Supreme Court Nominee is Anti Porn
 

...as if that wasn't a surprise...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39034.html

Good read, I would suggest that my peers read it as well.

Must be in the Steinem/Dworkin school of thought re adult entertainment. More recent feminists have a more nuanced/positive view of adult.

Yes, I thought we were becoming "more mainstream", what with Playboy on the "E" channel and Zack and Miri make a porno, lol.

She is ugly and never gets laid, no wonder she hates porn.

It would seem then that a successful Republican filibuster wouldn't be such a bad thing in this instance.

Almost all public figures in politics/law are anti-porn because of conservatives and mothers/fathers protecting their children, but I bet a significant percentage of them are sneaking peaks if not regularly viewing porn.

True, but if she truly thinks that porn is a "disease", then thats just more future drama if this bitch gets nominated :(

Maybe she has the qualifications but no judge should be nominee because of their personal view. That's corruption.

"The Chicago meeting in 1993 brought together some of the leading anti-pornography voices. On the stage in the law school’s auditorium, “Sex,” – Madonna’s book of nude photographs of herself – was dramatically ripped to shreds by a group of attendees, the Chicago Tribune reported. A visitor who attempted to leave anti-censorship flyers on a literature table was spat on, according to another account.
"

What is getting rid of porn really going to solve?

I can't anticipate many 'pro-porn' nominees.

But I thought we had to vote for Obama because we are in the porn business....... but now her nominates an anti-porn judge??? :Oh crap

No...it is not a surprise...that just makes her position one...that not only is the majority of the U.S...but also the world.

In most of the western world you can still drink your own pee on live cam without going to jail :pimp

Anyone who speaks about changing verbiage to trample rights also considers the Constitution a speed bump in the path to power. NOT SUPREME COURT WORTHY IMO

It will take another generation before we no longer have to deal with Justices that arent anti-porn.

Funny thing is she talks about WOMEN in porn. And protecting women from being in porn. So I guess the thought of GAY porn never crossed her mind?

She pressed for ?new and harsher penalties against the kinds of violence against women that takes place in producing pornography, the use of pandering statutes and pimp statutes against pornographers?perhaps the initiation?the enactment of new statutes prohibiting the hiring of women for commercial purposes to engage in sexual activities.?

So apparently preventing WOMEN from being abused by pornographers is something the must be done. Men that get abused....well apparently she doesn't give a fuck. Being a lesbian I thought for sure she'd be all about protecting gays.

I thought US justice should be blind? If they have publicly announced any preconceptions about anything, how the hell can they be a fair judge?

has there ever been a porn case at the sc level?

Out of curiosity, are there any members of the Supreme Court who specifically claim to be PRO Porn?

Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?

Well yes...over obscenity...and the Supreme Court ruled that community standards apply.

And that was nearly 40 years ago. And with the internet the "community standards" provision needs to be re-evaluated.

i was thinking porn specifically. not obscenity or dist. of obscene materials.

a list of sc obscenity cases

http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/06co...nal/cases.html

Judges are PEOPLE not robots. Name me ONE human that doesn't have an opinion on ANYTHING. Basically what you are asking for is someone that is smart and logical but unemotional and pretty much doesn't give fuck about anything one way or the other. Sounds like a Vulcan.

Considering that anti-porn people consider ALL porn to be obscenity. I would guess that 99% of obscenity cases involve whether some porn is obscene.

there's no need to guess, it's all on that link in black & white. there's very little re: porn in ~30 cases.

Nor can I, but this one comes off as being rabidly anti so.

Worse still, Kagan's opposition to porn draws it's substance from the Dworkin-MacKinnon school of jurisprudence.

Not good :(

You've just proven my point :upsidedow

You expect the Far Left to make sense?

Cunningstunt, I love you for commenting on the politico article! No, it is absolutely fair to have an opinion. However, having an opinion and actively trying to stamp shit out are two entirely different matters.

@dyna mo, according to the article, she is all for passing "introductory" legislation to challenge the validity of free speech in relation to adult, and yes, that concerns me as well.

i hear what you are saying but the distance between passing "introductory" legislation challenging the validity of free speech in relation to adult and it coming up before the supreme court is vast. and quite frankly, this industry needs some regulation, we obviously can't do it ourselves.

exactly!!!


.

"low quality" speech is just a slippery slope imho. In a free country, a small group of people don't decide what speech has value and which has none. Our forefathers have been rolling over in they're graves for some time now.

The democrats would never touch the internet or look to hurt porn! It is only right wing nut jobs.....

I actually think that both parties are one and the same now, save the "good cop", "bad cop" scenarios. :Oh crap

If you're ugly and can't get laid, wouldn't you like porn?

i re-read the article and i can't find anything in there i find troubling about her.

yeah me to :mad:

I had a sense this might happen, as evidenced in an XBIZ article written right after the '08 election cautioning people about this possibility.

The article is rather long, so I've quoted the two most relevant paragraphs below:

All that said, had McCain won, I sincerely doubt we would have received two "pro porn" nominees for SCOTUS from McCain. I also suspect that even a judge who consumes porn privately would be publicly critical, or at best publicly neutral on the subject, particularly if they have any ambition to climb the judicial career ladder. :2 cents:

And how many invovled something other than SEX? Which is my point.

If McCain had won we'd have 2 more neo-cons on the court which would be even less likely to view porn favorably.

Yeah because a pornographer supporting a party that is run buy fundmentalist Christians makes more sense?

Duh, she's a Liberal.