In the movie “Dial M for Murder,” the character Mark Halliday explained how he writes about murders: “I usually put myself in the criminal’s shoes and then I keep asking myself, uh, what do I do next?” He admitted, however, that “I’m afraid my murders would be something like my bridge: I’d make some stupid mistake and never realize it until I found everybody was looking at me.”
That appears to be the fate of MSNBC commentator and the Nation’s Justice Correspondent Elie Mystal, who recently accused Sen. Josh Hawley of trying to kill Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. His weapon: a question about her prior legal positions.
Hawley and others have criticized the record of Judge Jackson as soft on crime, including child pornography. He noted that she recommended eliminating the five-year minimum sentence for child pornography. Hawley was criticized for conflating all sexual offenders with the issue on the sentencing of child pornography defendants. However, Jackson can easily address any such generalization in her own testimony.
Mystal saw not senatorial interest but homicidal intent in such questions. He declared on MSNBC that Hawley is “trying to get [Judge Jackson] killed.”
Hawley’s murderous plot was due to his interest in Jackson’s record on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Without any push back from the host Tiffany Cross, Mystal explained that just discussing Jackson’s positions on sentencing is an effort to have her murdered: “What Josh Hawley is doing. Let’s be very clear. What Josh Hawley is doing when he tries to do this is he’s trying to get her killed. He is trying to get violence done against a Supreme Court nominee.”
Apparently in the spirit of resisting such violence, Mystal added that Jackson’s greatest challenge will be not “punching one of these fools in the mouth.”
Mystal may not be what Jackson is looking for in a public ally. Mystal has a long controversial history, including racially inflammatory comments. In promoting a new book, Mystal has called the U.S. Constitution “trash” and argued that we should ideally just dump it.
Mystal previously stated that white, non-college-educated voters supported Republicans because they care about “using their guns on Black people and getting away with it.” He has also lashed out at “white society” and explained how he strived to maintain a “whiteness free” life in the pandemic.
Once Mystal labels you a racist, it does not matter even if a story is untrue. Mystal, who has written for Above the Law, joined his colleague Joe Patrice in attacking high school student Nicholas Sandmann, the teenager wrongly accused of attacking a Native American. Sandmann received settlements from news organizations over the false story. Nevertheless, Mystal and Patrice continued to attack him for wearing his “racist [MAGA] hat” and said that this “17-year-old kid makes the George Zimmerman defense for why he was allowed to deny access to a person of color.” Putting aside the fact that Sandmann was not “deny[ing] access to a person of color,” Mystal and Patrice were comparing this high school student defending himself from a false story to a man who was accused of murdering an unarmed African American kid.
It does not take much to trigger such attacks. Patrice has written in Above the Law that it is racist to even note that Jackson’s judicial philosophy is not clear from her record. This would seem uncontroversial since Jackson has only one appellate opinion and her trial decisions are not very useful in highlighting her approach to constitutional interpretation. Indeed, Jackson refused to answer questions about her judicial philosophy when she recently was nominated for her appellate position. Nevertheless, Patrice insisted that such questions are little more than calling her a “lesser Black woman.”
That brings us back to Sen. Hawley’s effort, according to Mystal, to murder a Supreme Court nominee.
Mystal explained “We know this because when these people go off, making these claims about child pornography, we know that some of their people show up violently to do stuff,” a reference to the 2017 Pizzagate conspiracy theory and Edgar Maddison Welch. He then made a bizarre conspiracy-like connection, noting that Hawley knows what “Pizzagate is all about” because Jackson was the judge that sentenced Welch.
That type of logic makes “six degrees from Kevin Bacon” look like a DNA test. Yet, it is all fair game on MSNBC to show that raising a nominee’s actual record is a homicidal plot.
Yet, Cross said that it is “quite rich to hear some of the things [Republicans are] suggesting” as opposed to the guest who just made a murder-by-confirmation claim.
Just take a ride on this crazy train. Hawley is trying to get Jackson killed by raising her positions on sentencing because (1) he is alleging that she is soft on crimes like child pornography; (2) Pizzagate involved claims of child sex-trafficking; (3) an unhinged man was convicted for brandishing a gun outside of the pizzeria; and (4) Jackson sentenced the man. Got it?
Under Mystal’s logic, Republicans could object that Democratic senators were trying to murder Amy Coney Barrett when they alleged that she was being put on the Court to help rig the election for Trump. After all, GOP Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and other members of Congress were shot by James Hodgkinson, 66, a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders and avid watcher of MSNBC, I-Vt. Hodgkinson was vehemently anti-Trump and “we know that some of their people show up violently to do stuff.”
