Too bad Breyer can't just stay on the court and pull a Brady after the current confirmation of Jackson. Hmmmm...
Didn't you post the same crap in the right thread where it was pointed out TO YOU why this is wrong? You seem to love to be mislead or like to spread craps. Judge Jackson Is an Unremarkable Sentencer in Child-p*rn Cases | National Review 2) The Stewart case has ugly facts, as all these cases do, but there also appears to be some hype that will be familiar to practitioners. Hawley says that, besides possessing thousands of child-p*rn images, the defendant “hoped to travel across state lines to abuse a 9-year-old girl.” Hoped is doing a lot of work in Hawley’s rendering. Obviously, if Stewart had actually crossed state lines and abused a nine-year-old girl, this would be a much different matter. But the Justice Department didn’t even charge him with attempting to do that. Hawley says the guidelines called for 97 to 121 months’ imprisonment. Clearly, the court’s Probation Department didn’t think so — it recommended a sentence of just 42 months. Judge Jackson imposed a sentence of 57 months. This is noteworthy for two reasons. First, it is over a year more than the Probation Department recommended. Second, for all the talk about Stewart’s “hope,” this was not a case of physically abusing a nine-year-old girl; the conviction centered on Stewart’s possession of pornographic images. If it had been anything more than that, the mandatory minimum five-year provision would have applied, requiring a sentence of at least 60 months. This probably explains why the Probation Department’s recommendation was so much lower than what Hawley says was the guidelines range. For her part, though, Judge Jackson’s sentence is very close to 60 months. That is, she treated the case with the seriousness of a mandatory-minimum case, even though it wasn’t one.
The text messages were among 2,320 that Meadows provided to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Unfortunately if Trump couldn’t be removed from office I highly doubt there will be enough votes to remove Thomas
I know. I almost didn’t post but I needed to say it. ‘dug in like ticks’ is the euphemism that comes to mind.
The left lawfully and constitutionally uncovering conflict of interest in the highest court in the land as well as uncovering a will and desire to overturn a free and fair election is cool af.
It will be interesting to see if the January 6 commission subpoenas ginni thomas. Or clarence thomas for that matter. I am not sure if clarence will be able to claim executive privilege. I know ginni won't be able. It will be interesting to see if she claims the fifth though. How clarence thomas will be able to keep his seat n the USSC is baffling. He had to be aware of the text messages and his wife's communications. he even was the only USSC justice that ruled against discovery of communications... how can anyone have any level of confidence in any supreme court ruling he is part of?
