Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Supreme Court justices’

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Pro-Crime Party Nominates a Justice


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 30, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/03/30/procrime-party-nominates-a-justice—p–n2605284/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Pro-Crime Party Nominates a Justice

Source: AP Photo/Alex Brandon

CONTENT WARNING: This column contains graphic details of a criminal case involving a sex offender who possessed and distributed photos and videos of the sexual abuse of prepubescent boys. 

Presidents are entitled to nominate Supreme Court justices who represent their party and its values. Using that as our guide, President Joe Biden picked the Democrats’ perfect Supreme Court justice: Ketanji Brown Jackson.

If you’d given me a thousand bucks to come up with a question that would stump a Supreme Court nominee, I never would have thought of: What’s a woman?

Democratic values.

As Sens. Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham amply demonstrated at the nomination hearings last week, Judge Jackson really likes defendants in child pornography cases. She’s partial to all criminals, but the child porn cases make the point bracingly.

In seven out of seven child pornography cases that came before Judge Jackson, where the sentencing was up to the judge, she imposed sentences that were a fraction of those recommended under the sentencing guidelines. In all seven cases, her sentences were also far below those requested by the prosecutor.

Not 2 1/2 years, instead of three — more like three months instead of 10 years. In United States v. Hawkins, the defendant possessed and distributed multiple images of child abuse of kids, including photos of prepubescent boys engaging in oral and anal sex, a video of an 8-year-old boy masturbating, and one of an 11-year-old boy being anally penetrated by an adult man.

The federal sentencing guidelines recommended eight to 10 years. Judge Jackson sentenced the defendant to three months.

Yes, yes, he was only 18, and he was remorseful. Good for him!

But Judge Jackson also dramatically departed downward in sentencing a couple of ripe perverts — one who attempted to travel across state lines to molest a 9-year-old girl (when his thousands of child porn images weren’t enough); and another who’d distributed more than a hundred pornographic photos and videos of his own daughter.

On average, Judge Jackson gave child porn defendants sentences more than five years below the minimum under the guidelines.

In other words, Judge Jackson is the beau ideal Democratic Supreme Court justice.

In her favor, KBJ is at least a Generational African American (GAA), i.e. Descendant of American Slaves (DOAS) — unlike Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Joy Ann Reid and approximately 90% of the “African Americans” in Harvard’s entering class this year, according to the Harvard Crimson.

Perhaps, there’s hope that, someday, the high court will acknowledge that affirmative action is intended to make up for the legacy of slavery and should be available exclusively to GAAs, as opposed to what it is now, which is affirmative action, set-asides, “plus” factors, and do-nothing diversity jobs for everyone except white Americans.

Apart from the Democrats finally promoting a legacy African American, rather than an immigrant trying to steal the experiences of Black Americans, nothing is unusual here. It’s the media’s response to the questioning of Judge Jackson that’s been hilarious.

The media take the position that it’s rude to ask Judge Jackson questions — at least any questions about her record. Republicans are welcome to ask her all the questions they like about her family or her travails.

She is the most qualified human being ever, EVER to be nominated to the Supreme Court! The bravest, the strongest, the most heroic — HOW DARE YOU ASK OUR LITTLE LAMB QUESTIONS!

The media have also issued reams of “context,” “fact checks” and “debunkings” … all to prove that KBJ is a virtual Eliot Ness on crime! Don’t believe your eyes! Forget everything you know about the Democrats! It’s all lies and conspiracy theories!

Spencer Brown

We got the sneering:

No, Sen. Hawley, Ketanji Brown Jackson isn’t soft on child pornography. — NBC News

We got the hysterical warnings about right-wing conspiracy theorists:

Hawley’s attacks on Ketanji Brown Jackson fuel a surge in online conspiracy chatter. — NPR

And we got the sophistical “fact checks”:

Fact check: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson child porn sentences “pretty mainstream” — ABC News

The New York Times’ “fact check” noted she was concerned about child porn fiends who were simply motivated by “the technological or social aspects” of child porn.

Totally run on that, Democrats.

What is the point of all these “FACT CHECKS”? For the past two years, liberals have been screaming, “Defund the Police!” “All Cops Are Bastards,” “F–k the Police!” — not to mention actually defunding the police and springing criminals in Democratic-run cities around the country. We got it: You like criminals and hate the police, Democrats. You’re not exactly flying below the radar.

Of note: Sen. Joe Manchin, your regular, old-time, American values Democrat, is just like the rest of his party when it comes to crime. Same with Arizona’s Sen. Mark Kelly and Montana’s Sen. Jon Tester. Kelly can boast about being an astronaut, and Tester can walk around with that buzz-cut and a piece of hay in his teeth — but give them a guy getting off on videos of 11-year-old boys being anally raped, and they say: Three months. Max.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Pastors say ‘We Don’t have to Obey the Supreme Court on Gay Marriage’


Posted on June 11, 2015 by Onan Coca

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://lastresistance.com/12128/pastors-say-we-dont-have-to-obey-the-supreme-court-on-gay-marriage/#R8tVrwtGVPqA4Mum.99
 flags

A Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage could be announced any day now, and pastors across the country are already saying they intend to break the law. The Supreme Court is expected to announce a ruling on state gay marriage bans this month that could, depending on the ruling’s wording, legalize same sex marriage nationwide. Anticipating the decision, religious leaders fear they’ll lose their tax exempt status and be forced to wed gay couples or face fines and even jail time.

