June 25, 2008

"It may be that the blue noses will bring him down or knock him out of contention for the high court..."

"... but if so, it would be a loss for the judiciary."

A New York Sun editorial about Alex Kozinski.

8 comments:

Slim999 said...

It may also be that the photos of the kid giving himself a blowjob, found on the judge's home computer, will knock him out of contention for the high court.

Since that is obscene child porn that the judge keeps at home.

Maybe it's that.

Bissage said...

I’ve got no reason to disbelieve that Judge Kozinski is charismatic, brilliant and fully deserving of serious consideration for SCOTUS.

And I certainly don’t want to get called a bluenose.

So, I’m going to vote for him this November.

P.S. Harriet Miers keeps a pack of pornographic playing cards in her pocketbook. I’ve seen them!

rhhardin said...

A story with soap opera narrative legs cannot be made to go away because the media, the national organ of stories with legs, can draw their audience with it.

Follow the advertising dollars.

So no, he won't be considered for the high court.

Not so long as there are women.

Simon said...

He's a white male libertarian. Hard to see that Obama would want to appoint him or that, politically, McCain could. Unfortunately, I just don't see Kozinski or Easterbrook getting a promotion, which is a shame in the first case and a tragedy in the second.

No, I think the smart money has to be on Robert Young, Diane Sykes or Karen Williams in a McCain administration and if Obama gets it, expect someone who went to law school but hasn't made a career of law, probably a politician, and certainly someone who cares more about liberal results than how they get there. There are respectable choices he could make - Kathleen Sullivan, perhaps - but nothing in what he has said on the subject inclines me to think that he will.

paul a'barge said...

Come on.

Kozinski has not the chance of a snow ball in hell of making the Supreme Court.

Be serious.

Slim999 and Simon are on the money here.

former law student said...

The context of the "Priceless" ad parody makes it clear that the self-satisfied one is over 18: The subject of the picture has a credit card, a subscription to some kind of sex site or phone sex provider, and a younger brother trying to embarrass him. But if slim is relying on his experience viewing pictures of naked boys, I'll have to concede he's correct.

Revenant said...

Since that is obscene child porn that the judge keeps at home.

Except for the parts about it being obscene, porn, or involving a child, that was an accurate observation.

He's a white male libertarian. Hard to see that Obama would want to appoint him or that, politically, McCain could.

Its hard to see that McCain would want to even if he could. He is neither a libertarian nor sympathetic to libertarian causes. He's a big-government conservative like Bush or Nixon.

Slim999 said...

@ former law student

You seem to forget that in order for a person to sit on the Supreme Court, that person has to be approved by the Senate.

At his confirmation hearing, the photograph of the child (and it appears to me to be a child) sucking his own penis ... this photo that this judge found so "funny" that he keeps copies of it on his home computer ... this photograph, with no accompanying context, is going to be shown to America.

So far, America hasn't been exposed to this photograph that the judge keeps (and the other photographs, such as the one of the naked women painted as cows, as if women are mere cows to be milked).

They haven't been exposed to these pictures precisely because people like Ann Althouse believe they are too obscene to even post on their blogs.

That's how obscene these photos are. Ann Althouse won't even post them they are so obscene.

So, you're deluded if you think this judge is going to be nominated to anything. In fact, this judge brings extreme disrepute on the bar. That is a violation of his canon for which the bar should punish him.

This judge, by his possession of this obscene pornographic material, for which there is no redeeming value, in violation of the law, brings into question whether members of the judiciary, when caught red-handed possessing that which the Supreme Court has specifically outlawed, are subject to the very justice they deliver upon their fellow citizens.

Judge Kozinski brings disrepute on the bar every day he sits.

The bar should not have it, and should remove this judge from the bar altogether, to restore America's faith in their judicial system.