"There were also, according to transcripts, 142 uses of 'sex' ('sexual abuse,' 'sexual assault,' 'sexual intercourse,' 'sex crimes'), 15 of 'pedophile,' 13 of 'predators,' 18 of 'prepubescent' and nine of general pornography.... The Republican fixation on pornography continued during Monday’s round of statements by senators before the committee advanced Jackson’s nomination to the Senate floor. A preliminary transcript showed 41 mentions of 'porn' or 'pornography' and 32 mentions of 'sex offenders,' 'sexual assault' and the like.... Republicans on the committee congratulated themselves for avoiding 'personal slanders' of the sort they said Democrats inflicted on Brett M. Kavanaugh after women accused the Donald Trump nominee of sexual misconduct. Yet, they opposed Jackson with the most grievous of personal slanders... Graham: 'Every judge who does what you’re doing is making it easier for the children to be exploited.' Cruz: 'I also see a record of … advocacy as it concerns sexual predators.' Blackburn: 'What’s your hidden agenda? Is it to let … child predators back to the streets?' And, of course, there was Hawley, who previewed the hearings by saying Jackson’s record 'endangers our children.'"
From "Senate Republicans’ unhealthy fixation on child porn, by the numbers" by Dana Milbank (WaPo).
What goes around, comes around. Oh, but it came back around in a different form! An unhealthy and fixated form....
It's different but is it worse?
What was used against KBJ was her judicial work, which is on the record. There's a foundation of undisputed truth used to make inferences and arguments about how she might perform in the future as a Supreme Court Justice. What was used against Kavanaugh was about personal behavior, in the past, presented through a witness who may or may not have given us the truth.Yet Milbank says that what KBJ is accused of is "the most grievous of personal slanders." She's only accused of being lenient toward those convicted of possessing child pornography. That isn't even a crime! Some of us even think it is admirable — to be merciful toward someone, perhaps a very young person, who has only rashly downloaded some photographs from the internet. It is obviously a more grievous personal slander to accuse someone of sexual assault!
I'm jaded, but it's still hard to watch — well, read (I can't watch anymore) — the irrational, overheated partisanship around Supreme Court appointments.
पोस्ट्स
४८ टिप्पण्या:
Wore because verifiable evidence supports the claim.
Nice. It’s really an honor to share common ground w/Althouse.
If the lefty progressive democrat party didn't have double standards they would have no standards.
Republicans should study Rules for Radicals and apply those rules to the opposition.
" She's only accused of being lenient toward those convicted of possessing child pornography. That isn't even a crime! Some of us even think it is admirable
Good point.
Milbank went through the hearing transcript, and counted. It would have been an efficient use of his time counting all the times someone (Democrat?) defended the leniency of the Judge's sentencing of convicted child pornographers.
The the political branch of govt could debated the issue. The pro side vs the anti side.
serious question.. Did Judge Ketanjii Brown Jackson attend Sarah Lawrence, by any chance?
Because, it would explain a LOT about her lenient sentences for sex crime people
The Democratic Party's playbook against Clarence Thomas in 1991:
- Fixation on his relationship with Anita Hill, despite her following him from job to job
- Extensive discussion of a soda can and pubic hair joke
- Fixation on sexual harassment allegations (plus contemporary holier-than-thou attacks on Republican Senator Bob Packwood for hugging women too much -- hugging, not Biden's hair sniffing)
This soon led to the Democratic Party's:
- Head-in-the-sand denials and spin about Bill Clinton's far more serious lifelong sexual conduct issues
- Given left/establishment media censorship of left wing failings, the rise of no-holds-barred gonzo right wing journalism per the early Drudge Report (stained blue dress story), Project Veritas, Steven Crowder, etc.
- Sudden Democratic Party acceptance of workplace sexual conduct issues in 2016 with the arrival of Trump, ironically contributing to the downfalls of many Democrats and allies -- Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Senator Al Franken, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, and Congressman John Conyers. Plus, the rest of the Epstein black book...
What's new in 2022? Why does this author have no awareness or memory of this? If you play dirty you gonna get dirty. If you spin all the time you get dizzy and fall down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination
It seems reviewing a person’s documented record of job performance is off limits for Milbank.
"That isn't even a crime!"
1) No, but it does speak about her judgment. (Some would say positively, some negatively.)
2) It also points out the difference in Republican vs Democrat questioning - Republicans tend to question on issues having to do with judgment on the bench, Democrats tend to question on personal issues.
