Dick Durbin attempts to defend Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson

[busybee01]

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.

We still do not know who was lying in the Thomas matter. Kavanaugh did sexually assault Dr Ford. Trump was not smeared. You are angry that they told the truth. You have no morals or ethics and are immoral and unethical.

 

[busybee01]

That's was all fabricated lies. The nominee has an actual history for pedos. Big difference.

There is NO history you lying weasel.

 

[busybee01]

I would like someone to explain how it is that this judge, Biden's nominee for the Supreme Court, thought it was a good idea to give 3 months to a man who had 600 images of child rape.....

The Federal guideline was 10 years.

The left wing, D.C. prosecutor asked for 2 years.

Biden's Supreme Court nominee gave the guy with 600 or more images of child rape, children between the ages of 8-12......a 3 month sentence.

This alone should rule against her sitting on the highest court of the land....right?

“[In] United States vs. Chazin, the prosecutor asked for 78 to 97 months. You imposed 28 months. Twenty-eight months is a 64 percent reduction. In United States vs. Cooper, the prosecutor asked for 72 months, you imposed 60 months,” Cruz listed. “That was a 17 percent reduction. In United States vs. Downs, the prosecutor asked for 70 months, you imposed 60 – that was a 14 percent reduction. United States vs. Hawkins, the prosecutor asked for 24 months, you imposed three months – that was an 80 percent reduction. In United States vs. Savage, the prosecutor asked for 49 months, you imposed 37 – that was a 24 percent reduction. In the United States vs. Stewart, the prosecutor asked for 97 months, you imposed 57 – that was a 40 percent reduction.”

“Do you believe the voice of the children is heard when 100 percent of the time you’re sentencing those in possession of child pornography to far below what the prosecutors asking for?” Cruz asked.

Sen. Ted Cruz grills Ketanji Brown Jackson during hearing

Tuesday’s questioning began at 9 a.m., with each senator getting up to 30 minutes to quiz Jackson in order of seniority.

nypost.com

Keep in mind....these images that these individuals have are images of children, young children being raped ....... and having listened to some of the testimony.....she would sit there and apologize to these individuals for the sentences they recieved.....

Again.....shouldn't this be disqualifying ?

You have no idea what the specifics of the case are. Andrew McCarthy has defended Jackson on this garbage. He has called it demagoguery and a smear. He is opposed to her nomination.

 

[busybee01]

No wonder the Left love her. She’s a pedophillia supporter who can’t tell you what a woman is.

That is a lie. If you got a day for every lie you told, you would be in jail for 1,000 years.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There is NO history you lying weasel.

Yes, there is. It's in her record. Your emotions and feelings don't change the facts.

 

[busybee01]

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.

You have no clue what the specifics are, yet you make broad assumptions. There is no evidence that Jackson is soft on pedophiles. Even Andrew McCarthy who opposes her nomination says this is demagoguery and a smear.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Prove it. There is absolutely no evidence of that. You seem to think that saying so makes it a fact. A racist playing the race card. You are a real prize.

 

[busybee01]

Yes, there is. It's in her record. Your emotions and feelings don't change the facts.

Andrew McCarthy essentially says it is not there.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Andrew McCarthy essentially says it is not there.

I don't care what mccarthy says. I look straight at the facts. Here she is justifying her actions.

 

[Weatherman2020]

That is a lie. If you got a day for every lie you told, you would be in jail for 1,000 years.

Then what’s her definition of a woman and did she give a pedo 3 months when he was up for 10 years?

I’ll wait.

 

[Persuader]

If you doubt it just look up every lenient sentence she gave out....all of them are for blacks.

 

[Persuader]

If you doubt it just look up every lenient sentence she gave out....all of them are for blacks.

Yet the senators are afraid of talking about that for fear of being labeled a racist.....so they shift her real motive (racism) to being too lenient on pedophiles.

Not rocket science boyo.

 

[Persuader]

Prove it. There is absolutely no evidence of that. You seem to think that saying so makes it a fact. A racist playing the race card. You are a real prize.

I will give you a brand new $100 dollar bill for every white guy you can name that was given a lienient citizen by the black racist judge.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Rye Catcher]

So, you don’t deny that Jackson is soft on pedophiles?

You are a simpleton, and in the aggregate of factors which the trier of fact uses from pornographic pictures viewed on the internet to actual rape are two different pathologies.

Looking at pictures, broadcasting pictures & film on the internet and actively engaging in sexual activities are way different crimes within the wide parameter of pedophiles. Some factors the trier of fact, and the sentencing judge or justice is justifiable:

• The Probation Report
  • the age of the defendant
  • the age of the victim
  • the defendant's criminal record
  • if the defendant was molested
  • if the defendant has a prior or priors
  • if the the behavior was
    • Mitigated (looking a pictures, for example)
    • Aggravated (Rape and other violent sexual behavior)
• The Defendant's Remorse or merciless
• A psychological or psychiatric evaluation(s)
• Letters from former or current teachers, neighbors or relatives

 

[Rye Catcher]

Pedo Joe's crackhead son made kiddy porn with himself as the star.
Wonder what Judge Jackson would do if she had his court case.

You're deplorable, disgusting, dishonest and a dip shit.

 

[Rye Catcher]

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

What are "potential pedos"? Your hyperbole lacks thought, substance or truth. Why do you post such childish and ridiculous comments? Are you so insecure and in need of getting some attention?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I have seen no information supporting she was a racist judge.

Care to actually back that claim up?

 

[BackAgain]

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.

No such “history.” You are simply retarded enough to have bought an absurd story from some other brain-dead woman (Ie, Ms. Ford). And there is also no credible basis at all to accept anything claimed by Anita Hill.

You are quite gullible.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't care what mccarthy says. I look straight at the facts. Here she is justifying her actions.

Then actually look at them because what she said not only does make sense, it is rational and correct.

She spoke directly to the idea that the volume of material was used to identify the seriousness of the offence. That DOES make sense in a paper world. It DOES NOT make sense in a digital world. Volume is now indicative of nothing.

The last time I deployed I wanted to bring a series of books that I simply could not find a copy to purchase. They were nowhere to be found so I went to a torrent to acquire a copy. I could not find that book either except in one pack. That pack contained, I am not exaggerating here, 50,000 books. 50,000.

In the digital world, volume is indicative of, quite literally, nothing. The question then becomes what other factors were at play that signify this as something that is more serious or less so. As I have said several times over this thread, no one has offered anything in the way of actual facts that show one way or another. No one seems to be operating from a position of knowledge here and that includes the senators.

It bothers me that no one seems to even want a straight answer let alone is willing to give one.