Breyer retirement

[Monahorns]

Brown Jackson confirmed. All Democrats plus Romney, Snowe, and Murkowski voted to confirm.

As bad as that is, I heard that Brown is probably the best we could hope for from the Democrats, meaning if she hadn't been confirmed the other choices were most likely worse. That is hard to believe on one hand because she goes easy on pedophiles and can't define "woman". But I heard she is better on applying law than Sotomayor for example who is more about outcomes.

Little comfort I know.

 

[guy4321]

Perhaps they say "male dominated" because it's a 5 men, 3 women, and 1 unconfirmed gender court now?

 

[Mr. Deez]

As bad as that is, I heard that Brown is probably the best we could hope for from the Democrats, meaning if she hadn't been confirmed the other choices were most likely worse. That is hard to believe on one hand because she goes easy on pedophiles and can't define "woman". But I heard she is better on applying law than Sotomayor for example who is more about outcomes.

Little comfort I know.

I've heard the same thing, and frankly her opening remarks were excellent. Her comments about her judicial philosophy were good - certainly by Democratic standards. The only reason I wouldn't vote for her is that I don't believe her. If she was being sincere, none of the progressive left would want her anywhere near the Court. Having said that, even if she's 10 percent telling the truth, that's a major win considering that she's a Democratic nominee. I definitely hope she's better than Sotomayor. In terms of adherence to the law, she might be the worst justice in the history of the Court. She's a friggin disgrace.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Perhaps they say "male dominated" because it's a 5 men, 3 women, and 1 unconfirmed gender court now?

I still chuckle when I see all these headlines about the first black "woman" getting on the Court when if you're not a biologist, you can't even say what that is.

 

[OUBubba]

Didn’t she follow sentencing guidelines?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Didn’t she follow sentencing guidelines?

In some cases I think she deviated some, but I think this is one of the weaker criticisms of her. Andrew McCarthy who opposed her nomination has a good explanation of the issue. He's right.

 

[mb227]

In some cases I think she deviated some, but I think this is one of the weaker criticisms of her. Andrew McCarthy who opposed her nomination has a good explanation of the issue. He's right.

Part of the problem with McCarthy's explanation is that it presumes kiddie porn just miraculously appeared on a defendant's computer. It doesn't.

I've seen a few cases where a file or two may be brought in with the adult porn sought out by the defendant, but in each of those, efforts were promptly made to delete the files AND empty the trash from the computer hard drive.

Where there were enough images to get the attention of prosecutors, the defendant generally sought it out. The search terms are horrendous and the individuals KNOW what they are getting, even if they claim it was only 'age play' or some other thinking error used to justify their role in the harming of some potentially unidentified minor who is definitely a victim.

And federal prosecution is not something associated with the 18yo sending prick pics to his 16yo sexual partner (or vice versa). I know of a few cases where HS kids got wrapped up in STATE prosecutions but only after the pictures allowed their parents to know they were gay. There is a reason that certain pics between HS students are no longer felonies.

It is disingenuous to claim kiddie porn is a victimless crime.

Most recently, I had an inquiry from a Harris County case where mid-30's guy is found with multiple images. Kim Ogg's office gave him a deferred in late 2019. Less than a year later, the Motion to Adjudicate cites a new felony for failure to register because he did not list all of his online ID's, some of which were being used to obtain even MORE kiddie porn. He was also manipulating his behavior in polygraph testing to skew the results. Kim Ogg's staff and a Demonrat judge STILL allowed him to plea to one new count and a three year sentence while also dismissing the failure to register case. That is a pervert who IS going to get out and promptly re-offend almost immediately. That is ALSO not an isolated case. And if it happens at the State level, it happens at the federal level...

 

[Horn6721]

What is wrong with the judges And DAs etc?

 

[OUBubba]

Part of the problem with McCarthy's explanation is that it presumes kiddie porn just miraculously appeared on a defendant's computer. It doesn't.

I've seen a few cases where a file or two may be brought in with the adult porn sought out by the defendant, but in each of those, efforts were promptly made to delete the files AND empty the trash from the computer hard drive.

Where there were enough images to get the attention of prosecutors, the defendant generally sought it out. The search terms are horrendous and the individuals KNOW what they are getting, even if they claim it was only 'age play' or some other thinking error used to justify their role in the harming of some potentially unidentified minor who is definitely a victim.