Likewise, there are other topics that have led to violence. For example, an anti-fascist, anti-Trump activist firebombed an immigration center in Texas. Under Mystal’s logic, asking Judge Jackson about her decisions on immigration could be viewed as inviting such a violent response.
So the solution, according to Mystal, is not to ask a judicial nominee about her legal views. The senators may be interested in the answers for their own deliberations, but the choice is between debate and death in the United States Senate.
Of course, as the detective in “Dial M for Murder” noted, murder is too serious a subject to be left to writers: “They talk about flat-footed policemen. May the saints protect us from the gifted amateur.”
So questioning an appointee to the Supreme Court about her judicial history is attempted murder?
What was the Kavanaugh hearing and Coney-Barrett’s trial by fire?
What we will not see is Judge Jackson treated in any way like Democrats treat conservative nominees. Civility is only expected of the right.
It sounds like the typical mainstream media, trying to run cover for problematic politicians and nominees.
This process is becoming so partisan that I wonder if Democrats expect Republicans to approve all their nominees, but they will only approve far Left SCOTUS nominees from now on.
I don’t care how any judge feels, personally. All I care about is if they can accurately interpret the law, rather than twist it into a pretzel to suit their agenda. I favor originalists, rather than legislating from the bench. If the law doesn’t say what you want it to, then that’s the legislative branch’s job to fix it. The problem is when justices either ignore a statute or Constitution, or pretend it allowed anything they want.
Karen: The “attempted murder comment” is related to Republicans, like Hawley, LYING about her being soft on child predators and the gullibility of your ilk to believe whatever lies they are spoon-fed, and to act on them, just like the pizzagate matter and the invasion of the Capitol, all based on lies believed by the faithful. Republicans controlling Kavanaugh’s hearing denied the right of dozens of witnesses begging to bolster Dr. Ford’s testimony about Kavanaugh being a drunken party boy who uses profanity and touches women without their permission, instead of the religious family man he tried to pretend to be. They were denied the right to speak. Dr. Ford is still in hiding with her family. Kavanaugh had a massive amount of personal baggage. Judge Jackson is not “problematic”, and you aren’t qualified to decide this, and she isn’t “far Left” either. You also aren’t qualified to determine what “originalism is” or whether it is a good or bad thing. And, Judge Jackson has never ignored statutes or the Constitution. That’s more Republican lying.
Republicans controlling Kavanaugh’s hearing denied the right of dozens of witnesses begging to bolster Dr. Ford’s testimony
No such right exists.
You’re correct, there is no such right. But the Senate Republicans were still wrong to refuse to hear from them. There’s evidence that Kavanaugh lied under oath during his confirmation hearings. They really should have rejected him and gotten a better conservative nominee.
You put it out there, gives up concrete, factual, provable evidence that Justice Kavanaugh lied under oath.
Special, Anonymous the Stupid cannot provide concrete facts. He shoots blanks from the hip and, when challenged, calls people Troll instead of trying to use rational dialogue. Rational dialogue is an ability ATS lacks.
Troll.
Special, Anonymous the Stupid cannot provide concrete facts. He shoots blanks from the hip and, when challenged, calls people Troll instead of trying to use rational dialogue. Rational dialogue is an ability ATS lacks.
There are lots of examples.
Here are just a few of them:
With respect to Blasey Ford’s allegation, Kavanaugh repeatedly claimed some variation of “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen” / “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser.” That’s a lie. They said things like “I have no knowledge of the party in question” or that they couldn’t confirm it, but that’s not the same as stating that it didn’t happen. Ms. Keyser said that although she didn’t recall the gathering, she believed Ford that it did happen.
He said “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.” But his own calendar showed that he’d had attended a gathering like the one she described, with the people she said were there.
When asked if he had “never had gaps in memories, never had any losses whatsoever, never had foggy recollection about what happened” while drinking. Kavanaugh affirmed “That’s what I said.” This is refuted by people who knew him at Yale. For example, his then-friend Liz Swisher: “Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him. I watched him drink more than a lot of people. He’d end up slurring his words, stumbling… There’s no medical way I can say that he was blacked out. . . . But it’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess.” And there are a number of others who also refuted his claim, like Daniel Livan: “I definitely saw him on multiple occasions stumbling drunk where he could not have rational control over his actions or clear recollection of them.”
He lied about the definitions of sexual slang terms that he and his classmates used.
Or consider this exchange:
Hatch: “Did Mr. Miranda ever share, reference, or provide you with any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee?” — referring to Democratic material that Miranda had stolen.
Kavanaugh: “No, I was not aware of that matter ever until I learned of it in the media late last year.”
