By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The criminals who stole the White House in Nov. 2020 have picked a judge to take up the vacant position on the Supreme Court. The criteria they set out for the pick was that the judge must be female and 'black'.
They have selected Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Before she can take up the position a vote must be taken in the Senate (which is 50:50, they rely on Kamala Harris' vote...and complete unanimity among Democrat Senators...to swing it).
Before the vote the nominee has to face a committee that goes over her career and effectively interviews the nominee to ensure that the person is suitable.
It has emerged that the Democrats pick to go on the Supreme Court is a judge who consistently ignores sentencing guidelines to let Peadophiles off with extremely light sentences.
Watch this video; she can't answer a straight question;
Your thoughts?
This post has been edited by an administrator
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
-1
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 11:42 - Mar 23 with 5210 views
I know nothing of this lady beyond the news articles of the last few days and a cursory Google search but it does seem clear that her ability and integrity is well regarded across all sides. I don’t know the details of the cases she is being criticised for and we all want to see tougher sentences for serious offenders but as a judge it is her prerogative to hand out the sentence as she sees fit. She is not bound by guidelines or prosecutors demands. It is the judge that makes that decision on an individual case by case basis.
However, limiting the selection process to only black females absolutely stinks on a number of levels. How can you be certain you are getting the best person for what is a very serious job and also a job for life when you exclude about 90% of the population from applying? You’re also excluding black men, white women, native Americans, Asian, Latino, Mongolian and Chinese people. A great bunch of lads. Obviously there are no MÄoris in America.
0
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 12:56 - Mar 23 with 5185 views
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 11:42 - Mar 23 by Flynnidine_Zidownes
I know nothing of this lady beyond the news articles of the last few days and a cursory Google search but it does seem clear that her ability and integrity is well regarded across all sides. I don’t know the details of the cases she is being criticised for and we all want to see tougher sentences for serious offenders but as a judge it is her prerogative to hand out the sentence as she sees fit. She is not bound by guidelines or prosecutors demands. It is the judge that makes that decision on an individual case by case basis.
However, limiting the selection process to only black females absolutely stinks on a number of levels. How can you be certain you are getting the best person for what is a very serious job and also a job for life when you exclude about 90% of the population from applying? You’re also excluding black men, white women, native Americans, Asian, Latino, Mongolian and Chinese people. A great bunch of lads. Obviously there are no MÄoris in America.
If you watched the video you would see the cases in question discussed in more detail... ...you would hear her hiding behind politicians setting the guidelines for sentences... ...only for Hawley to point out that the guidelines set out by politicians (which passed 84-0) advised a sentence of 8-10years (in one of the cases)... ....you would see that it is the Supreme Court that gives judges discretion, not politicians... ...you would see that the liberal Prosecutor called for her to dish out a 2 year sentence rather than an 8-10 year sentence... ...you would see that she then dished out a sentence of 3 months.
3 months!
It is right that a nominee for the Supreme Court is judged by his/her record. Her record clearly shows that she is lenient with sexual offenders and peadophiles at the expense of the victims. She uses her discretion to hand out lighter sentences, by orders of magnitude, compared to the sentences advised by the guidelines.
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
-1
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 13:22 - Mar 23 with 5174 views
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 11:42 - Mar 23 by Flynnidine_Zidownes
I know nothing of this lady beyond the news articles of the last few days and a cursory Google search but it does seem clear that her ability and integrity is well regarded across all sides. I don’t know the details of the cases she is being criticised for and we all want to see tougher sentences for serious offenders but as a judge it is her prerogative to hand out the sentence as she sees fit. She is not bound by guidelines or prosecutors demands. It is the judge that makes that decision on an individual case by case basis.
However, limiting the selection process to only black females absolutely stinks on a number of levels. How can you be certain you are getting the best person for what is a very serious job and also a job for life when you exclude about 90% of the population from applying? You’re also excluding black men, white women, native Americans, Asian, Latino, Mongolian and Chinese people. A great bunch of lads. Obviously there are no MÄoris in America.
Same with the Vice Presidency, look how that turned out.
He literally said it would be a woman, long before “he” made the decision. But we all know what type of woman, there was a very specific criteria. The top 3 favourites at the time were all black women. The market was something like:-
Kamala Harris 11/10 Stacey Abrams 4/1 Val Demings 5/1
Considering that demographic is around 5% of America, the odds of all three favourites fitting the same profile naturally is thousands upon thousands to 1.
If someone is the best person for the job then who cares what race or gender they are, but they are clearly only selecting a pool based on other factors and other factors alone.
The Democrats view everything through gender and race, it’s about fitting a profile as much as anything else. It’s identity politics.
