Where Justice Kennedy finds his facts: Who cares? He doesn’t check them

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    • #11355 Reply

      By Radley Balko . . . In the 2002 case McKune v. Lile, the Supreme Court upheld a Kansas law that imposed harsher sentences on sex offenders who decli
      [See the full post at: Where Justice Kennedy finds his facts: Who cares? He doesn’t check them]

    • #11356 Reply
      charles pettus

      I would give 3:1 odds that if Justice Kennedy had the guts to publically say so, he would tell you that it wouldn’t have a made a difference even if he had the correct facts he was going to make the same ruling anyway. The fact that he had those bogus facts and cited them probably just gave him a little political cover. This is what leads me to think that, as I have been saying for the last 2-3 years, that there is another more onminous reason courts and legislatures are upholding SO laws. And the “Protecting the Public from Predators” banner proponents waive to justify them is a smoke screen. If this were the case them why not have the same type of laws,i.e., registry/registration, for murderers, robbers, car thiefs, home invaders, drug dealers, burgalers, con men: are these not predators too? And I’ll give 4:1 odds that proponents of SO laws can’t answer this question, if so I’d damn sure like to hear it.

    • #11357 Reply
      NH Registrant

      I am reading a very enlightening book right now called “The Child Abuse Industry” by Mary Pride. It shows how child protective agencies and politicians ignore facts and fudge numbers to meet their personal and financial agendas.

      So, facts really mean nothing these days. I quote the great Chris Hedges : “People are not moved by logic and reason. They are moved by a careful manipulation of emotion.”

    • #11358 Reply

      Is it possible to challenge these sitings over where they base their “facts”? If the High Court, is going to make a lasting decision based on “facts”, then it stands to reason, the those who would suffer from the decision of these justices should be able to challenge the facts to make sure that they are indeed facts. It’s much like an accused person having the right to face their accuser.

    • #11359 Reply

      Another review of this Ellman case study makes claims that the Solicitor General who supplied the pop culture legal opinion from Psychology Today to Justice Kennedy did not verify it. Kennedy did not verify it. The court has how many Justices–who did not verify it.
      Is this what they teach in law school? Take any old smattering of lies, dress them in supreme Court jargon, and set up Justice Department Programs that cost billions in taxpayer dollars and wreck hundreds of thousands of lives? To make Justices, judges, and lawyers rich and famous?
      Can’t we do anything about that/ It’s our country, after all.

Viewing 4 reply threads
Reply To: Where Justice Kennedy finds his facts: Who cares? He doesn’t check them
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">