Supreme Court pick Ketanji Brown Jackson .

www.foxnews.com...




I'm not even going to start in on the fact that she is not the First African American woman to be considered for high federal courts nor am I going in on the Lefts blatant past voting hypocrisies when it comes to African Americans.

I don't care that she is a Woman , I don't care that she is black , What I do care about though is this woman's questionable moral insanity .

Yes the Right Media is going on and on about her decision record as a Judge and I at first ignored it just as Political smoke , but after a look at her Judicial decisions this woman is a moral nut-job . What in Gods name is it with the Lefts obsession of appointing these Radical Moral Psychos , I mean it's like this woman and others like her are missing an entire part of there brain .

There is some weird Culty people taking over the Democratic party , I'm so glad I got away from that party when I did.

Seems cool to me but I admit I am a bad judge in character sometimes...

In the "Hearings", she made several statements about "laws".

Judges do not have the authority to change laws.

If she wants new laws, she needs to run for Congress 🥶

I hear you don’t actually need any legal training whatsoever or indeed any interest in the law at all to be a Supreme Court Justice, so based on that this lady seems super overqualified for the position.

They should give it to some random off the street. Might make things more entertaining.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

There is some weird Culty people taking over the Democratic party , I'm so glad I got away from that party when I did.

Yes . It is called Progressive Liberalism .
I was once part of the problem .
The Democratic Party was SOOOOOO EASY to take over.
Weak in body , mind , and soul and sooo dang gullible in their hunger for votes and power .
They never even seen it coming , yet bowed down to it .
Except for the "True Blue" Dems. But that passed with Teddy .

Then I realized "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

A few of the greatest mysteries in life……UFOs…Bigfoot…The Bermuda Triangle…Liberal Mental Illness.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I know right? I mean like the last two, she actually can tell you what the first amendment is, she didn't cry, or babble about drinking beer.

She's received endorsement from conservative judges, and has had to explain extensively that congress sets the guidelines, that she has to follow guidelines,presentencing reports and other recommendations.

She's been endorsed by the police, comes from a law enforcement family, yet according to Cruz She's somehow an endorser of crt with a white husband and biracial children.

She's calm, has not stated any radical new ideas, even judges that Hawley mentioned have made the same types of sentencing she did.

So we have conservative judges making the same recommendations, she consistently states she follows the facts and the law. She speaks of perseverance of working hard. She has extensive experience, more so than some other appointed judges. Could you please tell me her "radical" ideas?

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for POLITE political debate will be enforced.


Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)




You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

She can not hide the fact that she is on an agenda, she thinks that been in the supreme court seat, will give her "privilege" to pursue her own personal goals.

I agree with xuenchen, she wants be political run for freaking congress.

Is nothing historical about her appointment and it makes no difference her gender of color, been a supreme court justice means to protect and respect the constitution of the US.

She have a record that points her as been more political that believing in justice.

Say goodbye to our 1st and 2nd amendment if this train wreck gets confirmed. She is a nightmare for freedom.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

She
defends
PEDOS !!

a reply to: frogs453

She is less radical than Ruth Ginsburg. No doubt about that.

a reply to: M5xaz

Yep that got me when I read about it, she thinks pedos are no getting enough justice and their sentences are to harsh, well go tell that to the parents of a victim of this deviants of society.

That women should be in California running for the democrats candidate to what ever, hey look at Kamala she is a zero and with no brain and made it to become a vice president under the democrats so brains are not needed.

a reply to: M5xaz

Defense attorneys defend them. She does not. There is basically a point system for anyone convicted of a crime before sentencing. This information comes from multiple sources, a judge then takes that information, along with the guidelines to make determinations. Other judges have made these same determinations in similar cases.

We do have a legal system. If you feel that there should be a change within the system then feel free to pursue that with congress.

If a judge does not follow the recommendations provided as required and just pushes all maximum sentences by not following the set procedures you would have many sentences eventually over turned and those people on the street, without all of the other restrictions that judges put on them for life.

I know this is ATS and logical conversation is not favored over screaming "radical" at the top of your lungs. You could actually watch the proceedings instead of gotcha moments on Fox that speak to a certain group of people who are terrified of "radicals!" "Vaccinations!" "Antifa!" and "CRT!"

Banning and burning books, overturning Roe v Wade and as of today according to Senator Braun let states decide to overturn the law on interracial marriage. Who's the real radicals?

She will skive and lie through the hearings, get voted in, and then make dumb case opinions like Sotomayor that make no sense and have no authority 🤓

a reply to: frogs453

real case example ?

how many? 😁

a reply to: xuenchen

Sotomayor is dumber than Kamala, this one now is conniving, she will do anything and say anything to get appointed, then we will hear her big mouth while in the bench, she is planning to become the first full blown radical in the supreme court.

Then will blame racism when she is been told to shut the heck up.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: M5xaz

Defense attorneys defend them. She does not. There is basically a point system for anyone convicted of a crime before sentencing. This information comes from multiple sources, a judge then takes that information, along with the guidelines to make determinations. Other judges have made these same determinations in similar cases.

We do have a legal system. If you feel that there should be a change within the system then feel free to pursue that with congress.

If a judge does not follow the recommendations provided as required and just pushes all maximum sentences by not following the set procedures you would have many sentences eventually over turned and those people on the street, without all of the other restrictions that judges put on them for life.

I know this is ATS and logical conversation is not favored over screaming "radical" at the top of your lungs. You could actually watch the proceedings instead of gotcha moments on Fox that speak to a certain group of people who are terrified of "radicals!" "Vaccinations!" "Antifa!" and "CRT!"

Banning and burning books, overturning Roe v Wade and as of today according to Senator Braun let states decide to overturn the law on interracial marriage. Who's the real radicals?

No !!

For lack of LOGIC and FACTS, check a MIRROR.

She's the one who perverts sentencing.

SHE is the one giving out sentences 47% below the average for pedos
Thus, SHE DEFENDS PEDOS


STOP DEFENDONG PEDO SYMPATHIZERS !!

originally posted by: xuenchen
She will skive and lie through the hearings, get voted in, and then make dumb case opinions like Sotomayor that make no sense and have no authority 🤓

Keywords that matter...

NO AUTHORITY

But An excellent warning sign flashing red for all the world to see.

a reply to: xuenchen

I'm not sure what you're seeking, but here is this for reference.

Federal appeals court Judges Joseph Bianco of the Second Circuit and Andrew Brasher of the Eleventh Circuit, both Trump appointees, had each previously sentenced defendants convicted of possessing child pornography to prison terms well below federal guidelines at the time they were confirmed with Hawley's support.
"Federal judges nationwide typically sentence below the [child porn] guideline in roughly 2 out of 3 cases,"
Berman also points out that government prosecutors often request below-range sentences, including in most of the Jackson cases that Hawley cited.

Link


Could very well be a flaw in the law itself. That is not up to a judge who is sentencing to change though. Guidelines are set by congress so again contact them and push for change. She would be radical if she did not follow the rules to abide before her. Which she did.