But Sen. Leahy later produced an email Kavanaugh had received from Miranda with a Democratic draft letter that Miranda had stolen and that Kavanaugh had read, Leahy saying “I am concerned because there is evidence that Mr. Miranda provided you with materials that were stolen from me. And that would contradict your prior testimony. It is also clear from public emails—and I’m restraining from going into not public ones—that you have reason to believe materials were obtained inappropriately at the time.”
These are only some of the examples of Kavanaugh lying under oath.
Again, Republicans should have rejected him. Another conservative jurist would have been nominated, and they could have confirmed someone who didn’t lie under oath.
Anonymous – you refer to an urban legend.
During the Kavanaugh hearing, there was a frenzy of demonstrably false allegations, including the infamous “rape train” and the “boat” fraud. There were many similar such stories, many of which could be easily disproven. They had already completed a thorough background check.
The FBI investigated all possibly credible allegations. They put a time limit on the investigation, because otherwise, activists were going to keep making up allegations ad infinitum. There was nothing further they could do for Ford, for example, because her own witnesses had no idea what she was talking about, and she changed her story timeline.
It’s like the false allegation that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex trafficking ring through a pizza parlor.
False allegations were an attempt by Democrats to destroy an innocent man’s character, and delay the process, hoping to scuttle his nomination.
Future generations are going to be appalled at the sliming of Brett Kavanaugh.
Joe Biden presided over the attacks on Bork and Thomas. Democrats infamously smeared Kavanaugh, pretending he was a mass rapist. It’s become a pattern of behavior. If you don’t have the votes to block a nominee, just assassinate their character. Someone, somewhere, will come forward with an allegation on cue.
Karen,
I have no idea what “urban legend” you refer to or why you’re introducing that in response to what I wrote. In my 9:00 PM comment, I presented quotes from his testimony under oath and evidence showing them to be false. You didn’t respond to that comment or deal with a single thing that I quoted. Not one.
“The FBI investigated all possibly credible allegations.”
No, they didn’t. There were many, many people the FBI never interviewed. One of many discussions of this: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/dozens-potential-sources-information-have-not-been-contacted-fbi-kavanaugh-n916146
If I recall right, they also didn’t interview Kavanaugh.
As Jonathan Turley noted, it is perfectly valid to question her on her stance on giving those convicted of possession of child porn less than the federally recommended sentence. Turley felt she was equipped to answer these questions.
Claiming a senator put a hit out on a SCOTUS nominee is indefensible.
Dr Ford changed the year of her allegations, because initially they did not coincide with Kavanaugh being in the state. Her own witnesses had no recollection of the incident. Her ex-boyfriend claimed they used to fly together all the time, yet she claimed to be so traumatized as to be unable to fly out to meet with Congress.
Her story did not hold up under scrutiny. You might wish and hope that she proved her case, but your opinion is not grounds to convict anyone. It must have been quite a surprise to his accuser for him to pull out his appointment diaries from all those years ago.
Ford was unable to prove her allegations. What was worse were the copycat false allegations that followed, including the infamous “rape trains” lies, as well as the guy who lied about an incident on the boat. It should give everyone pause how the Left took up the Machiavelian banner that anything goes, as long as it derailed Kavanaugh. This is what happens when right and wrong ceased to have a moral definition. Rather, what benefitted the Democrat Party was defined as “good.”
I take no position yet on Jackson’s suitability. I have not reviewed her judicial record. In what little I saw of the hearing, she’d been coy in the past, refusing to admit she had a judicial philosophy at all. I do have concerns about her position on pedophilia, especially opposing sex registration on certain offenses. She has the opportunity to explain her views in depth. I agree that there should be a scale of punishment for sex offenders, with those who physically abuse children or create such porn to be the worst. I do not yet know if her position is reasonable, and will have to review her hearing later.
I never said she, in particular, ignored the Constitution. Rather, I would oppose any nominee who sought to legislate from the bench, or ignore the Constitution. That’s what the hearing is to determine. She was reversed once on her ruling because she ignored the wording of a statute. I do not know if that was a one-off.
Karen, you might want to read my 9pm comment with quoted examples of Kavanaugh lying under oath.
“It must have been quite a surprise to his accuser for him to pull out his appointment diaries from all those years ago.”
I don’t know whether it surprised her, and whether it did or didn’t is irrelevant. The fact is that he falsely claimed “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation,” when his own calendar showed that he *had* attended a gathering like the one she described, with the people she said were there. For example, she said “There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending” and she later added that there might have been “a few other people there.” His calendar shows him “go[ing] to Timmy’s for [brew]skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.” That matches a small gathering including the 3 boys she’d named.