Judge Jackson shouldn't be punished for the sins of the Democratic Party and if she is competent for the role, she should be confirmed regardless of what the Democrats do to Republican nominees, but the lies and hypocrisy from the left, and especially journalists, make it nearly impossible to have reasoned discussions about raising the standard of how we talk to each other.
My wife is a former journalist and has a somewhat rose-colored view of the profession and the people in it. She was outraged when Trump called journalists enemies of the people, but it would be a lot easier to stand against attacks like that if there weren't a fair amount of truth to them. The public thinks of journalists as enemies because, all too often, they are.
Yet Milbank says that what KBJ is accused of is "the most grievous of personal slanders."
He’s talking about “the truth”.
Making up things and attributing them to well-placed, anonymous sources is all good fun.
But accusing someone of the truth isn’t to be tolerated.
It's different but is it worse?
It's always worse when Republicans do it. Always.
What was used against Kavanaugh was about personal behavior, in the past, presented through a witness who may or may not have given us the truth.
This is complete bullshit and you know it Ann.
Ford obviously lied. She was called out by all her "witnesses."
She couldn't even say what year it happened.
She made obviously illogical excuses not to testify under oath.
Ford was completely dishonest from start to finish. Not acknowledging that is terrible.
Worse…
" What was used against Kavanaugh was about personal behavior, in the past, presented through a witness who may or may not have given us the truth. "
Talk about cruelly neutral!
They waited until the last minute to spring an outrageous fraud on an unsuspecting nominee, and rammed it through with the full complicity of the hostile media. They broke any and all rules of substantive and procedural fairness, to smear an innocent man.
It's not really comparable.
"... Milbank says that what KBJ is accused of is "the most grievous of personal slanders."
Because nothing else offends anyone anymore. Used to be a person could be shamed by all sorts of behaviors considered outside the norm. A philanderer, an adulterer, a liar ... Bill Clinton proved that sort of thing no longer matters while the politician advocates the correct policies. A traitor to his country, an ally of our adversaries... John Kerry proved that sort of thing does not matter. Senator Robert Menendez proved taking bribes doesn't matter. Oh hell this sort of thing can go on for pages. The point is that the old joke used to be a politician could be ruined by the rumor of being caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
The "live boy" -- pedo -- charge is about all that's left in the tool kit.
It's all Kabuki all the time. If you get worked up over these types of political hearings, you are certifiably mental.
It's no more serious than fraternity hazing.
Give Brown some credit, at least she hasn't stooped to garnering sympathy by whining and crying like the baby preppy Kavanaugh.
As opposed to what? Democrats' unhealthy fixation on teenage rape parties and public hairs on Coke cans?
Chuff--chuff--chuff
The Milbank Special is leaving the station! Get those Republicans!
If anyone had raised objections to Kamala Harris prior to the election, they would have been deemed and racist. No objections were raised. So now we have Kamala Harris who's got an excellent chance of becoming president in the near future.....This judge makes a good first impression. She seems personable and kindly. Maybe things will work out. Maybe not. Her record with child pornographers is troubling but not disqualifying. What's more troubling is that raising such objections is deemed racist and out of bounds....A society is judged by how well it treats its children, not its child pornographers.
If someone doesn't want to be accused of being soft on crime and soft on child predators, then they shouldn't be soft on crime and soft on child predators.
Farrow brought out a completely unsubstantiated and patently false allegation against Kavanaugh. Farrow said he did that in order to encourage other women to come forward with other charges of sexual misconduct. It didn't happen. It happened to Cuomo, Franken, and others, but it didn't happen with Kavanaugh. This points to Kavanaugh's innocence and Farrow's bias.....If someone knew something negative about Judge Jackson Brown, they would be well advised to keep it to themselves. They won't get tenure or a lucrative book deal if they come forward.
KBJ does not believe in Natural Rights.
That is a complete deal breaker. That is the core foundational principle of our country.
At that point you are not American. She just thinks she will be one of the rulers.
She needs to be sent to any other country where people don't have Natural Rights and left there.
The Dems suborned perjury to accuse Kavenaugh of rape.
The Republicans criticized how KBJ did her job on the bench.
Howard said...It's all Kabuki all the time. If you get worked up over these types of political hearings, you are certifiably mental.
It's no more serious than fraternity hazing.
Give Brown some credit, at least she hasn't stooped to garnering sympathy by whining and crying like the baby preppy Kavanaugh.
I was actually prepared to agree with you, but then you had to go and be a Howard. You just can't help yourself, can you?
How many times were we treated to Swetnick rape room lies by the collective liar left?
