Kinetic_Response

I think you are conflating two distinct issues.

The Commission exchange related to "possession offenders who not pedophiles." That category would include the (odd) "technology" collector that is discussed in the excerpts that I have seen, who is not motivated "at all" by sexual gratification. It would also include possession offenders who collect images of older minors, even if collected for sexual gratification (the 17yo example).

The broader sentencing discussion (and her tendency to impose sentences on the low end of the spectrum in many cases) is distinct in many ways from the narrow topic discussed at that 2003 hearing.

quote:

---

to your point the guy possessing a few porn images of 17 year old gets the minimum

---

Usually true. But is "5 years" a reasonable sentence for that handful of images of a 17yo? That is the topic which been under discussion for at least a decade now.

quote:

---

But the scenarios you are describing are not the scenarios KJB is being asked about.

---

Isn't it?

That exchange before the Sentencing Commission related to possession offenders who are not "pedophiles," which is defined as persons sexually-attracted to pre-pubescent children. And she is being criticized for suggesting that lighter sentences for those offenders (versus abusers of pre-pubescent children) might be appropriate.

Look, she would not be my nominee. Scalia is my favorite Justice during my lifetime, and I would love to see SCOTUS populated by 9 textualists. But the Dems control the WH and the Senate. The nominee is not going to be a textualist, an originalist or a strict constructionist.

I just think that a nominee should be evaluated based upon her actual positions, rather than lunatic caricatures of those positions. I am sorry, but the response that "Dems were unfair to Kav and Thomas" just does not justify the disingenuous attacks, IMO.

And I make no apology for that perspective.

quote:

---

Did you defend Matt Gaetz as feverishly when HHTM was accusing him of having sex with a 17 year old?

---

Do I see it as wrong for an adult man to have (even voluntary) sexual intercourse with a 17yo? Yes.

Do I see it as "less wrong" than raping a 5-year-old child? Also, yes.

Candidly, I did not find the Gaetz brouhaha very interesting. I do not recall ever discussing it with anyone, one way or the other.

quote:

---

Didn't one of Kamala's relatives own the largest slave planation in Jamaica?

---

No.

She is descended in part from a slaveowner who was slipping out to the quarters at night and farking the female slaves ... just like about 95% of the Blacks in America. And his place was not remotely the largest plantation in Jamaica.

quote:

---

Not very prepared

---

How much time would YOU spend "preparing" for an exam on which you know in advance that you will be given a passing score?

quote:

---

We see no reason to celebrate 70 years of the ascension of (Queen Elizabeth II) because her leadership ... perpetuated the greatest human rights tragedy (human chattel slavery) in the history of humankind

---

How did a woman born in the 20th Century "perpetuate" an institution that was discarded in the 19th?

quote:

---

Isn't that decision discussed in grammar school, high school, college and law school? Isn't it referenced constantly in social justice issues? Isn't it considered the worst holding from The Supreme Court in its history?

How can she not know that?

---

Setting aside the 14th Amendment issue, exactly what question was she asked? Was she asked for the broad ruling or for details of the analysis?

I would say that about 10% (or less) of the population could tell you the most basic nature of the ruling (that Blacks were disqualified from US citizenship). Probably 80% of lawyers could tell you that much.

But how many could (without reviewing the opinion) discuss the details of the analysis that led CJ Taney to reach the conclusion that he reached?

On a quick review, I tend to disagree with the Senator that the decision's foundation lay in "due process."

quote:

---

We think ... that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

---

It is true that Taney addressed the taking of property without due process under the 5th Amendment, but I see that part of the reported opinion as being dicta aimed at the Missouri Compromise in general, rather than Scott's case in particular.

It is fair to ask whether KBJ's "unique background" led her automatically to interpret the "due process" comment as a reference to the 14th, rather than the 5th ... and whether jumping to such conclusions is a "good thing."

It would have been difficult for the Dred Scott decision to have been based upon the 14th amendment.

Calendars and all that.

Around here, we call that a “hissy fit.”

quote:

---

Why the hyphen?

---

I like hyphens.

quote:

---

After what you filth did to Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barrett, you can just shut the frick up forever.

---

What an oddly-pugnacious comment.

I supported all four of those nominations.