“Karen, you might want to read my 9pm comment with quoted examples of Kavanaugh lying under oath.”
You constantly misquote, quote out of context, quote lies, etc., so why should anyone believe anything you say? You are not credible.
Dr. Ford should have been prosecuted for lying.
Karen says:
“The problem is when justices either ignore a statute or Constitution, or pretend it allowed anything they want.”
Like pretending that the Second Amendment contemplated an individual’s right to bear a gun as opposed to what is explicitly stated- a militia.
Jeff,
Read the second amendment again, the enumerated right is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. The ‘Bill of Rights’ are the rights of the people.
Ray, read the text yourself: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You wish to ignore that the right is in the context of a well regulated militia, but the text is there whether or not you can admit it.
For 200 years, this individualized right to own a gun did not exist until the SC conjured it from the context of a well-regulated militia. If the Framers had wanted to guarantee the individualized right to own a gun, they would have said so unmistakably.
Jeff, for a lawyer, you seem short on knowledge.
Federalist 46.
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.”
The Anti-federalists agreed with the Federalists that the federal government shouldn’t have the power of disarming the public.
This discussion of militias being substituted for the right of citizens to own guns came long after the Bill of Rights was written. Go back to school.
The comments are consistent with the desire of the States to defend themselves by means of armed militias against a Federal army. If the individualized right to bear arms was paramount to the Framers; they could have, would have and should have been unmistakable in their intent. They weren’t.
Read what the Federalists and Anti-Federalists thought. They agreed, and if they were here, they would tell you how ignorant you sound. Was there another side on the issue? You tell us and inform us of who they were.
The wording and behavior in the latter 1700s differed from today, so your use of today’s jargon and understanding is entirely wrong. That doesn’t mean anything to you because you don’t know anything about historical perspective.
It’s too bad you refuse to have a good faith discussion without engaging in ad hominem. Is it any wonder I ignore you?
Jeff, you refused to have a good-faith discussion when you started calling Trump a liar and refusing to disclose the lies you talked about. You promoted ad hominem by accusing any supporter of Trump of being an idiot. It doesn’t stop there as you go after the blog’s host libeling him and then fawning over him.
Right now, you deflect from the discussion and talk about good faith discussions. You provide pablum for the intellectual pygmies and think you are a leader of intelligent debate. You aren’t. I’ve provided you with what was written in Federalist 46 and provided you with the opinion of the Anti-Federalists. What content did you provide? Deflection because you know you look bad.
Cut the cr-p and live by the rules you would like everyone else to live by.
Well said Meyer, thanks for picking up the ball on this!
The more MSNBC gives its valuable airtime to guests invited to share their non-mainstream viewpoints, the more MSNBC’s ratings have been circling the drain. It’s gotten so bad that even their superstar, Rachel Maddow, has disappeared from the show named for her, and from all accounts, will appear only periodically when national and international events warrant it.
The comment by E.V. Hall is worth noting. Barack Hussein Obama (Barry Sotero) wore out the phrase “let me be clear.”
As Hall points out, when one hears that phrase, prepare to DNC talking points.
I have rarely if ever heard, at least since the 1980’s, a Republican politician use that phrase. As a group, they just say what they intend to say. You can agree or disagree, and you can question them about their statements. But when a Democrat says let me be clear, they believe they’re about to bestow non-rebuttable truths.
@Richard
Therein lies the problem: in their hubris, they seem to honestly believe that whatever comes tumbling out of their mouths is just that, and a great many of their lemmings agree out of the mortal fear/cardinal sin of thinking the ‘wrong’ thing.
More of Turley’s hyperbole. No reasonable person would believe: 1. That Trump supporters out there, who are gullible enough to believe the Big Lie and refuse to believe the mountain of proof that it isn’t true wouldn’t be gullible enough to believe that Judge Jackson actually lets dangerous child predators out of jail. And, none of these geniuses would bother seeking out the truth. If Comrades Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham say she lets child predators off easy, they’ll believe it because they are fact-immune–literally unable to absorb the truth or even listen to facts objectively; 2. therefore, considering the lack of reasoning ability or intellectual curiosity to even hear anything counter, much less believe it, does any non-Trumpster believe that one or more of these morons wouldn’t go looking for Judge Jackson to kill or injure her? Before you say this is a stretch, consider that these are the ones who believe that Hillary Clinton led a child porn, child cannibalism cabal out of a NYC pizza parlor. One of them went there to kill her. Judge Jackson is black and well-educated, too, so we check two more boxes for the Trumpster mob. Does anyone doubt that this lie about her failing to fulfill her judicial duties vis a vis possessors of child porn wouldn’t inspire some of them to go after her?