And federal prosecution is not something associated with the 18yo sending prick pics to his 16yo sexual partner (or vice versa). I know of a few cases where HS kids got wrapped up in STATE prosecutions but only after the pictures allowed their parents to know they were gay. There is a reason that certain pics between HS students are no longer felonies.

It is disingenuous to claim kiddie porn is a victimless crime.

Most recently, I had an inquiry from a Harris County case where mid-30's guy is found with multiple images. Kim Ogg's office gave him a deferred in late 2019. Less than a year later, the Motion to Adjudicate cites a new felony for failure to register because he did not list all of his online ID's, some of which were being used to obtain even MORE kiddie porn. He was also manipulating his behavior in polygraph testing to skew the results. Kim Ogg's staff and a Demonrat judge STILL allowed him to plea to one new count and a three year sentence while also dismissing the failure to register case. That is a pervert who IS going to get out and promptly re-offend almost immediately. That is ALSO not an isolated case. And if it happens at the State level, it happens at the federal level...

I agreed with mb three times now. Something isn’t right.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Part of the problem with McCarthy's explanation is that it presumes kiddie porn just miraculously appeared on a defendant's computer. It doesn't.

I've seen a few cases where a file or two may be brought in with the adult porn sought out by the defendant, but in each of those, efforts were promptly made to delete the files AND empty the trash from the computer hard drive.

Where there were enough images to get the attention of prosecutors, the defendant generally sought it out. The search terms are horrendous and the individuals KNOW what they are getting, even if they claim it was only 'age play' or some other thinking error used to justify their role in the harming of some potentially unidentified minor who is definitely a victim.

And federal prosecution is not something associated with the 18yo sending prick pics to his 16yo sexual partner (or vice versa). I know of a few cases where HS kids got wrapped up in STATE prosecutions but only after the pictures allowed their parents to know they were gay. There is a reason that certain pics between HS students are no longer felonies.

It is disingenuous to claim kiddie porn is a victimless crime.

He's not presuming that the porn is just showing up miraculously on the computer. Keep in mind that the statute has a knowing requirement (not strict liability or even negligence), so to even apply the federal law, the person basically has to have been seeking out the porn. McCarthy used to prosecute federal child porn cases and would surely know this.

He's also not saying it's victimless. He's drawing distinctions on two fronts that the law doesn't adequately make. First, the guy who has child porn images is definitely a bad guy, but the people who are actually producing the porn on a large scale, profiteering off of it, and especially actually putting their hands on children are much worse.

Second, many of the offenders under the law aren't much older than the victims. A 19 year old guy with an image of a 15 year old girl is a perv, but he's more of a dumbass than a child abuser. Everybody would be better off if he got mental health treatment and some basic accountability rather than throwing him in the federal slammer with real bad guys for five years. The 30, 40, or 50 year old guy is worse, old enough to know better, and shouldn't get lenience.

ost recently, I had an inquiry from a Harris County case where mid-30's guy is found with multiple images. Kim Ogg's office gave him a deferred in late 2019. Less than a year later, the Motion to Adjudicate cites a new felony for failure to register because he did not list all of his online ID's, some of which were being used to obtain even MORE kiddie porn. He was also manipulating his behavior in polygraph testing to skew the results. Kim Ogg's staff and a Demonrat judge STILL allowed him to plea to one new count and a three year sentence while also dismissing the failure to register case. That is a pervert who IS going to get out and promptly re-offend almost immediately. That is ALSO not an isolated case. And if it happens at the State level, it happens at the federal level

Based on the article, I don't think this is the kind of case that McCarthy would say calls for lenience. He'd throw the book at that guy.

 

[guy4321]

Most recently, I had an inquiry from a Harris County case where mid-30's guy is found with multiple images. Kim Ogg's office gave him a deferred in late 2019. Less than a year later, the Motion to Adjudicate cites a new felony for failure to register because he did not list all of his online ID's, some of which were being used to obtain even MORE kiddie porn.

There really needs to be punishment against DAs and judges who let offenders out who then immediately repeat their crime.

 

[mb227]

He's not presuming that the porn is just showing up miraculously on the computer. Keep in mind that the statute has a knowing requirement (not strict liability or even negligence), so to even apply the federal law, the person basically has to have been seeking out the porn. McCarthy used to prosecute federal child porn cases and would surely know this.

Trust me...I have seen enough of the DA files in these cases to know that the search terms make ABUNDANTLY clear they were deliberately seeking it out in the cases that actually get prosecuted at the State level. I have to presume federal cases in the current era are similar...these are not the older LimeWire prosecutions...

He's also not saying it's victimless. He's drawing distinctions on two fronts that the law doesn't adequately make. First, the guy who has child porn images is definitely a bad guy, but the people who are actually producing the porn on a large scale, profiteering off of it, and especially actually putting their hands on children are much worse.

KBJ DID make an inference that the Defendant didn't have a victim. And THAT disqualifies her as a judge, or should have.

Second, many of the offenders under the law aren't much older than the victims. A 19 year old guy with an image of a 15 year old girl is a perv, but he's more of a dumbass than a child abuser. Everybody would be better off if he got mental health treatment and some basic accountability rather than throwing him in the federal slammer with real bad guys for five years. The 30, 40, or 50 year old guy is worse, old enough to know better, and shouldn't get lenience.

I have not seen many under 25 who got prosecuted for kiddie porn. Save for the exception of a gay guy we represented on parole who was exchanging prick pics with another kid (which is how the other kid's parents discovered their child was gay), most of the cases I have seen were people over the age of 30 and who deliberately sought the crap out and claimed it was 'age play' or similar...

Based on the article, I don't think this is the kind of case that McCarthy would say calls for lenience. He'd throw the book at that guy.

Perhaps he would. But KBJ, based on track record and her own testimony, would NOT. And NOW she is going to be in a position to question those lower courts that have judges who DO throw the book...while she would be voted down now and she would be in the minority, we cannot presume this to remain the case five or ten years from now.

 

[mb227]

I agreed with mb three times now. Something isn’t right.

There may be hope for you yet...

 

[OUBubba]

Trust me...I have seen enough of the DA files in these cases to know that the search terms make ABUNDANTLY clear they were deliberately seeking it out in the cases that actually get prosecuted at the State level. I have to presume federal cases in the current era are similar...these are not the older LimeWire prosecutions...



KBJ DID make an inference that the Defendant didn't have a victim. And THAT disqualifies her as a judge, or should have.



I have not seen many under 25 who got prosecuted for kiddie porn. Save for the exception of a gay guy we represented on parole who was exchanging prick pics with another kid (which is how the other kid's parents discovered their child was gay), most of the cases I have seen were people over the age of 30 and who deliberately sought the crap out and claimed it was 'age play' or similar...



Perhaps he would. But KBJ, based on track record and her own testimony, would NOT. And NOW she is going to be in a position to question those lower courts that have judges who DO throw the book...while she would be voted down now and she would be in the minority, we cannot presume this to remain the case five or ten years from now.

Two things in computers shocked me. In the limewire days I used an app called bearshare. You could go to one tab and see what every tom/dick/harry was searching for. It was disturbing. Then, when we turned on the internet management software in the late 90's it was eye opening. My step son downloaded some really bad stuff one time when he was a juvenile and I had to impress on him this was the stuff that they would hunt you down when you download it. And, if they showed up at our door they'd assume it was me, not him.

 

[mb227]

Two things in computers shocked me. In the limewire days I used an app called bearshare. You could go to one tab and see what every tom/dick/harry was searching for. It was disturbing. Then, when we turned on the internet management software in the late 90's it was eye opening. My step son downloaded some really bad stuff one time when he was a juvenile and I had to impress on him this was the stuff that they would hunt you down when you download it. And, if they showed up at our door they'd assume it was me, not him.

It was PRECISELY that sort of thing which used to be given as an example of why, in the early days of wi-fi, people were told to lock down their equipment. The initial search warrants go to the IP address, which then gives the address and contact for the account holder...and good luck with the neighbors undoing that image of cop cars in front of your house when it was actually Jimmy on the other side of the fence pilfering unsecured wi-fi...

Even now, IP addresses are towards the top of the investigative supplement for how they tracked down people who sought to meet up with purported minors or who downloaded kiddie porn.

 

[theiioftx]

There is no point to the hearings anymore. Let whoever is POTUS pick their SCOTUS candidate and hold a senate vote. They should have confirmed her weeks ago.

 

[mb227]

There is no point to the hearings anymore. Let whoever is POTUS pick their SCOTUS candidate and hold a senate vote. They should have confirmed her weeks ago.

Disagree...there SHOULD be hearings, but they should ALSO encompass a modicum of decorum.

And if you want to just go nomination to a vote, then there needs to be at least 90-120 days baked in for the backgrounds to be performed. Anything else would just be even more swamp action lacking in transparency...

 

[theiioftx]

Disagree...there SHOULD be hearings, but they should ALSO encompass a modicum of decorum.

