March 16, 2011
Judge Weinstein issues 420-page tentative opinion(!?!) indicating views on unconstitutionality of 5-year man min for CP distribution
Today's New York Law Journal includes a remarkable report on US District Judge Jack Weinstein's latest remarkable "ruling" in a federal chil porn sentencing case. The article is headlined "Judge Battles 'Harsh' Sentence for Distribution of Child Porn," and here are excerpts:
After a four-year battle with the Second Circuit over whether the required five-year minimum sentence for distribution of child pornography is too harsh, Eastern District Judge Jack B. Weinstein has now proposed cutting in half the minimum sentence of a 19-year old who pleaded guilty to distribution....
[I]n United States v. C.R., 09 cr 155, Judge Weinstein is tackling the federal minimum head on, proposing in a draft opinion that applying the five-year sentence to the 19-year-old would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Instead, Judge Weinstein is proposing a 2 1/2-year sentence for CR....
In the case of CR., who pleaded guilty in September 2009, Judge Weinstein began last June to lay the groundwork for sentencing. On his own motion in a June 3, 2010, order, he directed the prosecution and defense to address questions at a hearing that would enable him to assess what punishment would be fair to both CR and the community. He asked the parties to weigh in on the risk CR. poses to children, the risk that he will be abused in prison and his developmental maturity at the time of the crime and presently. The hearing took place over seven days and ended in January.
Last Friday, Judge Weinstein issued a "tentative draft" 420-page opinion, setting forth his reasoning that CR. should be sentenced to only 2 1/2 years in prison, followed by long-term therapy and close supervision by the probation department in the community. Judge Weinstein also proposed finding "grossly excessive" the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines calculation prepared by U.S. Probation Department, which called for a sentence in the range of 14 to 17 years.
The judge convened a hearing for May 13 and ordered the two sides to file their briefs a week earlier. He said he was issuing the draft opinion to "facilitate a focused discussion of relevant issues." In his March 10 order, like the June 3 order, Judge Weinstein listed issues for the parties to address, and advised them that his draft is subject to change based on their briefs, arguments and further consideration by the court.
CR, who began viewing child pornography at age 15, was arrested at age 19 after a sting operation by the FBI in which he shared images with an agent posing as a "buddy" in a peer-to-peer file sharing program. The FBI seized two computers showing that he had shared pornographic images with between 10 and 20 users through two peer-to-peer programs. Forensic analysis of computers revealed that CR had shared 100 images and 200 videos of child pornography. CR pleaded guilty to one count of distributing child pornography.
In preparing its pre-sentencing report, the probation department, added five points to its guideline calculation because CR. acknowledged in interviews with probation officers "having sexual interaction" with his half-sister who is seven years younger than he....
In the case of CR, hearings have produced thousands of pages of testimony and documents exploring such technical issues as the reliability of methods used to assess the likelihood that CR will commit sex crimes in the future. Judge Weinstein noted that neuropsychological research as to CR's insight, judgment and culpability "weighs heavily in the court's determination that the five-year mandatory sentence is unconstitutional."
A mandatory term, as applied to CR, Judge Weinstein added, "lacks any legitimate penological justification." After his release, CR will require long-term treatment in the community, he added, to enable him "to mature into a responsible, productive, law abiding individual."
Wowsa! I will provide links to both this NYLJ article and to Judge Weinstein's 420-page "tentative draft" opinion when they possible.
March 16, 2011 at 02:41 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judge Weinstein issues 420-page tentative opinion(!?!) indicating views on unconstitutionality of 5-year man min for CP distribution:
Remember Bill: No weighing in on a sentence unless you've read the whole case file - according to your own rules.
Posted by: Amused by Bill | Mar 16, 2011 3:13:10 PM
Amused by porn --
What I said was that I would not recommend a SPECIFIC sentence unless if had reviewed all the files. Did you forget that part?
I'm not going to read this 420 page thing. Neither are you and neither is almost anyone else not directly connected to the case. But I can tell you this: Any ruling by Weinstein that a five year term for an adult convicted of a CP felony is an Eighth Amendment violation will not garner a single vote on the SCOTUS, and I very much doubt it will get a single vote in CA2. You wanna cite me some precedent that would support it?