The bottom line is that Hawley and others who are seeking higher office and who are using the confirmation hearings to generate sound bites for the Hate Network have no compunction against making up lies against Judge Jackson. In fact, they imply that just being a “public defender” proves she’s soft on crime because they know the disciples don’t understand the Constitutional right to counsel. Comrades Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham have no compunction against repeating or even embellishing such lies. And, as we all know, based on NO facts, just the word of their exalted leader, the faithful disciples will not only believe whatever they are told, but are capable of violence, breaking and entering, and worse. What would have happened to Pence if they had gotten him? They had already erected a noose.
That’s why, Turley, your ongoing contribution to the Hate Network will forever tarnish whatever reputation you believe you have. Today’s little trash piece checks some more boxes on your assignment list: going after MSNBC, Elie Mystal and Tiffany Cross. The track record of the Trumpsters you pander to makes clear that Judge Jackson could definitely be in danger, and it’s all because of the lying Turley won’t call out.
Natacha, 2545 characters, yet you say nothing. You create word salads that never lead to anything because you cannot follow up on a single point. I am waiting for you to tell me what I said that is wrong about the Mideast and international law. It was clear, but you wanted to create another word salad. In a follow-up, I said we could focus on only one topic. I brought up immigration on the southern border, but you came up with multiple more word salads.
What is wrong with your ability to concentrate and stick to one subject?S. Meyer
No one listened to them when they were slaves and foreigners, but now, for some queer, inscrutable rationale, they are all oracles on pedestals whose acumen, worth and relevance is beyond query – lest that account be utter political gain, not accretive to the U.S. Constitution and the nation.
The irrefutable prima facie evidence against this unqualified affirmative action nominee is the size of the pool from which she emerges.
6% of the population will never produce the highest and best, the most qualified candidate.
Lyndon Baines Johnson made a clear statement about his purchase (with redistributed welfare dollars) of the black vote when he said, “I’ll have those ——- voting democrat for 200 years.”
This nomination is proffered to secure the “black vote” for as much of the remaining 142 years of Johnson’s prediction as possible.
Her reprehensible sentencing record is absent of necessity – “She’s had 10 that I’ve seen that we’ve found and I haven’t found a single case where she’s sentenced — for child porn offenders — where she’s sentenced with the guidelines. Always below, and almost always below the government’s recommendations — in some cases dramatically below,” Senator Josh Hawley.
More fundamentally, the science, as referenced by James Watson of the Watson-Crick team that discovered DNA, proves the innate mediocrity of this candidate as described by Jason Malloy in his NIH NLM abstract, “Dr. Watson was correct on all accounts: (1) Intelligence tests do reveal large differences between European and sub-Saharan African nations, (2) the evidence does link these differences to universally valued outcomes, both within and between nations, and (3) there is data to suggest these differences are influenced by genetic factors.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18440722/
Democrats do not have the best interests of U.S. Constitution and America in mind when they pursue this bizarre and incoherent course.
Next candidate.
Troll.
Thank you so much for reading…again.
I accept your concession of defeat.
Yep, all George does is troll, and he’s so repetitive that if you read a few of his comments months ago, you never need to read any more comments from him, as he never has anything new to say. Not only is he a bigot and a troll, he’s a boring bigot and troll.
What are you so deathly afraid of?
Thanks again for reading and learning…yet again.
Some questions for the Mrs Kunta Kinte (aka the Black Nominee)
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t. Not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
Are you…experienced? Have you ever been experienced?
For the radical left banana’s here who repeatedly cry out “Turley, Foxnews, Turley, Foxnews” you might want to notice how many Dims are trying to migrate to Foxnews. It’s understandable, Fox viewers represent the best of America.
Margot,
Read it and weep:
“Donald Trump attacks Fox News: ‘They forgot the golden goose’”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/13/donald-trump-attacks-fox-news-they-forgot-the-golden-goose
“Trump on Monday claimed without evidence that the network’s “ratings have completely collapsed.” Trump’s embrace of Newsmax has however translated into a ratings boost, with viewership jumping from an average of 65,000 people before the election to 800,000 viewers of its prime time shows this week, according to Nielsen data quoted in the New York Times, which reports that the NewsMax app was the fourth most popular on the Apple App Store on Thursday.
Later on Thursday, however, Trump tweeted his praise for two Fox hosts, both long-time Trump loyalists, touting a “must see” segment by commentator Sean Hannity and a “confirming and powerful piece” by Fox Business Network anchor Lou Dobbs.”
———
Oh, Fox banned Lou Dobbs in case you were wondering what happened to him.