And if you want to just go nomination to a vote, then there needs to be at least 90-120 days baked in for the backgrounds to be performed. Anything else would just be even more swamp action lacking in transparency...

You know I agree with you, but the days of decorum are over. It’s purely a partisan selection at this point for both parties.

 

[OUBubba]

You know I agree with you, but the days of decorum are over. It’s purely a partisan selection at this point for both parties.

I mean, McConnell ramped things up by holding a seat open for so long. I know people who voted for someone they thought was a repugnant human over the supreme court seat and overturning Roe. And, they'll do it again despite the repugnant level only increasing.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

The Democrats Borked Bork. That was what ramped things up.

 

[huisache]

I have been appointed to rep a couple of defendants in these kinds of cases and they got charged because they were in file sharing arrangements. That may not be the case with Browns defendants because District Judges in DC handle all kinds of offenses that would ordinarily be handled by state district courts. DC is not in a state so all the junk goes to those judges. She would have been handling burglary and auto theft cases, for example. So these guys may have been minor leaguers in the kiddie smut arena. Her level of divergence from the guidelines suggests she is a classic soft on crime type

besises, she is an Ivy Leaguer and so should not be let anywhere near that court

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

besises, she is an Ivy Leaguer and so should not be let anywhere near that court

This should become the immediate first-level disqualifier for all future SCOTUS nominees.

 

[OUBubba]

...an Ivy Leaguer and so should not be let anywhere near that court

Where did the conservative majority go to school?

 

[theiioftx]

I mean, McConnell ramped things up by holding a seat open for so long. I know people who voted for someone they thought was a repugnant human over the supreme court seat and overturning Roe. And, they'll do it again despite the repugnant level only increasing.

The party in power will always do this from now on. That’s my point. If the POTUS and Senate Majority are the same party, skip the theatrics.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Or, how about the legislature does its job and legislates, without relying on SCOTUS to rule by fiat on every stinking issue imaginable?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Or, how about the legislature does its job and legislates, without relying on SCOTUS to rule by fiat on every stinking issue imaginable?

This happens, but SCOTUS is usually the bad apple here.

 

[bystander]

They selected an outright racist. She is consumed with black history. Anyone here believe she will make rulings that aren't tilted towards the favored political class?

Ketanji Brown Jackson on her historic confirmation to Supreme Court: 'I am the dream and the hope of a slave’

"I am the dream and the hope of a slave," Jackson said, quoting Maya Angelou’s poem “Still I Rise” during an event on the South Lawn, where she was joined by President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris."

Ok. Yes, she's the first black woman. But there are conservative black women and there is no way Liberals would have accepted this kind of speech. This new jurist is clearly planning on tipping the scale if Congress doesn't do it for her.

 

[OUBubba]

They selected an outright racist. She is consumed with black history. Anyone here believe she will make rulings that aren't tilted towards the favored political class?

Ketanji Brown Jackson on her historic confirmation to Supreme Court: 'I am the dream and the hope of a slave’

"I am the dream and the hope of a slave," Jackson said, quoting Maya Angelou’s poem “Still I Rise” during an event on the South Lawn, where she was joined by President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris."

Ok. Yes, she's the first black woman. But there are conservative black women and there is no way Liberals would have accepted this kind of speech. This new jurist is clearly planning on tipping the scale if Congress doesn't do it for her.

That's not notable language. Anyone in her shoes would feel that way. Her brother was a narcotics officer in Baltimore before serving two tours in the middle east. They are something to be proud of looking back on a history where their ancestors were slaves.

I feel like my father becoming a successful trial attorney and his sons becoming successful in polite society (my behavior here notwithstanding) was something that would make our ancestors who were "relocated" from Alabama/Mississippi to under the threat of violence somewhat proud.

 

[bystander]

That's not notable language. Anyone in her shoes would feel that way. Her brother was a narcotics officer in Baltimore before serving two tours in the middle east. They are something to be proud of looking back on a history where their ancestors were slaves.

I feel like my father becoming a successful trial attorney and his sons becoming successful in polite society (my behavior here notwithstanding) was something that would make our ancestors who were "relocated" from Alabama/Mississippi to under the threat of violence somewhat proud.

I think you have a world-class blind-spot.

 

[OUBubba]

I think you have a world-class blind-spot.

So what in that statement indicated that she would have any leaning? Her ancestors would be proud. You act as like a progressive ran over your dog and then treated it like musberger's people are treating Ukraining apartment buildings.