Weinstein is setting himself up as Congress in the (poor) disguise of judicial review of the Constitutionality of the statute. But I don't recall his having been elected.
The idea that five years for an offense like this is unconstitutional is so preposterous that I doubt even you believe it. Still, I hope Weinstein keeps right on going. A case like this will be used for years by conservatives as an example of the dangers and excesses of judicial review.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2011 4:22:28 PM
Given his other cases (particularly the one he set aside after deciding not telling the jury about the mandatory sentence was error) I expect the 2nd to reverse here, and correctly. Possibly taking the case away from Weinstein. It has to be nearing a point (if he has not already crossed any such line) where it is obvious that Weinstein refuses the acknowledge controlling legal authority in this area.
If it were simply a matter of ignoring the 14-17 year guideline recommendation it would likely be okay. The guidelines are after all now advisory. But to ignore statutory command is another thing entirely.
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Mar 16, 2011 4:25:25 PM
Exactly. Five years for distribution is so far from the Constitutional line that this opinion is just showboating for his liberal pals in NYC.
It is also, however -- and as you say -- a virtual slap in the face to controlling authority. He's so old I wonder whether the CA2 would view it as ungenerous to kick him off the case regardless of the provocation. But going on and on for a 420-page "tentative" extravaganza is good evidence that it's time for Weinstein to retire.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2011 4:44:18 PM
Thanks for swallowing the bait! You're always such a good sport about that.
So - although you will not weigh in on a SPECIFIC sentence for the defendant in this case without having read the file, I get the impression that you think the SPECIFIC sentence J. Weinstein plans to impose is too low. But if you can't tell what the SPECIFIC sentence should be without reading the file, how can you tell what the SPECIFIC sentence should not be without reading the file?
Posted by: Amused by Bill | Mar 16, 2011 6:44:34 PM
There you go again Bill. "showboating for liberal his liberal friends in NYC." another ridiculous personal attack with no evidence. You just proved mt point that your opinions are fantasy. Thanks for the additional evidence you are a total jerk.
Posted by: Steve Prof | Mar 16, 2011 7:28:23 PM
Amused by porn --
The "bait," as you put it, has nothing to do with you (sorry to disappoint). It's a 420 page judicial extrazaganza holding that a five year sentence, as a mandatory minimum (i.e., required as the floor in every case), is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. There's no way I would pass up posting on something this juicy.
As I said, and conspicuously you don't dispute, a statutorily-required minimum sentence that low for distribution of CP could not possibly be found cruel and unusual, it being neither. And then there's the, uh, precedent problem, which you also understandably by-pass.
As I said, I hope Weinstein "keeps right on going. A case like this will be used for years by conservatives as an example of the dangers and excesses of judicial review." I might add, now that I think of it, that since we're concerned about saving money, we might start by limiting Weinstein to, say, an even 400 pages. Think he could get by on that?
The spectacular amount of self-regard betrayed by a district court writing a 420 page opinion is breathtaking. With any luck, other liberal judges will provide more such "bait." This is the kind of object lesson I'm looking for to add into the course I teach at Georgetown on "Conservatism in Law in America." We devote an hour to judicial review, and this is a real peach.
Of course, while I might point out the decision to my students, I won't make them read it. That really WOULD be cruel and unusual.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2011 7:41:14 PM
Steve Prof --
I note that your comment rebuking me for personal attacks ends with the words, "Thanks for the additional evidence you are a total jerk."
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2011 7:57:42 PM
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Billy Boy ..so what evidence to you have for your slam against a federal judge...at least you provide self evidence that you are a jerk
Posted by: Steve Prof | Mar 16, 2011 8:30:43 PM
P.S. If you care to discuss the topic here, that being whether a five year MM for distribution of child porn is a violation of the Eighth Amendment, please feel free.
I have taken the view that it is not. I gather that you concur, since in your two posts you have not attempted to defend Weinstein's result. If I'm wrong about that, and you have an argument in favor of the district court's judgment, I'm all ears.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2011 8:45:17 PM
No, Bill having you as their professor would be C&UP!!!!
Posted by: Steve Prof | Mar 16, 2011 8:46:22 PM
"No, Bill having you as their professor would be C&UP!!!!"
The student evaluations were contrariwise, but then why would students who actually took the course know anything about it?
