Skip to comments.Obama nominee's sympathy for sexual sadists (Nominee to 2nd Circuit)
Posted on 03/16/2010 6:34:17 AM PDT by Zakeet
President Obama's judicial nominees are getting more dangerous with each White House announcement.
If you don't believe us, consider one judge's opinion that the "sexual sadism" of a multiple rapist-murderer was "clearly a mitigating factor" that argued against executing the murderer and perhaps even against convicting him in the first place. Or that a type of Megan's Law sex-offender registry should be overturned because it "stigmatizes nondangerous registrants." Even a child-porn convict should serve a sentence less than half as long as official guidelines suggest if his mental and emotional condition is fragile.
U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny of Connecticut, appointed by President Clinton, thinks all of this crazy nonsense and has so ruled or argued. Yet on Feb. 24, Mr. Obama nominated Judge Chatigny for promotion to a seat on the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Senate Judiciary Committee rushed to schedule his nomination hearing for March 10 before Republican objections delayed it.
The worst case, though, was that of serial murderer Michael Ross, who abducted, sexually tortured and then killed women or girls ...
The judge said he had been convinced that "sexual sadism" was a mental disorder that made Ross as much victim as criminal. Said the judge about Ross: "He's at Cornell, he had this classmate, this petite Asian girl who is sweet, and he likes her, and he winds up killing her because he has this affliction, this terrible disease ... this awful, uncontrollable impulse to sexually brutalize this person he liked and then kill her. ... Michael Ross may be the least culpable, the least, of the people on death row."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
My highly trained legal mind found another Libtard Lulu who can do some real damage to our court system
Note: The article's excerpt doesn't do justice summarizing this Fruit Cake.
Hey,sadism is just “another kind of love”...a phrase coined by this nation’s perv lobby.
Sexual sadism is simply another stop on the spectrum of amoral human sexuality. It is a sexual preference. It is a sexual orientation.
We should not discriminate in matters of sexual preference or sexual orientation.
See the current news re Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and his statement to Virginia colleges and universities regarding sexual orientation clauses in anti-discriminatory statements by these academic institutions.
Obamites, sick, Sick, SICK to the core.
Between Obambi's vigorous defense of the indefensible partial birth abortion to his Kevin Jennings Safe-for-pedophiles-schools czar, as well as his Dear Uncle Frank pedophile drinking buddy father figure, connecting the dots is a worrisome thing with P.T. Obama, fooling some of the people, all of the time.
And this individual had no capacity to seek HELP for his “affliction”? So society should simply excuse his actions???
We have laws to protect the rest of us from sick monsters, your “honor”.
There is no such thing as a "nondangerous registrant". What a load.
And that's exactly the point behind executing the scum.
It's not about revenge. It's about justice and protecting society from scum like that. If he had been executed the first time, there would be more women alive today, who did not die horrible, brutal deaths.
The perp is not a *victim*. I think I'm going to be sick.
It's people like that which makes me hope there's a real hot spot in hell for them.
“He’s at Cornell, he had this classmate, this petite Asian girl who is sweet, and he likes her, and he winds up killing her because he has this affliction, this terrible disease ... this awful, uncontrollable impulse to sexually brutalize this person he liked and then kill her.”
Asian women just can’t be trusted. Lots of white men have learned this the hard way, but few have been so badly victimized as Michael Ross.
Rabies is a disease, also. Animals who have rabies didn’t ask to contract it. Still, we kill them to prevent them from doing further damage.
That wasn’t me talking. I was channeling the Judge’s mind.
okay! At first I thought the judge actually said that...
“...We have laws to protect the rest of us from sick monsters, your honor...”
Laws do nothing.
A firearm in your hand or on your person equalizes the odds in your favor.
You are the First Responder. You are responsible for your own safty; no one else on this planet is responsible for protecting your life.
That young girl, had she been armed and trained even a little (a responsibility which belongs to her FATHER) would at least have had a fighting chance - maybe even putting this rabid animal down before he could hurt anyone else.
And as far as this judge goes - him, and people like him, are just as responsible for the death of this girl and others because they will not do their job and put these freak-fiends away.
I can almost guarantee this scumbag judge is also against personal firearms ownership and self defense.
To my mind - every time a person is murdered in a city/town/county etc that prohibits the carrying of firearms, EVERY SINGLE PUBLIC SERVANT THAT VOTED ON AND SIGNED THAT BILL INTO LAW should have their faces, names, and addresses put up on a billboard so that the families of the victims can see who they are - and who is just as responsible for the murder of their loved on as the criminal who carried it out.
All “In The Public Interest”, you see...
Placemark for pingout.
The sex positive agenda seeks to end ALL moral judgements over ALL sexual pairings.
Down is up. Wrong is right. The law is a ass.
No, but just from short quoted portion in the opening paragraph that appeared under the heading, it seemed to me the Judge was thinking along these lines. Why emphasize “cute Asian girl”, like if the girl was not Asian, or not cute, then none of this every would have happened? I saw the list of his victims, and the rest were not Asian, and about half were teenagers, one girl was only 14.
Considering the number of repeat offenders, if they had been taken care of the first time around, the streets would be a lot safer.
Not only would it prevent them from doing it again, but it would send a message to others thinking of the same thing and might discourage some of them.
She may very well have been trained, but I don’t know of any state that allows a 14 year old to carry a concealed weapon.
All the training in the world isn’t going to help unless the people can actually use it when they need to.
Funny how a hundred years or so ago, when all kids knew how to use a gun by that age, that firearms never posed the danger to society that the gun grabbers warn us will happen if they’re unrestricted.
RE “14 year old girl ...carry”
My bad; misread the article/gir’s age.
The rest of my commentary still stands, though.
Both of my kids shot Expert at young ages.
Both will protect their lives by any means necessary now.
You’re right, of course.