There is nothing left to defend about American Progressivism. They have ceased being human. The Ginsburg rule? Puh-lease. What the dems did to Kavanaugh and Barrett wasn’t shameful – it was evil. And we are now supposed to believe simply asking questions is tantamount to murder? Pfft. The gaslighting about so, so many things we have endured over the past six years will live in infamy forever.
Take a good, long look, and if you have a shred of consciousness remaining, stop voting for these people. Stop giving them your attention, and stop giving them your dollars.
This is madness. Literal madness. At the same time, it is utterly transparent. Disgraceful doesn’t even begin to cover it.
“They have ceased being human.”
Gee, just yesterday, Epstein was complaining that Americans are “horrified by the progressive left’s increasing penchant for openly dehumanizing their political opponents” (https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/20/choosing-sides-the-congress-should-freeze-aid-to-countries-buying-russia-gas/comment-page-2/#comment-2167795), and here you are, a conservative dehumanizing your political opponents.
I told Epstein “I condemn everyone — on the right and on the left — who dehumanizes people. How about you — will you condemn both?,” but he wouldn’t answer. How about you: can you bring yourself to retract your dehumanizing claim and condemn everyone — on the right and on the left — who dehumanizes people?
Whenever a Democrat says, “Let me be clear,” or similar “clear” phrase, get ready for a DNC talking point/lie.
In the America of today’s left we have a network like MSNBC that has Mystal, Joy Reid and Al Sharpton spouting insanely racist untruths as their media and tech allies censor conservatives for “misinformation”. We have Twitter banning someone from saying that the “Admiral” in charge of medical affairs is a man even though he has testicles and a penis. We have swimmers being castigated for not wanting to change (get naked) in front of a fellow swimmer who has testicles and a penis. We have magazines and other organizations naming a man as one of the “women of the year” and yet if you state otherwise you will be censored for “misinformation”.
How would the left act if Fox had people on saying the opposite of what Reid and Mystal say? How would sponsors be attacked for having their products paying to give racist Mystal a forum to spout his ignorance and ugliness?
How our society allows a loser like Mystal to spout his racism on television without being shunned by all is proof of the soft bigotry of low expectations. A white person would never be allowed to say the things that Reid and Mystal say, but being black makes everyone cower rather than confront the low intelligence, racism and ignorance of these two grifters. How MSNBC allows these fools to be on the air without a counter argument is sickening.
Hullbobby,
I have stated before that I believe Mystal is an embarrassment and I shudder whenever I see him on MSNBC.
However.
Those who watch the Fox primetime shows of Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham and Mark Levin have no moral standing to condemn Mystal. I condemn all 5 of them. I don’t play favorites. Indeed, I would add Olbermann to that list of rage provocateurs.
It’s striking that Turley criticizes Mystal but doesn’t criticize Hawley for falsely claiming that KBJ has “a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes.” Here’s a better discussion of that:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/18/politics/republican-attacks-scotus-nominee-sentencing-record/index.html
Presumably Hawley will ask her about this (which I have no problem with), and she’ll politely correct any mistaken claims he makes.
You can’t handle the truth??? Look it up. It is true.
Not only do I handle the truth just fine, I advocate for the truth.
When you say “Look it up. It is true,” you didn’t say what “it” is. Maybe you failed to learn from your English teacher not to use pronouns with unclear referents.
I’m not taking the bait, Anon! Why would any fair minded person consider CNN as a reputable, believable source – give its track record of bias?
Anonymous, let it be noted that you are aligning yourself with Mystal. Two idiots, one a racist and another just a contrarian fool.
BS. In my 11:53 AM comment, I said “I don’t agree with [Mystal].” Mystal says a lot of things I disagree with, including here. But Hawley is wrong about KJB’s rulings on this.
But Hawley is wrong about KJB’s rulings on this.
Always the dishonest re-framing of the post. This post says nothing about judicial rulings
I pasted the relevant part of the post.
“Hawley and others have criticized the record of Judge Jackson as soft on crime, including child pornography. He noted that she recommended eliminating the five-year minimum sentence for child pornography”
Hawley is factual accurate, honest.
“This post says nothing about judicial rulings”
Hawley’s statements about KBJ aren’t limited to what Turley cited!
I quoted a false statement that Hawley made in my initial comment. Hawley claimed “Judge Jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker.” That’s what I was referring to by “her rulings.” In sentencing people indicted for child porn, KBJ makes a reasonable distinction between people who sexually abuse children to produce child porn and those who break child porn laws but don’t abuse kids.