I remain interested in any arguments you might be able to furnish on the actual topic here, to wit, whether a five year MM for distribution of child porn is a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2011 8:57:12 PM
Unlike you Bill, I don't spout off about judicial opinions I have not read ...something you seem to do with ease ..and your assumption that the length of the opinion is related to "self-regard" just shows your colors
Posted by: Steve Prof | Mar 16, 2011 8:59:12 PM
I am not asking you to address the OPINION. I'm asking you to address the ISSUE, which long pre-existed this opinion or this case. The issue is whether a five year MM for distribution of child porn is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Do you have any view of that issue? If so, what arguments and precedent does you view rely upon?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2011 9:14:21 PM
I'm sure it will be considered trolling on this site, as it has sadly devolved, to post a comment that tries to be on point and informed, but I'll just give it a try: I have read the Legal Analysis portion of Judge Weinstein's opinion, which is not overlong (pp 351-402), and his application of section 3553 to the case at hand (pp 403-417). After rejecting four other constitutional arguments advanced by the defendant, Judge Weinstein sustains the Cruel & Unusual Punishment argument, as applied to this defendant, on the facts and circumstances of the case -- he does not invalidate the MM on its face; indeed, he had sustained it against such a challenge in the Polouizzi case. Defendant C.R. engaged in downloading and sharing of CP from the age of 15 to the age of 19. The court's analysis is based on the same reasoning as that of the Supreme Court in Roper v Simmons (death penalty invalid for juvenile offenses) and Graham v Florida (LWOP invalid for non-homicide juvenile offenses), including a 50-state survey of sentences thought appropriate in the states for similar conduct. I am sorry to report that the decision is thoughtful and serious, and that I see nothing scandalous or result oriented about it. In the end, he proposes the imposition of a hardly-lenient 30 month (2-1/2 yr) prison sentence.
Posted by: Peter G | Mar 16, 2011 9:47:30 PM
Peter G --
Thank you for finally presenting something analytical. You can see for yourself, and I gather you have, what became of my efforts to get previous posters to do the same.
I am willing to bet you $250 here and now that Weinstein's judgment stiking the MM "as applied" -- if that's what the "tentative" opinion turns out to say in its final version -- will not survive review in the Second Circuit, which is not exactly a hangout for Rush Limbaugh.
The offer is there if you're inclined to take it.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2011 10:08:41 PM
No, thanks, Bill. Not interested in betting -- not on this or on anything else, in fact. Besides, it could keep me out of the Hall of Fame; just look at Pete Rose. (If the judge imposes that sentence, and if the OUSA of EDNY appeals, there is a fair chance I'd be asked into the case for one amicus or another. Wouldn't want to have anything to say that wasn't a straight-ahead account of what I read in the document downloaded from PACER -- which I forwarded to Doug, and which I hope he gets around to uploading, so anyone who wants to can read any or all of it for themselves.)
Posted by: Peter G | Mar 16, 2011 10:52:41 PM
Peter G. --
Fair enough. I don't bet a whole lot myself, except in the NCAA backet pool. I'd also be willing to bet on this, being a fan of bringing in extra dough without having to extend myself.
You have an impressive resume' to say the least, and I wouldn't be surprised if you came in as amicus. Somehow I don't think Eric Holder will be inviting me to chime in on the government's side, however. But CJLF might.
I went to LMHS, by the way, just down Montgomery Avenue. And my wife went to Yale, as did her father. So you and I have trod down some of the same paths.
Thanks for your response.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2011 11:22:19 PM
Actually, Bill, it's just a lot more fun needling ideologues like you than addressing the merits of Judge Weinstein opinion after reading it...not a subject I have any interest in :) But, if i were to bet, I would be willing to bet a lot more than $250.00 it will be flipped on appeal - with or with our my reading the decision.
Posted by: Steve Prof | Mar 17, 2011 8:53:22 AM
These days it's a good thing any time a judge worries about whether caging a 19-year-old for five years is too much.
The thing about 15-year-olds is that few, if any, ever expect to get caught for their adolescent mischief, misdeeds or unfortunate predilections.
And for me at least, it wasn't until I reached my mid-50s that I realized anyone I happened to be speaking with at any given time might be a federal agent trolling for targets.
