Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,091,524 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65
I totally despise the process as it is now.. but the Dems don't have a leg to stand on concerning honest and fair confirmation hearings...
Every since the hearing for Justice Thomas I have felt that those wishing to be heard during the hearing should submit what/why so it can be included in the procedure not dropped on them at the 11th hour. In this case we have a grandstander who probally won't approve anybody who doesn't think or speak as he does as some posters also reflect...
So so anyone who doesn't spend at least 30 minutes verifying the issue or doesn't wait for a response from a person should be barred from posting on a specific topic? ....
Do you hold this same restraint when it applies to anything about a Conservative?
The two have nothing to do with one another .
Judicial decision documents can be quite long with a lot of info on background, previous decisions etc. So if a document is 60 pages long and only 1 sentence is pulled from it, what am I supposed to do with that one sentence?
I also view Supreme court decisions this way as well. For instance, in the Texas Abortion case, the justices that sided with Texas clearly wrote that the BIG CONCERN was a slippery slope that could allow a State to pass a Gun law that violated the 2nd amendment but shield it as a Civil law just like Texas did their abortion case.
This is important going forward and helps to understand why California and other states are creating the same laws aimed at the 2nd amendment. If you did not read the decision from the Supreme Court then you would be under the impression that California was doing something novel and illegal when in fact the Supreme Court warned us and Texas that this law is technically legal but maybe a problem overall and requires Congress to address further.
I see no benefit in taking decisions out of context. This is also important with bad decisions made by courts, you can see where the mistake in logic or reading of a constitutional issue occurs. It gives the context you need to understand how decisions are made.
The political party is irrelevant to any of this, this is important as a citizen of the US so we can understand the laws and decisions that affect us directly.
I think Christian conservatives are the group most likely to adopt foreign children.
True...I wonder what steps ACB is taking so her kids from Haiti can retain their cultural heritage? Or will it be consciously obliterated - good questions for her since everyone loves talking to "successful" working moms.
From the article: "Republican Sen. Josh Hawley on Wednesday slammed President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, claiming he's seen an "alarming pattern" of "letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes."
Hawley, who met with Jackson last week as part of her rounds on Capitol Hill ahead of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings next week, took to Twitter on Wednesday to levy extensive claims about the judge he said make him "concerned that this is a record that endangers our children."
"As far back as her time in law school, Judge Jackson has questioned making convicts register as sex offenders — saying it leads to 'stigmatization and ostracism.' She’s suggested public policy is driven by a 'climate of fear, hatred & revenge' against sex offenders," Hawley tweeted.
One example Hawley referenced of Jackson's "pattern" toward sexual offenders was in the case United States v. Hawkins, involving a defendant who had "multiple images of child porn."
"He was over 18," Hawley wrote. "The Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of up to 10 years. Judge Jackson sentenced the perpetrator to only 3 months in prison. Three months."
Another instance raised by Hawley was in United States v. Cooper, in which the guidelines suggested a sentence of "151-188" months for the defendant. "Judge Jackson settled on 60 months, the lowest possible sentence allowed by law," Hawley added."
Assuming that everything has been presented accurately and there weren't extenuating circumstances in these particular cases, this doesn't sound like someone I'd prefer on the Supreme Court. What is it with Democrats and handing out the weakest punishment possible, if they even punish criminals?
......................... and being a big supporter of CRT.
She is obviously a horrible pick who would ignore the law and just rubber stamp liberal agendas.
From the article: "Republican Sen. Josh Hawley on Wednesday slammed President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, claiming he's seen an "alarming pattern" of "letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes."
Hawley, who met with Jackson last week as part of her rounds on Capitol Hill ahead of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings next week, took to Twitter on Wednesday to levy extensive claims about the judge he said make him "concerned that this is a record that endangers our children."
"As far back as her time in law school, Judge Jackson has questioned making convicts register as sex offenders — saying it leads to 'stigmatization and ostracism.' She’s suggested public policy is driven by a 'climate of fear, hatred & revenge' against sex offenders," Hawley tweeted.
One example Hawley referenced of Jackson's "pattern" toward sexual offenders was in the case United States v. Hawkins, involving a defendant who had "multiple images of child porn."
"He was over 18," Hawley wrote. "The Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of up to 10 years. Judge Jackson sentenced the perpetrator to only 3 months in prison. Three months."
Another instance raised by Hawley was in United States v. Cooper, in which the guidelines suggested a sentence of "151-188" months for the defendant. "Judge Jackson settled on 60 months, the lowest possible sentence allowed by law," Hawley added."
Assuming that everything has been presented accurately and there weren't extenuating circumstances in these particular cases, this doesn't sound like someone I'd prefer on the Supreme Court. What is it with Democrats and handing out the weakest punishment possible, if they even punish criminals?
WHY should we assume anything? Let the Senator support his allegations with facts or keep quiet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