Both sides go for newsy hot button issues for their side. Most of the population ignores them.
Asking her what does she consider his most brilliant opinion would have been nice.
After hearing about the nominee’s record in sentencing child porn convicts I conclude that she does not have the requisite empathy for the poor children victims of these crimes. I am at a loss to understand the moral foundation of someone who reduce the penalty for participating in the child porn atrocity, which experts point out is a growing industry. I wonder how she would feel if sentencing a criminal who inflicted sexual torture and rape on her daughter when she was prepubescent?
Why does the left not want to protect the most vulnerable in our society?
Don't like the criticism? Defend what she did.
I don't seem to be the only one questioning Romney's change of heart on her.
This statement leaves two burning questions for the Senator. First, while the other two reliable GOP turncoats, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), voted to confirm Jackson to the D.C. Circuit Court last summer, Romney did not. As Mollie Hemingway noted, the only significant new information about Jackson’s record after her SCOTUS nomination was her weak record when sentencing child sex offenders.
Hmmmmmmmm...
I think systemic gang-gang rape-rape is a worse accusation...
Democrats fabricated a sexual assault hoax on Kavanaugh. Republicans focused on Jackson’s record of sentencing sex offenders.
It’s an ugly process and I can’t imagine our founders wanted us to be ruled by a committee of nine lifetime appointed lawyers - but here we are. Either way, fabricating a hoax and asking questions about a judicial record seem like very different levels of bad.
Dana Milbank's opinions are about as interesting as Paul Krugman's opinions. Which is to say, they are neither interesting nor enlightening.
"Senate Republicans’ unhealthy fixation on child porn, by the numbers"
Now, There's a headline that will play in Peoria...
My conclusion from all this is that we are less than two years from the normalization of pedophilia. NAMBLA is celebrating.
Milbank hearing footsteps?
"... the irrational, overheated partisanship around Supreme Court appointments."
It's irrational to try to keep people who prefer criminals to non-criminals off the Supreme Court?
Joe Smith said...
"I think systemic gang-gang rape-rape is a worse accusation..."
The Left would assure you that what Kavanaugh was accused of was rape, but not "rape-rape". It takes a biologist to recognize rape-rape.
One is a totally unproven accusation that is supported by no evidence other than the word of someone whose trustworthiness is unknown and who conspired with the political party in opposition to the accused, that has been vehemently denied by the accused, that conflicts with other undisputed facts showing the proclivity of the accused toward similar issues, and that is the type of accusation that surprises absolutely no one who knows the history of the party that championed the accusation.
The other is an indisputable fact, which seems consistent with other evidence about the nominee's world view, and is something which some people say reveals a bad character and others say is being no big deal.
They aren't remotely similar "attacks," nor is the evidence in support of the two accusations comparable.
I'm jaded, but it's still hard to watch — well, read (I can't watch anymore) — the irrational, overheated partisanship around Supreme Court appointments
It's more than telling, in fact it's revealing, that only now, with this rather tame event compared to the last couple, and with a leftie in the dock, that you have reached your own little personal limit.
The republicans were NOT accusing the judge of child porn like the dems accused Kavenaugh of rape, but it is the same thing? They were attacking a potential weakness in her judicial record. That is fair game. How are you supposed to talk about that without using naughty words?
Tit for tat has dominated game theory for what, four hundred years? Your side accuses a virgin of being a perpetrator of gang rapes; our side says you’re giving aid and comfort to pedophiles. These lies are just business, nothing personal.
The groomers are getting upset.
David French, master theologian, says it is not nice.
When it comes to womyn, Althouse does not think clearly. She is baldly partisan, always.
"The groomers are getting upset."
That means the talking points have been circulated. Hah! remember "Journolist"? And how shocked everyone was to discover that Big Media was a conspiracy? God, we were naive.
Did anyone accuse her of rape or sexual harassment? Did anyone call her a religious extremist?
As far as I can tell, all the Republicans did was ask her about her work as a judge, and her work on Harvard's board.
It's more than telling, in fact it's revealing, that only now, with this rather tame event compared to the last couple, and with a leftie in the dock, that you have reached your own little personal limit.
What will be even more telling will be her reaction the next time the Democrats slime a conservative appointment.
I believe those she gave less harsh sentences to were distributers, not just someone who might have accidentally downloaded a couple of naughty films.
The Philippines is the cyber capital of the world, so maybe I would be a bit more harsh against such criminal, but hey, that's just me. I seem to remember a sardonic Jewish carpenter who recommended a millstone for such folk.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा