Material about child pornography to use to oppose the confirmation of Katanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court

Katanji Brown Jackson

By Robert Willmann

Supreme Court Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. took the oath of office in December 1902 and retired in January 1932. He became known for writings on the philosophical foundation of certain legal doctrines and governmental law. From his experience he called the court, “Nine scorpions in a bottle”. A simple majority can make a ruling covering the entire country, estimated today to be 332 million people. With a job for life after nomination by the president and being confirmed by the senate, the judges can be removed only through impeachment by the House and a trial in the Senate.

Katanji Brown Jackson, nominated by Joe Biden to replace the retiring Judge Stephen Breyer, is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court, for more than one reason. The most obvious one at this time is her baffling and incomprehensible attitude of leniency about the vicious crime of child pornography.

The world of child pornography is not only about images of nude children and sexual contact and sex acts with children, but it also includes sado-masochism directed at children, primarily sadism. The word sadism includes forms of torture. And the word child includes babies.

Immediate action is needed to persuade enough U.S. Senators to vote against confirming Jackson so that she will not become a judge on the Supreme Court. Relevant evidence is provided below.

This is the time for all readers to contact the two senators from their state and calmly but firmly say that their vote should be “no” on putting Jackson on the Supreme Court.

Those who have had training and experience in military intelligence and in the CIA about contacting people, directly or through intermediaries, and working to persuade them to take a particular action, can put the training and experience to work in a personal and private capacity, and develop an approach to get one or more senators to vote “no” on Jackson.

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, government, Justice, Politics, Transcripts and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Material about child pornography to use to oppose the confirmation of Katanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court

  1. fakebot says:

    Well done. Making the crime more lenient might be the closest pedophiles can get to “legalizing” it. Something has to be done to at least get her to go on record and admit the sort of leniency she has given in the past was a mistake. She should not be allowed to dodge the issue.

  2. blue peacock says:

    Republican senators Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski have stated that they will vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    I don’t believe there’s a single Democrat senator who will oppose her confirmation.

    A Supreme Court that has allowed mass surveillance in violation of due process is a political tribunal and not an impartial adjudicator of the laws embodied in the Constitution.

    Sexual assault of children is not only heinous but reprehensible.

  3. Babeltuap says:

    Sentences are more severe for selling small amount of elephant ivory than being caught with material showcasing the raping and torturing of children to include distributing it. This is our new SCOTUS. Let’s enjoy this ride to the gates of hell together.

  4. Fred says:

    It looks like Senator Durbin, and by extension, the Democratic Party, supports being soft of child pornographers. “we now live in a world of internet and access to…thousands of images” Why on Earth is he supporting this?

    • Longarch says:

      “we now live in a world of internet and access to…thousands of images” Why on Earth is he supporting this?

      The following is educated guesswork, not professional-tier analysis.

      First factor: I imagine many politicians who don’t want to change the status quo have sloppy information security. If the rules are lenient and some prankster slips a forbidden computer file onto their networks, they know how to cope with that minor emergency. If the rules become more severe, they will have to make big changes to how they do business.

      Second factor: I imagine many politicians have important political alliances with people of questionable sexual ethics. Changing the status quo might endanger those alliances. One recent tragic case highlights the vulnerability of prominent lawyers:

      I don’t know the details, but it seems Michalski had a longtime friend named Peter Gerace. As Michalski became a lawyer, Peter Gerace got involved in the strip-club business. And for many years, Michalski seemed to have a good reputation. Then, apparently because the strip-club owner was accused of human trafficking, Michalski was subjected to extreme stress. One unsuccessful suicide attempt was noted; the second known suicide attempt was successful. I suspect many congresspersons who don’t want tighter anti-porn rules fear that they might also be driven to suicide for the alleged actions of their friends.

Comments are closed.