Beyond that, Bill's reverence for grandstanding ass clowns in Congress who habitually churn out draconian statutes that virtually beg for 8th Amendment scrutiny is nothing short of breathtaking.
I wonder, too (fully mindful of the woe befalling anyone who invokes comparisons to Hitler's Germany) how Bill squares his disdain for judicial review with the eventual prosecution and conviction of judges who deferred to controlling (and democratically elected) legal authorities in the years just before and during WWII.
Posted by: John K | Mar 17, 2011 12:18:45 PM
John K --
Yeah, I know, we're a bunch of Nazis. "Amerika" and all that. Especially in the Second Circuit, seated in NYC. A virtual replica of 1938 Berlin, wouldn't you say?
I'll make you the same bet Peter G turned down: $250 that Weinstein's judgment stiking down the MM "as applied" -- if that's what the tentative opinion turns out to say in its final version -- will not survive review in the appellate court.
P.S. As for "grandstanding ass clowns in Congress," I'm still in awe of your favorite, Nancy herself, and her timeless wisdom that congressmen didn't need to read the 2900 page Obamacare bill before they voted on it, because "we can find out what's in the bill after we pass it." For sheer comedy, I doubt that will ever be surpassed.
P.P.S. I would also be in awe of your characterizing such things as the filming, and distributing films of, child rape as just a bit of lets-have-some-fun "adolescent mischief," but I've seen it so many times that I admit I'm no longer in awe.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 17, 2011 1:20:46 PM
Filming and distributing? I thought "CR's" crime was exchanging photos and films with others, not producing them. Was I wrong?
No one, not me anyway, is saying we're a bunch of Nazis. Yet I think our perpetually overheated right wing -- unrestrained by "the dangers and excesses of judicial review" -- is fully capable of moving in that direction.
BTW: I'd never bet even a dollar on an appellate court ruling against the authorities. To be sure, it happens every once in a while. Still, it's never the way to bet.
Posted by: John K | Mar 17, 2011 3:10:47 PM
John K --
I didn't say this defendant filmed children being raped (not that you've expressed any great angst about that either, as long as it's a fun-filled youthful frolic). I said SUCH THINGS AS the filming and distribution of films of child sexual abuse.
You might entertain the possibility that the Second Circuit will make short work of Weinstein's judgment, not because the Second Circuit is a pawn of "the authorities," but because law and reason simply will not support the notion that a five year prison term for distributing CP is anywhere close to being an Eighth Amendment violation.
On second thought, maybe the judges of the Second Circuit should vote right now on Weinstein's opinion, thus to follow Nancy's advice (which I notice you skip right over, although otherwise concerned with Congressional clowns) that they should "find out what's in the opinion after they rule on it."
C'mon John, admit it. It was the single most hilarious moment of the last Congress. And it's the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 17, 2011 3:53:26 PM
In the interest of avoiding the back-and-forth sniping: I agree with Soronel that there is a strong likelihood that the Second Circuit will not only reverse but direct the Clerk to reassign the case on remand. I doubt it will say that it believes that things have reached the point at which a reasonable observer would question Judge Weinstein's impartiality, but rather that it would be best, in the circumstances, for another judge to look at the case with a fresh eye. These kinds of repeated skirmishes between trial court and appellate court tend to make it look like the district court is getting uncomfortably close to the role of active participant rather than arbiter (and I understand perfectly well that a district judge isn't supposed to be a "mere referee").
Posted by: guest | Mar 17, 2011 4:40:34 PM
The sniping began right from the getgo, with the very first comment (waving a finger in my face even though I hadn't said a word). Still, before most of it got underway, I, like you, agreed with Soronel, although I wondered whether, in deference to Weinstein's age, the Second Circuit would allow him to keep the case on remand.
On reflection, I believe you are correct, and that he will be removed, for the reasons you note. I would add that, whether or not the Second Circuit says so in haec verba, no fair-minded person could think at this point that Weinstein has the required degree of judicial neutrality about either this case or the issue generally.
If I were still chief of appeals in the USAO, I would feel like I had to seek removal in order to get a fair shake for my client. I was always reluctant to take that extreme step, and did it only once in 18 years. The result was that the court of appeals (the Fourth Circuit in my case), denied my request, but ended its opinion with something like, "We return this case to the district judge, confident that she will, now, abide by the instructions we have set forth." In the genteel Fourth Circuit, that is strong language.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 17, 2011 6:22:11 PM
John K (Mar 17, 2011 12:18:45 PM): You are exactly right.
