Lindsay throws a Hissy

Following the completion of his questioning of SCOTUS nominee KBJ, Sen. Graham stormed out of the hearing like a child who had his ball taken away from him. Well, bless his soul, his choice for the seat was not chosen.

His attention grabbing efforts are noted for one thing: It’s lack of maturity. – IMO

41 thoughts on “Lindsay throws a Hissy

    1. …” before abruptly walking out of the hearing room”

      Quoted from this report:

      He was combative, which is not disrespectful, but his storming out because of not liking the answers to his questions about her previous work as a LAWYER, is the epitome of disrespect.

      He has made it clear that he was upset about his choice of J. Michelle Childs, from SC was not being considered and about attempts by outside groups to attack her, which has ZERO to do with Jackson and her qualifications or abilities.

      His justifications for not voting for her nomination (which he made pretty clear in his words) have nothing to do with Jackson’s ability, qualification, or character; just his little Trump loving dick got stepped on and he is acting very much the child.

      Bless his heart. (Is that better?, Don?)


      1. I’ll have to try to find the video.

        If her answers were anything like those she was giving Cruz when I turned on the TV on,(evasive, talking a lot without answering the question) walking out before screaming at her would have been appropriate.

        There are some topics a nominee cannot address, of course, but Cruz’s questions on sentencing in child porn cases deserved direct answers and she would not give them.


        1. Evasive is what nominees have been doing for decades, regardless of who nominated them. That is a bullshit excuse. If that were the case, “I like beer” would have been disqualifying.

          By the way, Lindsay seemed to do a little screaming of his own, but that is not how I would expect a Senator to behave.

          WRT her record on those charges, if you (and Sen. Cruz) would dig a little deeper, you would find that there is a disparity in the law (thank you Congress) concerning receipt and possession. Possession has no mandatory minimum; receipt carries a five year MM. How can you possess something without receiving it? Unless you produce it, then you have really stepped in it. Her work on the sentencing guidelines commission attempted to address that, but Congress knows a third rail when it sees one. (Notice I did NOT indicate party).

          Judges are given leeway within the law to go up or down on a sentence, based on numerous factors. If she had to explain each and every reason why her departures went one way or the other, we would be waiting to replace Coney Barret after her death on the bench (at the age of 99).


          1. Yes, your cite to the insider is absolutely disgraceful

            Sen Cruz followed up with a chart showing Child Porn cases where Jackson sentenced offenders to significantly less than the guidelines. Often less than half the recommended minimum.

            Cruz questioning

            I’m not sure if I heard her correctly, but what I think she said was that sentencing that was ‘corrective’ was Constitutional and that which was ‘punitive’ was not.

            The Constitution says no such thing and I am unsure of the context in which that statement was made, but if I heard that correctly, that would be very troubling.


          2. You are aware that 59% of sentences in non-contact/non-production child porn charges were BELOW the prosecutors recommendation?

            Probably not. You’re too focused on your Dem hating.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. As Jackson herself conceded in her hearing, there would be production of child porn absent a market for it, and that production requires the sexual abuse of children.

            If a person buys or trades child porn, he is paying tor the abuse of children which is why Congress authorized the sentencing recommendations.

            Paying for abuse is abuse.


          4. Nice try. But there are several levels of charges involved here.

            How many charges can you face if you take a life? From involuntary manslaughter to capitol murder. Should everyone charged for one of those crimes be sentenced in the same way?

            The broad brush used to paint ALL charged with crimes related to child pornography makes little sense.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Yeah, you, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley. So worried about our children!

            How do you manage to end up on the dishonest side of every fake “issue?” Don’t bother to answer. It is a rhetorical question.

            Once again the deplorables of the GOP cannot stop embarrassing themselves. Honest observers from all ends of the political spectrum have called this “issue” what it is – bullshit.

            For example, the National Review. . . “The allegation appears meritless to the point of demagoguery.”

            Or, the AP . . .

            Or Vox . . .

            or WAPO. . . Never mind, you won’t read it

            or WSJ . . . The [Hawley] tweets were criticized by people across the ideological spectrum who said Mr. Hawley’s commentary lacked context, misconstrued Judge Jackson’s conduct and writings, and created a false dichotomy between protecting children and adhering to outdated sentencing guidelines that were unduly harsh.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. WRT to her answers to Sen Cruz, this answer says a lot about her judicial temperament. And Cruz’s ( plus Hawley , et al. to come) desire to attack the nominee.

          “A couple of observations: One is that your chart does not include all of the factors that Congress has told judges to consider, including the probation office’s recommendation in these cases,” Jackson responded, prompting Cruz to say the committee did not have those recommendations available for review.”

          Then maybe the “committee” should have their staff do a little bit more research. Those recommendations are part of the work that goes into the prosecutors sentencing recommendations.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Yes, those things do go into the prosecutor’s recommendations, but her sentences were significantly LESS than the prosecution’s recommendation.

            Now, if it is her opinion that the guidelines are excessive, she is entitled to advocate that position, but she is not entitled to change the law from the bench based on her opinion.


          2. “Now, if it is her opinion that the guidelines are excessive, she is entitled to advocate that position, but she is not entitled to change the law from the bench based on her opinion.”

