Supreme Court Nominee Admits She Gave Pedophiles Lighter Sentences Because Internet Makes It 'So Easy'

Ghost1776

Ghost1776

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2021
Messages
2,075
Reaction score
1,757
Points
1,893

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com

Oh look she admits it, but the ppl with lower brain status can’t figure out that she admits it.
So they will still claim bull s***! LoL.
 
Ghost1776 said:

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com

Oh look she admits it, but the ppl with lower brain status can’t figure out that she admits it.
So they will still claim bull s***! LoL.
Click to expand...
Because I oppose her for other reasons, I don’t want to be misunderstood here. But the thread headline and the piece quoted are out of sync. Let’s be fair and honest about the judge’s position.

She appears to be contending that the reason to consider pedophiles more dangerous no longer makes as much sense since the availability of kiddie porn is no longer as restricted as it was prior to the internet. (I am not completely clear on why that matters, but she may have a point about how the change in technology has led to disparities in sentencing.)

Making such distinctions, or recognizing them, is part of a judge’s duties.
 
Last edited:
Ghost1776 said:

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com

Oh look she admits it, but the ppl with lower brain status can’t figure out that she admits it.
So they will still claim bull s***! LoL.
Click to expand...
Are you too tender to post the quote she made?
 
PinktheFloyd88 said:
I agree, it is implicit that if a Politician diddles a kid - they are a GOP
Click to expand...
Well, aren’t you the ignorant twit, then. Your esteemed President, senile Joe Alzheimers Brandon has a proclivity for wee young girls. I’m pretty sure he isn’t a Republican.
 
Moonglow said:
There is no democrat party in power.
Click to expand...
Sure there is. Don’t play stupid. The Executive Branch is Democrat. The House is Democrat. Assuming all members vote, the Senate is effectively Democrat. Guess what Goonblow? That puts the Democrat Parody in power.
 
PinktheFloyd88 said:
I agree, it is implicit that if a Politician diddles a kid - they are a GOP

I don’t even need to open the topics, just topic title is enough to know “let me guess they were a Republican??

Yup!”
Click to expand...
She believes in tolerance, diversity and inclusivity from which she has doubtlessly benefited from, and is as we speak. Therein lies the implicitly.

Ya gotta do lots better than that.
 
15th post
BackAgain said:
Because I oppose her for other reasons, I don’t want to be misunderstood here. But the thread headline and the piece quoted are out of synch. Let’s be fair and honest about the judge’s position.

She appears to be contending that the reason to consider pedophiles more dangerous no longer makes as much sense since the availability of kiddie porn is no longer as restricted as it was prior to the internet. (I am not completely clear on why that matters, but she may have a point about how the change in technology has led to disparities in sentencing.)

Making such distinctions, or recognizing them, is part of a judge’s duties.
Click to expand...
I don't get why she thinks technology matters with respect to pornography and pedophilia? What's the connection with the crime of pedophilia and whether the perp uses pornography? A crime has been committed and there is a punishment established which was a minimum of 5 years. Why does a judge get to change the law because the perp had more access to child porn? What does one have to do with the other? See, this problem that libs have with the Constitution came out with John Cornyn's questioning when she threw in the word "substantive" due process. Substantive does not exist in the constitution. It's a word libs throw in so they could legislate from the bench. He was questioning about same-sex marriage but this same word is being used for her reasoning about pedophiles. The law (government) was too harsh with respect to the pedophile because he couldn't control his brain because of all the pornography available these days on the internet. Complete Bullcrap! But, this is the liberal mind today.
 
Last edited:
PinktheFloyd88 said:
Fake news from the conservative Media machine
Click to expand...
No. It’s been caught on video. He should really keep his paws off the breast buds of little girls at all times, but especially when he’s being recorded. Makes it harder for him to deny.



CSPAN Isn’t part of any alleged conservative media and this stuff isn’t propaganda, it’s just a videotape. Try scrolling to around the 4:18 mark to about 4:21. The little girl knew where right Joe’s had was and she clearly didn’t like it.

Then, for more of senile Joe’s greatest hits of creepiness with kids, check out the collection:

www.westernjournal.com

Watch: Joe Biden Gets Smacked by a Little Girl After He Leans In, Touches Her

Doesn't everyone want the president being abnormally affectionate with them? No, they don't -- and this girl just drove the point home.
www.westernjournal.com www.westernjournal.com

Some may be given the benefit of an innocent explanation. But overall? Give me a ******* break. Brandon really is a creep.
 
Cougarbear said:
I don't get why she thinks technology matters with respect to pornography and pedophilia? What's the connection with the crime of pedophilia and whether the perp uses pornography? A crime has been committed and there is a punishment established which was a minimum of 5 years. Why does a judge get to change the law because the perp had more access to child porn? What does one have to do with the other? See, this problem that libs have with the Constitution came out with John Cornyn's questioning when she threw in the word "substantive" due process. Substantive does not exist in the constitution. It's a word libs through in so they could legislate from the bench. He was questioning about same-sex marriage but this same word is being used for her reasoning about pedophiles. The law (government) was too harsh with respect to the pedophile because he couldn't control his brain because of all the pornography available these days on the internet. Complete Bullcrap! But, this is the liberal mind today.
Click to expand...
It looks like pedos got special Congressional attention because of the multiplied dangers of a secretive community of pervs using the mails to conceal their interests. But now, given much easier access to kiddie porn, that special attention is no longer as pressing, in her estimation, because the pedos can get the kiddie porn material quite a bit more easily than having to be in a secret group with other pedos.

Again, I may not be tracking her thought process very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

What happened to the Lindsey Graham walks out of hearing post?

< Previous Thread

Deep State in Ukraine?

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Litwin
Canadian serial criminal who murdered girlfriend by stabbing her 15 times gets lighter sentence because he is black
Replies
2
Views
163
riseabovethis
riseabovethis
EvilEyeFleegle
Supreme Court seems likely to let Lisa Cook keep job on Fed Board after Trump's firing
Replies
7
Views
149
0311
0
Pastelli
Will Candace Mengele Owens be sued by TPUSA?
Replies
18
Views
360
luiza
L
J
Supreme Court to rule on Trump's tariffs, my guess is
2 3
Replies
56
Views
913
johnwk
J
JGalt
Leftist mad bomber with 200 IEDs and manifesto arrested outside Supreme Court event at church
2
Replies
21
Views
424
Votto
Votto

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom