The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[AM64]

If you are a Republican strategist -

The worse, the better

You need to force some bad stuff out in senate hearings. Not enough to gain her sympathy, but enough to draw attention to her as a bad choice, and then basically abstain. Let the dems do it to themselves.

 

[happy-go_vol]

Don't know... but allegedly she has done lighter sentences with them in the past.

It's worth questioning from both sides of the political spectrum for certain.

You think the party of sodomites and trannies is going to question her about pedophiles getting off with short jail time?

 

[EasternVol]

There will of course be grades of opposition, main one being the general complaint that it was wrong to narrow the field based on race and gender (code for she's a liberal black female so you better vote GOP in 2022 and 2024).

Protestants are underrepresented on the SC, as is everyone else not Jewish or Catholic. Would it be wrong to complain if Biden said he would only consider Protestants for the nomination?

 

[BreatheUT]

Sounds like a godless leftist commie that hates 'Murica.

The constitution was barely mentioned at all. Joe did not say it one time. You can say great country all you want but the POTUS not bringing up the constitution when discussing her speaks volumes. I've never seen that before but then again I never paid attention to the Obama nominees.

 

[BreatheUT]

She was overturned a lot during her time on the district bench.

It signals an activist type record. That would be dangerous. We also know Breyer was probably pushed to resign. I think the democrats expect to lose in 2024 and wanted to get in a racial/gender hire for more virtue signaling. Also, when you make a hire all about race and gender you risk leftists in the future thinking this spot is a racial/gender spot. It's dangerous due to the simple minded in this country.

 

[OrangeTsar]

For the people saying to just confirm her as quickly as possible to avoid a battle, since she will not change the balance of votes; did the hospitalization of Thomas not register with you at all???? You assume that the 5.5 Constitutionally consistent justices (one can never be sure of Chief Weasel Roberts) are guaranteed many more years. All it takes is a heart attack, stroke, or Covid and POOF the Libs are suddenly confirming not one but TWO Liberty destroying zombies.
Do not take the SCOTUS for granted. It is the last bulwark against the Barbarians at the gate. Fight for each and every seat like our freedom depends on it, because it most assuredly does.
Do you think the Libs wouldn’t fight like crazy for every seat, no matter who is being replaced? Their history shows the clear answer to THAT question.

 

[85SugarVol]

Are we still using “elections have consequences”?

There is also no question that Judge Jackson is qualified to serve on the Court. While she is not the sort of nominee that most Republicans would prefer, we do not have a Republican President, and elections have consequences.

 

[RockyTop85]

Judge Jackson Is an Unremarkable Sentencer in Child-Porn Cases | National Review

Applied faithfully, the guidelines tend to call for more severe sentences than most judges would impose in the absence of guidelines. Consequently, it is common for judges to sentence at the low end of the guidelines range — whether they have a reputation for being hard or soft on crime (the point of the guidelines is to dilute the relevance of such predilections). Indeed, in my experience, the real intrigue in sentencing involved the computation of the range, not where within the range sentence would be imposed. That is, the real haggling is about which guidelines adjustments to apply. That negotiation yields the agreed-upon guidelines range. From there, it is usually safe to assume the judge will sentence at or near the bottom of the range.

With that as background, the seven cases Hawley wants to discuss with Jackson are standard fare — there just isn’t anything that unusual about them.

Hawley does not claim the Justice Department appealed any of the sentences he cites. And while the senator derides the judge for sentencing below the guidelines, he neglects to mention that in several cases, both the prosecutors and the Probation Department recommended sentences below the guidelines range.

(1) In the Savage case, Hawley apparently made a mistake. He claimed that the guidelines range was 46 to 57 months, and that Jackson imposed a sentence of 37 months. In fact, the parties did not agree to a 46–57 range; rather, they disagreed on whether a two-point enhancement applied. Jackson ruled in the defendant’s favor, which reduced the guidelines range to 37 to 46 months. Jackson then imposed a 37-month sentence. That was not only within the range (the bottom of it, which is typical); it was a month more than the Probation Department’s recommendation of 36 months.

Re: US v. Stewart

Hawley says the guidelines called for 97 to 121 months’ imprisonment. Clearly, the court’s Probation Department didn’t think so — it recommended a sentence of just 42 months. Judge Jackson imposed a sentence of 57 months.

Cooper was a mandatory-minimum situation: A 60-month sentence was required because of the number of images (over 600) the defendant possessed, plus his posting of some of them publicly. Jackson imposed the 60 months. Hawley says he’s alarmed because the guidelines supposedly called for 151 to 188 months. But what the senator conveniently omits is that the Justice Department recommended 72 months — less than half of what Hawley says was the bottom of the guidelines range…

…and it was also exactly what the Probation Department recommended.

(4) In the Chazin case, Hawley says the guidelines range was 78 to 97 months, but Jackson imposed just a 28-month sentence. The senator elides mention of the fact that the Probation Department recommended 28 months. If you’re noticing a pattern here, you should be: The court’s Probation Department often sees the guidelines as too harsh (or the government’s calculation of them as too aggressive). Judges pay a good deal of deference to the Probation Department because, like the court, it is neutral in brokering the competing claims of the prosecutors and defense lawyers.

(5) Speaking of which: In the Downscase, which triggered the five-year mandatory minimum, Hawley complains that the guidelines called for 70 to 87 months, but Jackson imposed the 60-month minimum sentence. Again, however, a 60-month sentence is what the Probation Department recommended.

In Hawkins’s case, prosecutors recommended just 24 months — eight years less than Hawley’s preferred sentence. I haven’t heard Hawley say the Justice Department is soft on “sex offenders” who “prey on children,” so why lob that bomb at Jackson? In any event, the senator says he’s alarmed that Jackson sentenced Hawkins to just three months. But the Probation Department recommended just 18 months — and the defense proposed just one day. All indications are that we’re dealing with a nonviolent defendant who was just over 18 — the age below which the government would have declined to prosecute at all. If Hawley is right about the guidelines, then everyone involved in the case — the defense lawyer, the prosecutor, the Probation Department, and Judge Jackson — was grappling with the manifest injustice that would have resulted if the guidelines had been followed to the letter.

(7) Finally, in the Sears case, a sociopath not only distributed 102 pornographic videos but included “lewd pictures of his own 10-year-old daughter.” Jackson imposed a 71-month sentence. That was nearly a year above the mandatory minimum. Still, it was over two years less than the 97-to-121-month range that both prosecutors and the Probation Department agreed would reflect an appropriate, guidelines-adherent sentence. Senator Hawley is right that this is a sentencing worth asking Jackson about.

@Grand Vol

 

[85SugarVol]

Well I’m all set for my morning dump

 

[RockyTop85]

Are we still using “elections have consequences”?

I’m not Johnathon Adler.

 

[Wireless1]

Judge Jackson Is an Unremarkable Sentencer in Child-Porn Cases | National Review






Re: US v. Stewart












@Grand Vol

Sounds like the probation department needs to be investigated too. Do they not have access to the minimum sentencing guidelines? Whoever appoints them needs to have someone run against them next time.

 

[BreatheUT]

For the people saying to just confirm her as quickly as possible to avoid a battle, since she will not change the balance of votes; did the hospitalization of Thomas not register with you at all???? You assume that the 5.5 Constitutionally consistent justices (one can never be sure of Chief Weasel Roberts) are guaranteed many more years. All it takes is a heart attack, stroke, or Covid and POOF the Libs are suddenly confirming not one but TWO Liberty destroying zombies.
Do not take the SCOTUS for granted. It is the last bulwark against the Barbarians at the gate. Fight for each and every seat like our freedom depends on it, because it most assuredly does.
Do you think the Libs wouldn’t fight like crazy for every seat, no matter who is being replaced? Their history shows the clear answer to THAT question.

It's especially problematic now that they are nominating activists. Can you imagine where we'd be if Garland was on the Supreme Court? Good grief he turned out to be a phony. The Obama administration knew it, but tried to sell him as a moderate.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[RockyTop85]

Sounds like the probation department needs to be investigated too. Do they not have access to the minimum sentencing guidelines? Whoever appoints them needs to have someone run against them next time.

Over some suggestions written by unelected political appointees that don’t take into account all of the facts of each case or the individual defendant’s circumstances?

Muh freedom indeed.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Are we still using “elections have consequences”?

The Republicans have 50 votes in the Senate, those 50 elections surely have consequences as well, n’est pas?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Lindsey’s got a pretty tall soap box out this morning.

 

[NorthDallas40]

She’s sharp I’ll give her that. The amicus brief questioning her motivation / beliefs on generation of that brief is questioning. I’m not sure it hurts her but it’s interesting.

 

[lawgator1]

Seems like it's kind of obvious what a lot of this is about. Cover.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Judge Jackson wants to meld American Law along with the radical leftist CRT teachings ...
This person is a left-wing political activist judge who wants to change the Laws of America.

Judge Jackson Wants to 'Meld' American Law with CRT, Social Justice

It makes sense this judge, who wants to combine critical race theory with established law, would also favor "progressive education" that's rife with theories constituting "social justice".

 

[85SugarVol]

Seems like it's kind of obvious what a lot of this is about. Cover.

? I’m not watching. What are you alluding to?

 

[TNVOLNAVY]

Lindsey’s got a pretty tall soap box out this morning.

The right wing of the uni-party has to at least make it look like there’s some opposition before voting to confirm. Miss Lindsey has become expert in the art.

 

[NorthDallas40]

The right wing of the uni-party has to at least make it look like there’s some opposition before voting to confirm. Miss Lindsey has become expert in the art.

Thus far no reason has been submitted to vote not to confirm. As presented thus far she clearly has the technical chops to fill the role. As to her personal views she’s replacing Justice Breyer it would be a feat for her to swing the current liberal/conservative balance even further liberal. This one isn’t worth wasting political capital on. Make sure she isn’t incompetent (which her judicial record shows no evidence of) and vote to confirm.

 

[BreatheUT]

Cold. Lol. This is what liberals don't expect that they will never get pressed on the facts. Can you imagine how shallow you have to be to throw out platitudes and don't think a thoughtful person will ask followup questions to make you prove your assertions? We know these happens every day between the press and the White House though so there's some delusion.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Should Whitehouse save some time and table his verbal vomiting until a more suitable venue could be secured? Like a Holiday Inn or some plant nursery?

 

[TNVOLNAVY]

Thus far no reason has been submitted to vote not to confirm. As presented thus far she clearly has the technical chops to fill the role. As to her personal views she’s replacing Justice Breyer it would be a feat for her to swing the current liberal/conservative balance even further liberal. This one isn’t worth wasting political capital on. Make sure she isn’t incompetent (which her judicial record shows no evidence of) and vote to confirm.

Tell us when they get to the part where they ask her how much she drank in high school and college.