Dick Durbin attempts to defend Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson

[HenryBHough]

All Democrats are potential pedos so it just makes sense that they support those who they feel them when they need it most.

 

[munkle]

The problem is many liberals don't see a big problem with child porn, think it is a victimless crime. They don't understand that in the making of the pictures, a child has to be abused, and if there were no demand for it there would be no industry. Some of this stuff is so sick it is unspeakable.

 

[excalibur]

They are coming for the children. I have been saying that for several decades, they're here now

Any Senator who votes for this stupid, and probably evil woman, should be tossed from office.

Everyone regardless of party, or conservative or liberal, needs to contact their Senators and demand a 'No' vote on Brown Jackson.

If you won't have your stomach turned over with the blitheness of her approach to the trafficking in kiddie porn, nothing will and you have lost any sense of humanity.

 

[The Original Tree]

The United States will go FULL SODOM and GOMORRAH if this Mentally Ill Loon Tard is allowed to take a seat on The SCOTUS BENCH.

Did Joe really nominate a Black Woman? Kangaroo Brown states she cannot tell she is a woman because she is not a biologist. Perhaps also she cannot tell if she is a black person unless she consults a geneticist.

If Kangaroo Brown cannot decide the most basic of questions on what is and what is not a woman, then how can she be trusted with the more complicated aspects of human law?

 

[occupied]

Pretty sure everyone knows that child porn involves children.

 

[The Original Tree]

Pretty sure everyone knows that child porn involves children.

Unless you are a Left Tard, then it's simply sex education, and you cannot define what a child is.
Sort of like you can't tell a female is a woman unless there is a biologist around to tell you so.

 

[bugs]

The problem is many liberals don't see a big problem with child porn, think it is a victimless crime. They don't understand that in the making of the pictures, a child has to be abused, and if there were no demand for it there would be no industry. Some of this stuff is so sick it is unspeakable.

Sounds Like We're ALL in Deep shit..

 

[kyzr]

Pretty sure everyone knows that child porn involves children.

It is a crime. Lindsay Graham went nuts over Ketanji's seeming indifference to what punishment it deserves.
Is it a serious crime or a victimless crime? Hint: its a serious crime, there are victims, many victims.
So why can't AI and software prevent child porn??

 

[Calypso Jones]

Seems that democrat elites don't want child rapists jailed.

 

[bugs]

Seems that democrat elites don't want child rapists jailed.

They want to Destroy America..

 

[B. Kidd]

Kavanaugh and Thomas are both great examples of how the Dirty Democrat Party smears innocent people.
The Dirty Democrats illegally used our own FBI and DOJ to smear President Trump and the Press played along with it.
Left Wingers have zero ethics or morals.

Lindsey Graham brought out from this Dimm reprobate nominee today that she had no idea of the Dimm's japping Kavanaugh in his hearing at the last minute!
She's a lying dolt!!

 

[Nostra]

Strange but you didn't consider Brett Kavenaugh's history of sexually abusing women at all important, nor the behaviour of Clarence Thomas.

You have no moral high ground on ANY nomination, considering the ODIOUS and disgusting picks by Trump, and others.

You are too fucking stupid to stay on topic. Has anyone attacked this nominee with made up personal shit from 30 years ago with ZERO evidence?

 

[FA_Q2]

Give me a break. Clarence Thomas overturned part of the child pornography protection act of 1996

Thomas opinion in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002),

The Court suggests that the Government's interest in enforcing prohibitions against real child pornography cannot justify prohibitions on virtual child pornography, ….

So, you think light sentencing of people trafficking in child pornography is equivalent to someone trafficking in animated images?

You realize one of those instances has a victim and the other does not, right?


What a fucking ignorant comparison.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Give me a break. Clarence Thomas overturned part of the child pornography protection act of 1996

Thomas opinion in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002),

The Court suggests that the Government's interest in enforcing prohibitions against real child pornography cannot justify prohibitions on virtual child pornography, ….

Why do you lie? He dissented in that case, you fucking Canuck!

Are all Canucks liars because you and Dragon Lady are excellent examples.

 

[FA_Q2]

Wow, you get 10 years for child porn? That is as much as some get for murder.

We've got to fix the sentencing guidelines in this nation ASAP.

If true (which I doubt), the pornographer should have gotten much longer than three months.

It is true, there is no contention there at all. The perp in question is not a 'pornographer' though and that was never the claim. They owned images of child pornography.

Honestly, the details of the case itself are missing and what most people do not seem to realize is that with how obtaining porn online works, it is not entirely impossible that you may end up with illegal content entirely by accident, could have content you were not looking for or obtain hundreds of hours of illegal content in 10 minuets.

Without the details of the case, it really is impossible to determine how sever this particular instance is. If they establish a pattern of show that this person was actively looking for depictions of sexual acts with children then the sentencing should be enough to reject her. If not then there is noting here.

Her main comments on this seem to be that the individual in question was seeking imagery that depicted people close to his own age, 18, and ended up with something much more heinous. Should that send someone to prison for a decade? I am not so sure.

 

[Persuader]

Unclean OP

New "Clean Start" Policy on Creating Threads

We always HAVE been a Discussion board. We've always focused almost solely on getting thread topics to be discussed and not on arbitrary content issues.. STILL completely committed to the Free Speech thing.. But lately, the thread titles and Opening Posts have been giving Free Speech a bad...

www.usmessageboard.com

Reporting the facts of a case is unclean? Nonsense.

 

[Persuader]

It is true, there is no contention there at all. The perp in question is not a 'pornographer' though and that was never the claim. They owned images of child pornography.

Honestly, the details of the case itself are missing and what most people do not seem to realize is that with how obtaining porn online works, it is not entirely impossible that you may end up with illegal content entirely by accident, could have content you were not looking for or obtain hundreds of hours of illegal content in 10 minuets.

Without the details of the case, it really is impossible to determine how sever this particular instance is. If they establish a pattern of show that this person was actively looking for depictions of sexual acts with children then the sentencing should be enough to reject her. If not then there is noting here.

Her main comments on this seem to be that the individual in question was seeking imagery that depicted people close to his own age, 18, and ended up with something much more heinous. Should that send someone to prison for a decade? I am not so sure.

The real pertinent issue in this case is not being talked about.....blatant black bias....aka black racism.....aka a black judge giving lenient sentences to black criminals and only to black criminals....she gave no lenient sentences to white criminals.

Instead the senators give the apperance she only gave light sentences to those convicted of being a pedophile when in truth she gave light senences to all black criminals....and to only black criminals ....outrageous.

Thus she is not fit to serve and should not be allowed to participate in the legal system in any way except as a dedendent....she needs to be brought up on charges and given jail time.

 

[Auld Phart]

Reporting the facts of a case is unclean? Nonsense.

Referring to the president as 'Pedo Joe' in the OP violates Clean Start.

 

[Auld Phart]

I did not see that....where did you see that?

here is what i see............

Dick Durbin attempts to defend Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson​

"No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards. Issues with moderation should be taken up privately with moderators in PM."

 

[busybee01]

Sen. Richard J. Durbin on Sunday defended the record of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson after Republican criticism of her handling of child pornography cases in judicial and policy roles.
Durbin (D-Ill.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dismissed allegations made last week by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) in tweets that claimed “an alarming pattern when it comes to Judge Jackson’s treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on children.”

MSN

www.msn.com

Accusations of leniency in child porn cases preface ...​

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/20/...

15 hours ago · “Judge Jackson’s history of sentencing below guidelines, particularly in cases involving child exploitation, raises legitimate questions about …

Comment:
Dick Durban is a prolific prevaricator.
Of course Durbin will defend child porn crimes.
Senator Hawley is correct, Judge Jackson is soft on child porn crimes.
She does not follow the minimum sentencing guild lines and she uses racial disparities as her excuse.
Joe chose Jackson because she is a very good representative of the far left extremist and radical and racist Democrat Party.
Jackson will ignore the Constitution instead of defending it.
All of the usual Democrat Cult News Orgs are doing their "Fact Checking"(lying) about this.
"We Fact Checked it" LMAO >> WaPo NYT Yahoo HuffyPo
This is an important issue because of Hunter Biden's lap top pictures of him abusing a minor and Bill Clinton's many visits to Epstein's Lolita Island.
She will be put on the Supreme Court and as usual the Democrats will accuse the Republicans of racism for having doubts about her.
The Democrats are slowly working their way towards an Orwellian nightmare neo-marxist totalitarian one party police state and Jackson will help them get there.
Enjoy your freedom while it lasts.

You are nothing but a horse faced liar just like Hawley. Andrew McCarthy has said this is bullshit.

"
McCarthy, a Republican who previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, dismissed the criticism as "meritless to the point of demagoguery" in a column for the conservative publication National Review on March 20.


McCarthy defended Jackson's viewpoint on the matter of mandatory minimums for first-time offenders charged with child pornography possession as "mainstream" and "correct in my view."

He explained that many other people in the legal system—including conservatives—also consider the mandatory minimum laws enacted by Congress for those offenders to be too harsh.

"It's not soft on porn to call for sensible line-drawing. Plenty of hard-nosed prosecutors and Republican-appointed judges have long believed that this mandatory minimum is too draconian," McCarthy wrote.

He went on to explain that he would still oppose Judge Jackson's nomination on philosophical grounds—adding that she "may in fact be too solicitous of criminals"—but dismissed Hawley's criticism as a "smear."

MSN

www.msn.com

The radicals are on the right not the left. These six ignore the constitution and legislate from the bench. They are the racists as they are shredding the Voting rights Act which was passed by Congress legally. The Republicans are trying to make this into a Orwellian nightmare as they roll back rights in this country.