There is no doubt that many sentences being handed down for sexual offenses are completely unreasonable. If this kid starting looking at CP when he was 15 or younger and what he is being sentenced for is sharing it when he was 19, a 5 year sentence is certainly way too much. It is stupid cr*p that will not benefit society in any way. We need to figure out a way to help such people. Prison does not help and it does not help society either.
Calling legislators “grandstanding ass clowns” is a perfect description. Too kind, though. When I was younger, I loved and respected this country. After I graduated from college, I nearly joined the military. I wouldn’t do that today if my life depended on it.
The SEX OFFENDER witch hunt made me realize about a decade ago that the law in this country doesn’t deserve respect. The legislators who have driven the witch hunt and supported its propaganda campaign don’t deserve respect. They’ve clearly shown what they are all about. In fact, they are nothing but common criminals. The worst ones are terrorists.
People who are listed on the Registries in this country need to treat people who zealously support the Registries and the ever-idiotic tag-along laws as the terrorists that they are. They are enemies to a moral, just United States. It would not upset me in the slightest if some of the people on the Registries, instead of directing their justifiable anger and violence at random, innocent people (as will occur as long as the Registries exist), would instead inflict it directly upon the terrorists who support the SEX OFFENDER witch hunt.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 18, 2011 9:17:18 AM
The question, however, is not whether five years is excessive. The question is whether a five year sentence is so out of line that it crosses the boundary into being unconstitutional. That is a much harder argument to sustain, and one I think this offender is ultimately going to lose.
Unlike content based curtailments on speech, for instance, where the limitation has to both forward a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means of doing so criminal punishments need only be broadly congruent with the offense. And Congress is allowed to be both under and over inclusive in its catchment.
I just have an extraordinarily difficult time seeing that five years crosses that line but two and a half is fine. If we are going to allow such judgments we might as well ditch the entire idea that Congress can even set any sort of sentencing floor for any offense. And I don't think either the judiciary is ready to go there or that the constitution demands such an outcome.
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Mar 18, 2011 11:30:22 AM
Soronel Haetir (Mar 18, 2011 11:30:22 AM): Yes, I realize what the judge’s argument is. I just wasn’t addressing that. Given my minimal, anecdotal knowledge and beliefs, I don’t think the courts would find a 40 or 50 year sentence to be cruel or unusual. I think this country has already sunk to a level that is stupid and inhumane.
I know our country is set up so that the legislatures determine punishments for crimes. There is a limited amount that the judiciary can do. However, I do think way, way too many legislators are “grandstanding ass clowns” who have no business judging anyone or deciding how anyone should be punished. And that goes for 90+% of the stupid, ignorant American population. Even if legislators make the excuse that they are just doing what the public wants, it’s not right. Our SEX OFFENDER laws are like the laws of other countries where they cut people’s hands off for stealing. Sure, it is “legal” for that to be the punishment, but is that the kind of P.O.S. country that we want America to be? Or, are we not better and smarter than those dictatorships?
The ass clowns have passed many laws that real Americans know are wrong and illegal. For just one example - states have passed laws that force Registered people from homes that they own simply because they suddenly decided that the home was “too close” to something. And those laws were passed in direct contradiction to all known facts. As far as I am concerned, when legislators start to behave like that they have become criminals. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to control criminal legislators.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Mar 18, 2011 1:22:09 PM
You said a mouth full FR
I'm suprise we don't see more news articles of law enforcment and politicnas shot and killed. Trust me anyone dumb enough to show up at my home for any reason and tell me i got 24hr to get out or go to jail is goona get about 30 sec's to start running and at that point i'm gonna be shooting!
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 19, 2011 12:32:03 AM
Some things are hard to pass up because they are so wonderfully illustrative. Thus FRegistryTerrorists says:
"Given my minimal, anecdotal knowledge and beliefs, I don’t think the courts would find a 40 or 50 year sentence to be cruel or unusual. I think this country has already sunk to a level that is stupid and inhumane."