Kamala hated Biden. Accused him of being a sexual predator and a racist… he then appointed her as his running mate, to which she gladly forgot about those accusations and accepted gleefully.
They are such a shameless and transparent party it’s embarrassing.
[Post edited 23 Mar 2022 13:26]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 12:56 - Mar 23 by Ajack_Kerouac
If you watched the video you would see the cases in question discussed in more detail... ...you would hear her hiding behind politicians setting the guidelines for sentences... ...only for Hawley to point out that the guidelines set out by politicians (which passed 84-0) advised a sentence of 8-10years (in one of the cases)... ....you would see that it is the Supreme Court that gives judges discretion, not politicians... ...you would see that the liberal Prosecutor called for her to dish out a 2 year sentence rather than an 8-10 year sentence... ...you would see that she then dished out a sentence of 3 months.
3 months!
It is right that a nominee for the Supreme Court is judged by his/her record. Her record clearly shows that she is lenient with sexual offenders and peadophiles at the expense of the victims. She uses her discretion to hand out lighter sentences, by orders of magnitude, compared to the sentences advised by the guidelines.
Well that’s the independence of the judiciary in action. She or any other judge should not be compelled or influenced in any way to make any decision by any person or organisation outside of that court room. This can lead to over lenient sentencing. It can lead to overly harsh sentencing, this can be reviewed or rectified by the inevitable appeal but the independence of the judiciary is vital, otherwise we are no better than these banana republics with their kangaroo courts.
The system isn’t perfect. Mark david chapman shot a guy and is still in prison 42 years later. John Hinckley shot several guys including the president a few months later and he’s out, free and making YouTube videos. Judges make stupid decisions. And we are right to criticise these decisions. But they are fundamentally free to make these decisions and that is the right way to go about it.
0
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 13:49 - Mar 23 with 5155 views
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 13:22 - Mar 23 by Dr_Parnassus
Same with the Vice Presidency, look how that turned out.
He literally said it would be a woman, long before “he” made the decision. But we all know what type of woman, there was a very specific criteria. The top 3 favourites at the time were all black women. The market was something like:-
Kamala Harris 11/10 Stacey Abrams 4/1 Val Demings 5/1
Considering that demographic is around 5% of America, the odds of all three favourites fitting the same profile naturally is thousands upon thousands to 1.
If someone is the best person for the job then who cares what race or gender they are, but they are clearly only selecting a pool based on other factors and other factors alone.
The Democrats view everything through gender and race, it’s about fitting a profile as much as anything else. It’s identity politics.
Kamala hated Biden. Accused him of being a sexual predator and a racist… he then appointed her as his running mate, to which she gladly forgot about those accusations and accepted gleefully.
They are such a shameless and transparent party it’s embarrassing.
[Post edited 23 Mar 2022 13:26]
Yep like I said it absolutely stinks.
0
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 14:13 - Mar 23 with 5141 views
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 12:56 - Mar 23 by Ajack_Kerouac
If you watched the video you would see the cases in question discussed in more detail... ...you would hear her hiding behind politicians setting the guidelines for sentences... ...only for Hawley to point out that the guidelines set out by politicians (which passed 84-0) advised a sentence of 8-10years (in one of the cases)... ....you would see that it is the Supreme Court that gives judges discretion, not politicians... ...you would see that the liberal Prosecutor called for her to dish out a 2 year sentence rather than an 8-10 year sentence... ...you would see that she then dished out a sentence of 3 months.
3 months!
It is right that a nominee for the Supreme Court is judged by his/her record. Her record clearly shows that she is lenient with sexual offenders and peadophiles at the expense of the victims. She uses her discretion to hand out lighter sentences, by orders of magnitude, compared to the sentences advised by the guidelines.
Apparently she is also lenient on drug charges as well.
-1
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 14:13 - Mar 23 with 5140 views
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 13:46 - Mar 23 by Flynnidine_Zidownes
Well that’s the independence of the judiciary in action. She or any other judge should not be compelled or influenced in any way to make any decision by any person or organisation outside of that court room. This can lead to over lenient sentencing. It can lead to overly harsh sentencing, this can be reviewed or rectified by the inevitable appeal but the independence of the judiciary is vital, otherwise we are no better than these banana republics with their kangaroo courts.
The system isn’t perfect. Mark david chapman shot a guy and is still in prison 42 years later. John Hinckley shot several guys including the president a few months later and he’s out, free and making YouTube videos. Judges make stupid decisions. And we are right to criticise these decisions. But they are fundamentally free to make these decisions and that is the right way to go about it.
So why then do you think that she did not answer by defending her decision based on it's merits and explain why she alone decided 3 months was more appropriate?