            You have quite a knack for making categorical truthy sounding statements on subjects about which you are obviously ignorant.

            As a matter of FACT federal sentencing guidelines are NOT binding. The word “guidelines” gives it away.


            So, your blather about what a judge is “entitled to do” is a lot of hot air.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) said most of the information Republicans were seeking was already published in the Washington Post.

            “Is there anything else that Democrats have access to of Judge Jackson’s record that you have not shared with Republicans on this committee?” Mr. Cruz asked.

            Democratic Sen. Cory Booker jumped in to say he didn’t get the information in a timely manner either.

            “So, I’m very upset,” Mr. Booker said to chuckles in the hearing room. “I join Ted Cruz.”


            Durban told Cruz that information on the reports had already been published in WAPO.
            I guess Republicans don’t do their own research before whining.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Publicly available information does not need specific disclosure.

            Sounds like a lot of staff members need to be fired from the GOP Judiciary Committee members.

            The excuses for the GOP’s idiocy in attacking Jackson is as hideous as the attacks themselves. The blatant disregard for ALL of the information and the usual grandstanding cherry-picking of PUBLICLY available information is lazy, plays to the base and does nothing to find out if Judge Jackson is uniquely qualified to sit on the bench. (it is no secret that she is.)

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Are you saying that the actual probation reports, which were in the possession of the Democrat Senators, were published in WAPO? Or just commentary based on those reports?


          6. ANY staff member worth his or her salt will find out ALL of the information so as to ensure their boss doesn’t come off as an idiot for not having all of the facts. The information was available, they did not get it, so the GOP Senators are looking idiotic when ALL of the facts come to light.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. The court where the charges were tried. Pretty basic shit for a Congressional staffer. If the Dems had them, that is how they got them. Why should they do the work for the GOP?

            Liked by 1 person

          8. “Where do you get probation officer’s presentencing reports?”

            As pointed out at the hearing, those are sealed documents to protect the identities and lives of the victims among other things. Republicans want to drag out and leak this stuff to make political hay out of a titillating subject.

            All the rest is as available to both sides of the aisle.


          9. First, I would wager that few politicians and staff from both sides of the aisle are ignorant of WAPO. Despite what the silo approves, WAPO is still a very loud voice in DC.

            Second, if it was public knowledge, then Republicans wanting to question Jackson should have done their own research before acting so hurt.

            If you forgot your umbrella and got soaked because you did not check the paper for weather, it is not anybody’s fault but yours.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. “Disclosure does not include a subscription to WAPO.”

            The essential facts were laid out in the Fox piece YOU linked to. In response to the scurrilous attacks on KBJ’s sentencing history the Democrats asked for some staff work by the White House. The Republicans got the results of that work based on publicly available information the same day. That was made clear in YOUR piece.

            To be very generous, it appears that once again, you were hoodwinked by the partisan headline and did not even read the piece.

            Liked by 1 person

        3. The majority of federal judges, Trump appointees included, often do not give the guideline sentences in child pornography cases. Plus, in 5 out of 7 of Hawley’s cases, she went by prosecutors’ recommendations.

          But, this will be a big deal for the right because it fits so “well” with Pizzagate.

          So let’s see, that is part of the sex topics. Next is gun rights, marriage and CRT.

          The usual.

          Liked by 2 people

    1. I thought it was “bless his li’l ole pea pickin’ heart”?
      (At least that is what NC native and cheerleader for small towns, Andy Griffith used to say.)

      In NY “fugetaboudit” has a similar connotation depending on context.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. I really don’t care abt drama, all I care abt is the blatant discrimination by Biden in assigning black and female as the primary qualifications and none other need apply. No males at all and no females of any race/ethnicity. Doesn’t it even burn your behind at all or is it only ok if a Democrat does it. If she had just been chosen from a full field of candidates that would have been fine but that isn’t the case and you should be extremely ashamed to support discrimination to the highest degree.


    1. Reagan did it with a White woman. How many superbly qualified males did he screw over with that appointment?

      Or superbly qualified Black males? Or superbly qualified Black females?

      Jackson was on a short list of 43 candidates.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. A short list of what? Please do tell. This lady is nothing more than a product of Obama and Biden who both made her career and no one else.


        1. “Obama and Biden who both made her career and no one else.”

          Her career was made by HER and by no one else. Duh!

          She rose to her current prominence by virtue of her intelligence, education, hard work and sacrifice. In 1996 she was a supervising editor at the Harvard Law Review. I know you people don’t put much value on education, but that is a sign that she was one of the best in a University that produces the best. By 1999-2000 she was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Such clerkships go only to the best. She was picked for the Sentencing Commission in 2009 because she was ALREADY a rising start in the justice system.

          She is FAR better qualified for this appointment than ANY of Trump’s SCOTUS appointees, so please do not swallow the racist bullshit that she was picked over better qualified white men.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. SO what.

          Your complete and total disregard of her actual legal career is not even a dog whistle any more. You have an issue with a Black woman being elevated and you think it is ONLY because she is Black? Her qualifications speak for themselves. Too bad she isn’t a white, cisgender male like yourself.

          Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barret were all MADE by The Heritage Foundation.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s