Note that this person's admittedly "minimal" knowledge does not prevent him from drawing amazingly broad and sweeping conclusions -- conclusions that go without dissent from a single liberal commenter.
"I do think way, way too many legislators are 'grandstanding ass clowns' who have no business judging anyone or deciding how anyone should be punished. And that goes for 90+% of the stupid, ignorant American population."
This is exactly what we hear from the many on this board who, with respect to sex registry laws, drug laws and the death penalty, think that Congress is a bunch of know-nothings and that the We Know Better minority should run the show instead of the "90+% of the stupid, ignorant American population."
One might say this was an avant garde idea. In fact, it's one of the oldest ideas around -- Louis XVI, call your office.
"Our SEX OFFENDER laws are like the laws of other countries where they cut people’s hands off for stealing. Sure, it is legal' for that to be the punishment, but is that the kind of P.O.S. country that we want America to be? Or, are we not better and smarter than those dictatorships?"
Well, yes we are, now that I think of it, but try telling that to someone this far gone on anti-Americanism.
Oh, wait, I forgot! There is NO SUCH THING as anti-Americanism. There are only those who truly, dearly, sweetly love American, and express this sentiment by posting comments uniformly discussing how putrid the country is.
But they do, really, love America.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 20, 2011 9:54:10 AM
Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson
According to Bill, a radical liberal(scummy) author. I'm sure he truly, sweetly loved America when he wrote this. Do me a favor and call Rush and complain.
Posted by: Billhashisownblogwhenpigsfly | Mar 20, 2011 3:58:52 PM
Is there such a thing as anti-Americanism?
Yes or no.
Has the United States "already sunk to a level that is stupid and inhumane"?
Yes or no.
"...[a]nd that goes for 90+% of the stupid, ignorant American population."
Is 90+% of our population stupid and ignorant?
Yes or no.
Is the USA "the kind of P.O.S. country" that cuts off criminals' hands?
Yes or no.
Did Jefferson refer to the USA as a "P.O.S. country"?
Yes or no.
Does the use of that phrase tell you something about whether the commenter who used it is well-intended toward the United States?
Yes or no.
Are you on a par with Jefferson?
Yes or no.
You can answer these simple yes or no questions, can't you?
Ummmmmmmmm, let me guess.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 20, 2011 7:21:55 PM
Once again you are wrong wrong wrong. Many of your questions are matters of opinion and I believe we are still entitled to an opinion in this country. Can't accept the fact you can actually be wrong, can you?
Ummmmmmm, let me guess this one.
It is obvious you haven't learned that not every single comment needs a reply from you. There are many people in this country that are dissatisfied and you don't agree with them. Fine.
Just stick to impressing us with your knowledge of law and try to remember that less is more.
Posted by: Billhashisownblogwhenpigsfly | Mar 20, 2011 9:34:47 PM
Sure enough, you didn't answer a single question. This of course does not stop you from demanding answers from me. Far out.
"Many of your questions are matters of opinion and I believe we are still entitled to an opinion in this country."
Then go down the list and give your opinion, which is all I wanted to begin with.
"Can't accept the fact you can actually be wrong, can you? Ummmmmmm, let me guess this one. No."
Am I "actually wrong" in dissenting from the view, with which you register no disagreement, that the United States is "a P.O.S." country?
"It is obvious you haven't learned that not every single comment needs a reply from you."
...you say in the sentence immediately following the one in which you demand an answer from me.
Incidentally, if I reply to even one percent of the comments on this blog, I would be amazed. But don't let truth get in your way. Use any exaggeration you care to. You post anonymously -- why not?
"There are many people in this country that are dissatisfied and you don't agree with them."
Actually, I'm one of them. There is too much crime and the deficit is out of control. Somehow I refrain from calling the country a "P.O.S.," however.
Understanding that the United States is a decent, generous and benevolent nation doesn't hurt, honest. You might try it sometime and see.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 20, 2011 10:51:50 PM
I like what you have said,it is really helpful to me,thanks!
Posted by: Big pony | Apr 11, 2011 6:21:23 AM
Fair warning to Rookie Kagan: if you refuse to carry CJ Roberts' (legal) pads, karma will land you with an injury that prevents you from writing any opinions for at least six weeks..
Posted by: pandora charms | Jul 14, 2011 11:04:43 PM