As for the claim that you just quoted:
Hawley “failed to mention that the panel’s Republican appointees – including Judge Friedrich – also supported revising the sentences in a unanimous vote. ‘There were three Republicans on the Commission at the time including Judge Bill Pryor of the 11th Circuit, Ricardo Hinojosa, a judge in a border district, and Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed to the bench by Donald Trump,’ said Rachel Barkow, vice dean of NYU Law School and a former Sentencing Commission member. ‘I don’t think the three of them would be labeled soft on crime.'” — https://southernillinoisnow.com/2022/03/21/fact-check-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-child-porn-sentences-pretty-mainstream/
So yes, she recommended that and so did the rest of the judges on the panel, including all of the ones nominated by Republicans. Are you going to call all of them “soft on crime”?
One can understand your personal affinity for child pornography, but there are sentencing guidelines that she did not uphold. In other words, she didn’t follow the law. That is the question at hand. Will she uphold the Constitution as a Supreme Court Justice? The leeway provided to a trial judge should not exist on the Supreme Court. SC justices are there to uphold the Constitution, not to make new laws because they like them.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ …sentencing guidelines that she did not uphold. In other words, she didn’t follow the law. That is the question at hand.”
There’s a reason why they are called “ “guidelines” and not “requirements”.
Furthermore sentencing guidelines are NOT mandatory.
“ The Guidelines are not mandatory, because they may result in a sentence based on facts not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, in violation of the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 20 (2005). However, judges must consider them when determining a criminal defendant’s sentence.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/federal_sentencing_guidelines
She did indeed follow the law and do did three other Republican judges who agreed with the lower sentencing.
Clearly you have no clue about what you’re arguing.
“There’s a reason why they are called “guidelines” and not “requirements.””
I don’t want to waste my time with a stupid person.
If you could read intelligently, you would have recognized that the statement accounted for that. Take note of what was said. “The leeway provided to a trial judge should not exist on the Supreme Court.”
You are too stupid. You don’t know the difference between opinion and fact. You screwed up on Covid. You cite things without recognizing who you are quoting. Dumb, dumb, dumb, is your level of intellect.
Read and think before commenting.
I heard other legal commentators discuss the nominee’s problem with child porn and they all saw it as a problem during the hearings.
I am racist…I use statistics and facts…just like I am a genderist, men are on average taller…so if some one ask me who is usually taller I say Men. Young Black Men which are roughly 3% of society…commit over 50% of ALL murders…mostly in their own communities. So I KNOW that statistically…they are MORE likely to be murders. Just like Statistically, a man(based on DNA) competing as a women…is MORE likely to win.
And you use the exact formula used by every talking head to miss one emerging consequential trend after another. Be proud of your charter membership in the world is flat club.
Eb
And that emerging consequential trend is….(drum roll)…only using disparate impact theory when it benefits minorities and watching as the (m)asses lap it up as reality.
All true and wishing it away in the faculty lounge or legislatures won’t make it go away.
That for guyventer
On her defense she’s not completely wrong on her insinuation. Obviously she’s a controversial figure and there’s no shortage of controversial figures on the right either. There is a sliver of truth to what she says and Turley tacitly acknowledged that by mentioning the pizzagate shooting inspired by right wing nutties pushing their own crazy rhetoric which someone took seriously.
Hawley’s claims about judge Jackson being soft on sex offenders is deliberately designed to smear her. What Hawley did was cherry pick statements from the sentencing commission that we’re not even hers and leaves out the fact that most of those comments were follow up questions. It was a bipartisan commission that eventually came up with the decision to “go soft on sex offenders”.
but she is SOFT ON CRIME?
Smear Her?? Boo-fricking-hoo, go cry somewhere else. The Democrats wage nuclear war on GOP nominees and you think we should care that she was “smeared”?? Go pound sand. Go pound it until Hell freezes over.
When you say “On her defense she’s not completely wrong on her insinuation,” who are you referring to?
If you’re referring to Mystal, he’s a man. If you’re referring to KBJ, what “insinuation” are you talking about?
I was referring to Mystal. I was under the impression that it was a woman for some reason. It is a he, my apologies to Mystal.
You are not the only person who saw that photo and the name “Elie” and had the same “impression” about it.
That’s probably what it was
Typical MSNBC trash.
Noted, Mystal regularly shreds Turley as being a hack.
Note, Mystal is regularly WRONG!
I can tell you know wrongness intimately.
I’m starting to believe msnbc and cnn are supported with dark money. How else can you explain the things they do and hang on by a thread of viewers?
“starting”? Look up Gaslighting…
MSNBC is competing with CNN for the Stupid award. Despite this most Stupid statement, CNN remains far ahead.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, Fox News has been a long time award winner much longer.
Idiots who cannot think can say what they wish on this blog, but that doesn’t make what they say smart. Fox News is not perfect but has created far more informed people than CNN or MSNBC.
I disagree I think it is a close tie, Rachel Maddow weighs heavily in the tabulation of stupid points.
Why do lefties support and encourage low IQ commentators?
Why have Democrats run their cities into the ground for 60 years….other than it requires spending massive amounts of money…which they control and skim?
Why do you ask a loaded question? I don’t agree with him, but he isn’t low IQ.
How do you know? You don’t, and that is par for most things you say.
Good to know that you believe it’s possible for someone to graduate from an excellent law school and then pass the bar with a low IQ. Perhaps you have a low IQ that you believe that. Or perhaps you have an average IQ but your bias got in the way of thinking it through.
You graduated with a good degree and a bit more based on your rhetoric. Did that make you an intelligent person? No. It made you proficient in what you were trained to do, much like a person working on the factory floor of GM.
The question is whether or not you can think outside of your area of ‘expertise’. You demonstrate a lack of ability in that area. A lot of lawyers pass the bar, but can they think? Many do not and screw up all over the place. Jackson is an unknown, except she was considered for her position, not because she would make a reasonable jurist. Instead, the Biden Administration hopes she will decide cases based on her personal bias rather than the law. That is why the hearings are so important, but politicians are in control, so we will not find out who she is, and she will be appointed no matter what.
Will she uphold the Constitution? Probably not, because she was picked as a “sure thing”. She was not chosen to uphold the Constitution. The legislative branch is supposed to pass the laws, but the left is too dependent on the courts to do it for them. In the long run, that is terrible policy, but people of your nature can only think short-term.
Thanks for demonstrating that you are unable to counter the argument that Mystal doesn’t have a low IQ.
“Thanks for demonstrating that you are unable to counter the argument that Mystal doesn’t have a low IQ.”
Since you do not recognize how IQ ‘works’, let me state that IQ isn’t everything. How one applies what they have is of great importance. Some are unable to utilize their IQ and unable to think. You are one of them.
I won’t comment on Mystal’s IQ. There is no way I would know for sure, but you clearly said, ” he isn’t low IQ based on your inability to think.” Thinking overburdens you. That is why you did not attempt to define what a low IQ is in context while making a comment where you lack knowledge.
I take note you weren’t able to deal with the content of my post, such as: “Will she uphold the Constitution? Probably not, because she was picked as a “sure thing.” She was not chosen to uphold the Constitution. The legislative branch is supposed to pass the laws, but the left is too dependent on the courts to do it for them. In the long run, that is terrible policy, but people of your nature can only think short-term.”
A response to that question would involve the thinking process you do not have.
I said that Mystal isn’t low IQ. I provided an argument for why he isn’t low IQ. You are unable to counter that argument, which is about his IQ, and so you attempt to deflect to other things. Deflect away, but don’t expect me to follow you.
You want me to treat you like a good faith discussant. But you aren’t one, and I will not treat you as one.
You are a foolish person who doesn’t define his words. Nor are you able to respond to the essential portions of a discussion. “IQ isn’t everything. How one applies what they have is of great importance. Some are unable to utilize their IQ and unable to think. You are one of them.”
We are talking about people hired to comment on the news. Most have gone to college, so we deal with relative intelligence as intelligence differs in particular disciplines. Even attornies who pass the bar might not have that high an IQ. How one utilizes what they have is also important, as is their integrity, something you should concentrate on.
“You want me to treat you like a good faith discussant. But you aren’t one, and I will not treat you as one. ”
I respond in a fashion representing the person I am dealing with. You are not honest. I remain honest but look at your type of discussion as low and treat it as such.
Because they are “followed” by low IQ viewers! Such folk, in addition, of course, to their base: far-out leffties, wokers, progressives and Ds who thrive on watching fake “news” on their TVs!
Unhinged, Unbalanced, TDS infected Progressive. Did you expect anything different?? They have been spewing the same hate and violence for a long time. Just read the comment section about Judge Clarence Thomas being in the hospital in the Progressive tabloid, the Washington Post. Violence, hatred and division are the key attributes to Progressivism.
question…did the entire Biden family all make their money selling US government influence via Joe? Yes or No?
No.
That is a predictable answer from you. You know very little, so Biden doesn’t sell influence based on what you know. Of course, he does. Even the NYT has stated the Biden laptop is legitimate, and one doesn’t need the laptop to know the truth about Biden’s pay-for-play schemes.
Yes Indeed…they sure did.
Yes
You forgot “racist” – one of the best descriptors of folks like this.
If his name is Josh he must be a sosch.