...you see, it's the deceit.
The reason why the more intelligent Leftists in this country like Tony Blair is because they understand that he is especially good at lying... ...and looking like he is one thing (which is acceptable to the majority of the population) which allows them to get away with the shit they really stand for in the background. He provides them cover to get things passed into law, to enact policy, that the people would never, ever, vote for.
Somebody like Corbyn is honest about what he and the Left stands for, which is to commit political suicide.
So if she thinks it's a good idea to let peadophiles who should go to prison for 8-10 years (according to the guidelines set by the politicians who the people vote for, and can remove if they don't do the right thing) get off with 3 months...SHE NEEDS TO BE HONEST ABOUT WHY SHE TOOK THAT DECISION AND DEFEND HER DECISION WITH RATIONAL ARGUMENT... but as we all know, the Left cannot do that, as it reveals to the people who they really are and they will never be allowed to have a position of responsibility, have power over us, once the people know that they are so morally corrupt.
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
-1
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 14:17 - Mar 23 with 5137 views
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 13:46 - Mar 23 by Flynnidine_Zidownes
Well that’s the independence of the judiciary in action. She or any other judge should not be compelled or influenced in any way to make any decision by any person or organisation outside of that court room. This can lead to over lenient sentencing. It can lead to overly harsh sentencing, this can be reviewed or rectified by the inevitable appeal but the independence of the judiciary is vital, otherwise we are no better than these banana republics with their kangaroo courts.
The system isn’t perfect. Mark david chapman shot a guy and is still in prison 42 years later. John Hinckley shot several guys including the president a few months later and he’s out, free and making YouTube videos. Judges make stupid decisions. And we are right to criticise these decisions. But they are fundamentally free to make these decisions and that is the right way to go about it.
So according to you Judges should be allowed to make up sentences as they see fit. How can you ever expect to get equality under the law? I don't like the look of you, you can get 20 Years. You look like a nice boy you can have 2 months for the same crime. I have got a headache this morning you can have life imprisonment. Yeah right.
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 14:17 - Mar 23 by A_Fans_Dad
So according to you Judges should be allowed to make up sentences as they see fit. How can you ever expect to get equality under the law? I don't like the look of you, you can get 20 Years. You look like a nice boy you can have 2 months for the same crime. I have got a headache this morning you can have life imprisonment. Yeah right.
Well that’s just a pure splurge of hyperbolic diatribe.
Equality of sentencing has never been a thing. Because every crime is different. I just gave one example.
The judge is there to look at the individual merits of the case and make their own decision based on that.
I’m not sure what the system is in the US but I know here the victims or citizens can appeal a criminal conviction of the sentence is deemed too low. The convicted can appeal if their sentence is too harsh. Given that their legal system is loosely based on the same historic principles as ours it is probably similar out there.
I honestly don’t know what more you want. Judges have to be independent and make their decisions without duress from outside interference. Even if it is unpopular it’s the right thing to do.
0
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 17:08 - Mar 23 with 5091 views
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
-1
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 17:11 - Mar 23 with 5090 views
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
-1
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 17:26 - Mar 23 with 5087 views
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
-1
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 11:38 - Mar 24 with 5015 views
I should have mentioned the despicable antics of the Democrats and their chair of the committee. They withheld 48,000 documents relating to Ketanji Brown Jackson's career in order to frustrate Republicans from doing the job they are supposed to do.
Look at this scumbag Durban...
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
-1
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 12:18 - Mar 24 with 5006 views
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 11:38 - Mar 24 by Ajack_Kerouac
I should have mentioned the despicable antics of the Democrats and their chair of the committee. They withheld 48,000 documents relating to Ketanji Brown Jackson's career in order to frustrate Republicans from doing the job they are supposed to do.
Look at this scumbag Durban...
The same tactic used by Republicans when Kavanaugh was up for questioning. Yep it's scummy and yep they all do it but your silence when it was Kavanaugh tells its own story.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
1
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 12:30 - Mar 24 with 5000 views
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 12:18 - Mar 24 by DJack
The same tactic used by Republicans when Kavanaugh was up for questioning. Yep it's scummy and yep they all do it but your silence when it was Kavanaugh tells its own story.
More bullshit. The Democrats released 'Confidential' documents re: Kavanaugh, effectively breaking the rules of the Senate. I believe one of the leakers lost his Senate seat as a result? (he should have)
This time the Democrats are withholding 'Public' documents from the Republican Senators...because they don't want the public to find out about the radical views of the Judge they plan to give a lifetime seat on the US Supreme Court.
...and let's talk about Kavanaugh shall we? It was an orchestrated smear campaign that revolved around another concocted (paid for) story, an allegation made about his days at University...before he even started his career. Which has, again, proven to be false.
The Republicans are grilling Ketanji Brown Jackson on her record as a Judge. Which is the point of the committee, the reason why they are all there, and is right and proper when you are making a life time appointment to a vital US institution.
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
-1
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 14:48 - Mar 24 with 4985 views
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 12:30 - Mar 24 by Ajack_Kerouac
More bullshit. The Democrats released 'Confidential' documents re: Kavanaugh, effectively breaking the rules of the Senate. I believe one of the leakers lost his Senate seat as a result? (he should have)
This time the Democrats are withholding 'Public' documents from the Republican Senators...because they don't want the public to find out about the radical views of the Judge they plan to give a lifetime seat on the US Supreme Court.
...and let's talk about Kavanaugh shall we? It was an orchestrated smear campaign that revolved around another concocted (paid for) story, an allegation made about his days at University...before he even started his career. Which has, again, proven to be false.
The Republicans are grilling Ketanji Brown Jackson on her record as a Judge. Which is the point of the committee, the reason why they are all there, and is right and proper when you are making a life time appointment to a vital US institution.
The liberals on here will make any excuse for the actions of the democrats.
-1
Biden's Supreme Court Pick - One for the Peados on 15:40 - Mar 24 with 4972 views
For those who don't know about this stuff, let's address the facts about Kavanaugh.
Brett Kavanaugh was Trump's nominee to join the Supreme Court and was the victim of at least one–and probably two–false allegations of sexual assault.
How do we know the allegations were false? Committee Chairman, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley (Iowa), asked the Justice Department to investigate Judy Munri-Leighton. Who is Judy? She is a left-leaning activist from Kentucky who made false statements. According to Grassley, Munri-Leighton initially claimed in an email to the committee that Kavanaugh had raped her, and he was questioned on this point during the September 26 hearing regarding allegations made by Christine Blasey-Ford and others.
Subsequently, Munri-Leighton recanted her charge and admitted she had never met Kavanaugh. "I was angry, and I sent it out," she said.
Another accusation, made by Julie Swetnick and attorney Michael Avenatti, was also suspect, at the very least, given that the accuser has contradicted her story. Both Swetnick and Avenatti were referred for investigation as a result. Avenatti supplied NBC News with a witness who supposedly could corroborate Swetnick's account; instead, the woman confessed she felt Avenatti had "twisted" her words. NBC felt cheated; Chuck Todd accused Avenatti of purposefully misleading reporters.
Whether Christine Blasey-Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh was true, false, or somewhere in-between has not been proven. It is a classic case of he said, she said. We do know though that the Left had concocted the other 2 allegations which collapsed under scrutiny.
The Washington Post's Megan McArdle wrote:
"It would, of course, be much simpler if women never lied about rape. Their stories wouldn't need to be interrogated, no sifting and sorting of the facts in a crime that is notoriously hard to prosecute. But we know that's not possible. High-profile false rape accusations such as the ones in the Rolling Stone article reflect the reality that between 2 and 10 percent of rape allegations are provably false; the FBI says 8 percent of forcible-rape allegations are "unfounded." The number of false accusations that can't be proved false necessarily pushes that number even higher. To act as if this weren't the case borders on wishful thinking, and it comes at a cost."
During the Kavanaugh hearings, because he was a Trump pick, media outlets like; 'The New Yorker', with exceptionally weak evidence, ran allegations of Kavaunagh's alleged sexual misbehavior in college. The reporters no doubt believed they were making it easier for victims to be heard. But airing insufficiently vetted allegations encourages the public to distrust the media. Actual victims won't be heard if no one's listening.
The Kavanaugh fiasco should serve as a strong reminder that the press must cautiously vet accusations, and that legal systems should operate in accordance with principles of fairness and a respect for due process.
...and some of you might be thinking; 'I know that name Michael Avenatti'. You do, he is the 'lawyer' (more a gangster in the pay of the Democrats than a lawyer) behind the Stormy Daniels story. ...you see, he is paid by the Democrats to help them plant smear stories in the press and concoct their 'Narratives', 'Lies' is a more accurate term. ...and what happened to old Michael Avenatti?
...and what about that Stormy Daniels? She has been ordered by a court to pay Trump $300,000 for telling lies about him, lies which some dipshits swallowed whole...you know who you are.
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
-1
Biden's Supreme Court Pick on 16:31 - Mar 25 with 4893 views
You forget to mention that Christine Blasey-Ford's 4 supposed witnesses all denied her story, in fact they deny the party at which she was suposedly raped never took place how and when she described it. So not she said - he said, but she said - they said.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
