John Adams Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Does anyone really care? Why would anyone care to regulate porn (except for child-porn)? Who cares and isn't the community standard now just about completely accepting of porn? Hard to say the community wants it regulated when the porn industry makes more money than the Hollywood box office. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/chief-judge-in.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 That judge is hottttttt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 The main problem here is he should have recused himself from this case. The pictures sound interesting. Alex Kozinski (at right), a conservative appointee of former president Ronald Reagan who is chief of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, posted a photo of naked women standing on all fours and painted to look like cows, as well as a video of a half-naked man with a farm animal. A step-by-step pictorial depicted a woman shaving her pubic hair and other images showed masturbation and what the Times called "contortionist sex." Clarence Thomas, supposedly, has a huge porn collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 and other images showed masturbation and what the Times called "contortionist sex." I could see why he'd be interested in contortionist sex. Dude hasn't seen his own dick in years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 The main problem here is he should have recused himself from this case. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 The main problem here is he should have recused himself from this case. At least he didn't "recuse" himself like this judge.... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/29/pneumatic_judge/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 At least he didn't "recuse" himself like this judge....http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/29/pneumatic_judge/ Penis pump judge faces stiff sentence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Penis pump judge faces stiff sentence? Dear God, that's funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 12, 2008 Author Share Posted June 12, 2008 I like the judge's reaction to all of this. Basically he's saying, "Who cares and grow up." At the same time, he's allowing the parties in the obscenity case to challenge his objectivity if they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 http://patterico.com/2008/06/16/alex-kozin...ife-speaks-out/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 The main problem here is he should have recused himself from this case. The pictures sound interesting. Alex Kozinski (at right), a conservative appointee of former president Ronald Reagan who is chief of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, posted a photo of naked women standing on all fours and painted to look like cows, as well as a video of a half-naked man with a farm animal. A step-by-step pictorial depicted a woman shaving her pubic hair and other images showed masturbation and what the Times called "contortionist sex." Clarence Thomas, supposedly, has a huge porn collection. One little correction: Though he was a Reagan appointee, he is widely considered to be the most liberal chief justice of the most liberal circuit court in the nation, and has subsequently had more rulings overturned by the Supreme Court than any other lower court in the nation. As to the "what's wrong with that" argument from the original post, well, it is certainly not considered appropriate to have a chief justice operating an animal porn website from his office chambers, so even the most liberal politicos, including Diane Feinstein, have publicly asserted he should be removed from the bench. This is one of those disturbing matters that are so crystal clear to everyone that there is actually bipartison agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 One little correction: Though he was a Reagan appointee, he is widely considered to be the most liberal chief justice of the most liberal circuit court in the nation, and has subsequently had more rulings overturned by the Supreme Court than any other lower court in the nation. As to the "what's wrong with that" argument from the original post, well, it is certainly not considered appropriate to have a chief justice operating an animal porn website from his office chambers, so even the most liberal politicos, including Diane Feinstein, have publicly asserted he should be removed from the bench. This is one of those disturbing matters that are so crystal clear to everyone that there is actually bipartison agreement. Read the link I just posted, he did no such thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 17, 2008 Author Share Posted June 17, 2008 One little correction: Though he was a Reagan appointee, he is widely considered to be the most liberal chief justice of the most liberal circuit court in the nation, and has subsequently had more rulings overturned by the Supreme Court than any other lower court in the nation. As to the "what's wrong with that" argument from the original post, well, it is certainly not considered appropriate to have a chief justice operating an animal porn website from his office chambers, so even the most liberal politicos, including Diane Feinstein, have publicly asserted he should be removed from the bench. This is one of those disturbing matters that are so crystal clear to everyone that there is actually bipartison agreement. It's hard being so wrong--good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Read the link I just posted, he did no such thing. Your link is a letter from the judge's wife. While I think her desire to defend her husband is an admirable quality for any wife to have, it provides absolutely no value as a source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 It's hard being so wrong--good job. Is that really the best you can do? I realize that the defense of the indifensible is not easy, but that's all you can come up with? Listen, I discuss politics with people on both sides of the fence on a daily basis, and whenever one side devolves into ad-hominem blurbs like the one above it's as if that party has waived the white flag and surrendered their argument. I know you can't win this one, knew it the moment I read your comments, but I at least had hope for a better fight on your part. This is no fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Dude, You're an idiot. Nothing more needs to be said...you've said it all above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Ad hominems aside from my good friends who defend Judge Kozinski's beastiality site, I would like to make one correction: Above I said he was the most liberal judge on the most liberal court, but that was an error. I meant to say that he is the most LIBERTARIAN judge on the most liberal court. Sorry for the typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 So, you've seen his 'beastiality site'? If the video of the 'beastiality' is the 'horney donkey' video as described you are a fuggin loon. As far as naked painted women, all you have to do is pick up a copy of SI's swimsuit issue to see that. Is that porn also? Did you even read the letter from his wife? What's your take on that bastion of journalistic integrity the LA Times? Edit: Molton- Is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Your link is a letter from the judge's wife. While I think her desire to defend her husband is an admirable quality for any wife to have, it provides absolutely no value as a source. And the LA Times is this great source? The LA Times didn't name who their source was, and the judge even called for an investigation into the matter. Do you think he would have done so if his wife's story was not accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Seeing that the Judge has now recused himself from the beastiality trial he was so ironically presiding over, it appears that the only thing left to determine is whether or not his fetish porn site was indeed being operated in any way from his judge's quarters. If he surfs the net for barnyard sex at home that's his business, but if he's operating a fetish site that is using his own real name from his own chambers...buh-bye judge. SD: If you, your wife, all your friends, and/or the entire free world, get off on fetish porn in their private time I could care less. I also could care less what the judge's wife, mommy, drinking buddy, or any other internal family member or friend has to say in defense of his character. The point is whether or not we want our chief justices operating such sites, publicly and in their own name, from their tax-payer supplied offices. I know if I operated a site like that from my company's computer I'd be fired. Bad judgment by the judge, and it will cost him dearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts