervert who willfully sought out child porn because you saw the name "Hunter Biden" and for some reason, felt it necessary to see for yourself.
I can tell you that no worm exists in this universe that would get me to bite that hook. But for you, all it took was "Hunter Biden."
Gross. Maybe the FBI should be speaking with you.
KBJ thinks the Constitution is racist.
She's a first class, affirmative action dunce.
History and context, how does it work?
Nas...It (the video) was on Taiwanese TV. Hunter was definitely getting his freak on.
Wonderful way to try an distract from the Biden CP there, make it everyone else who's the problem.
You can't even do paragraphs. You're the dunce. Please note, big Trump supporter here!
Why is it always knee-jerk with you?
Not the way you think it does.
But he's right as a political matter, whether you think his position is morally stunted or whatever. It's not a tenable position to say that every group other than whites can advocate for itself. (It might have been tenable at a time when those other groups were a tiny minority, because then their claims were, obviously, only over a tiny percentage of the pie.)
Callahan,
Well, to be fair, Bravo really is a shit-for-brains. (There are tons of thoughtful conservatives on this blog. Morons like BCD probably deserve to be called out, if for no other reason than they poison the good name of conservatives.)