A coalition of those religious leaders purchased an ad in the Washington Post Wednesday in the form of an open letter to the Supreme Court Justices urging them to uphold traditional marriage.

“We are Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian pastors, clergy, lay leaders and Jewish leaders, who collectively represent millions of people in our specific churches, parishes, denominations, synagogues and media ministry outreaches,” the letter reads.

So far, more than 43,000 people have signed a petition supporting traditional marriage, many of them church leaders fearful that if gay marriage becomes constitutional, their refusal to participate will jeopardize their tax exempt status and even land them in legal trouble. Pastor Robert Jeffress, who signed the letter and leads a 12,000 member congregation at First Dallas Baptist Church, compared himself to Martin Luther King for his civil disobedience. “That may mean we experience jail time, loss of tax exempt status, but as the scripture says, we ought to obey God rather than man, and that’s our choice,” Jeffress told The Daily Caller News Foundation. Jeffress said when he announced to his congregation his decision to take a stand on the issue, they gave him a standing ovation.cp 11

Cases of legal punishment for bakers and florists who refused to serve gay weddings have fueled this fear. In Washington state, an elderly florist named Barronelle Stutzman was sued by a gay couple for discrimination after she refused to arrange flowers for their wedding. She lost the legal battle and could lose everything to pay the fines. Religious leaders have warily watched Stutzman and others like her and want to preemptively protect themselves. “We implore this court to not step outside of its legitimate authority and unleash religious persecution and discrimination against people of faith,” the letter reads. “We will be forced to choose between the state and our conscience, which is informed by clear biblical and church doctrine and the natural created order.”

gay supreme courtDuring oral arguments in April, Justice Antonin Scalia raised similar concerns asking if exemptions that protected religious leaders from prosecution for discrimination would still hold if gay marriage became a constitutional right. “But once it’s — it’s made a matter of constitutional law, those exceptions — for example, is it — is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry? Is it conceivable that that would be allowed?” Scalia asked Bonauto. Scalia also questioned whether the state would give clergymen the authority to marry if they would refuse to marry gay couples. “If you let the States do it, you can make an exception,” Scalia said. “The state can say, yes, two men can marry, but — but ministers who do not believe in same-sex marriage will still be authorized to conduct marriages on behalf of the state. You can’t do that once it is a constitutional proscription.”These questions are the ones haunting religious leaders and driving them to have their voice heard before the ruling which is expected to come down this month. “The Supreme Court, regardless of what they may think, is not the highest authority in the land,” Jeffress told The It HasNever Been About MarriageDCNF.

freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says definition of marriage has stood for ‘millennia’


waving flagBy Khalil AlHajal MLive.com on April 28, 2015, updated April 28, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/04/supreme_court_justice_anthony.html

Plaintiffs from Michigan April Deboer, left, and Jayne Rowse wave to the crowd as they leave the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, April 28, 2015. The Supreme Court is set to hear historic arguments in cases that could make same-sex marriage the law of the land. The justices are meeting Tuesday to offer the first public indication of where they stand in the dispute over whether states can continue defining marriage as

Update: Supreme Court justices press gay rights lawyer early in highly anticipated marriage arguments

Plaintiffs and attorneys celebrate in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, April 28, 2015, as they exit the court following arguments. The Supreme Court heard historic arguments in cases that could make same-sex marriage the law of the land. The justices met Tuesday to offer the first public indication of where they stand in the dispute over whether states can continue defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman

DETROIT, MI — The Supreme Court justice seen by many as the deciding vote in the nation’s same-sex marriage debate made early comments during highly anticipated oral arguments Tuesday could cause worry among gay rights activists.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said that marriage has been understood as the union of one man and one woman for “millennia-plus time,” according to an Associated Press reporter in the courtroom.

“It’s very difficult for the court to say ‘We know better,'” Kennedy said during gay rights lawyer Mary Bonauto’s presentation of arguments.

The hearing was interrupted at one point by a protester.

Crowd cheers as plaintiffs leave the Supreme Court, in Washington, Tuesday, April 28, 2015. The Supreme Court heard historic arguments in cases that could make same-sex marriage the law of the land.

Five lawyers are expected to spend more than two hours presenting arguments.

Full audio from the session is expected to be released later this afternoon.

The court is considering two specific questions.

The first in relation to cases out of Michigan and Kentucky: “Does the 14th Amendment (equal protection) require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”

And the second on gay marriage cases out of Tennessee and Ohio: “Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state?”

Michigan’s case stems from a 2012 lawsuit filed by a Hazel Park lesbian couple who can’t jointly adopt their four children without a legal marriage. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse were in Washington for the arguments Tuesday. U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Dearborn) planned to host a reception for the couple after the hearings. Legal experts supporting the coupled planned to speak to reporters at 4 p.m.

Same Sex Marriage

Many will be listening for clues from Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts to gauge the direction of a ruling expected in June or July.

OARLogo Picture6

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud