I think you’re on the wrong website, then. Eternal damnation’s the game around here.

Oh, this white lady is finished misappropriating cartoon Vietnamese-American culture, so now she’s moving onto another project? H-E-L-L-O, can you say “white privilege”?!

Maybe Hillary Clinton will be inspired by her aide and finally do something about her rapist husband.

Consider for a moment the degree of presumptuousness required for a commenter here, who is likely neither a lawyer nor a judge, to declare that a professional judge, who has reached one single decision with which the commenter disagrees, is “objectively” in the wrong and, in fact, is “incapable” of being in the right.

He didn’t do anything unlawful or violate any professional ethical norms. He simply made a lawful decision with which you disagree. It’s not exactly a stunning incident of “privilege” for him to keep his job in these circumstances. It is a stunning illustration of your presumptuousness, though.

Congratulations, Jezebel. You and your allies have succeeded in getting rid of a judge who’s allegedly “too lenient” on criminal defendants. This won’t possibly contribute to mass incarceration.

“In a move that the internet will use as fuel for a new round of exhausting yelling ....” Very amusing to see the word “exhausting” in there. Might we be a bit less disingenuous and acknowledge that stoking precisely this sort of yelling is at the core of Jezebel’s business model?

Do you understand that Jezebel lamented Gawker’s downfall on a number of occasions, such as, e.g., in the final days, when Jezebel’s writers announced that they were all going out for a drink with the Gawker staff? Yeah, sounds like they had a big problem with it.

“It’s nothing short of disgraceful to the entire human race that Jones and others who face abuse for the simple fact of existing will have their entire lives up-ended all because a handful of basement neckbeards can’t find anything better to do with their time.”

The awfulness of this as a precedent should be obvious to any reasonable observer. Judges should not recuse themselves, or be expected to recuse themselves, based on nothing more than public criticism of their lawful decisionmaking. If you think Judge Persky should recuse himself based on the public criticism of him,…

Who cares what the lawsuit is about? The real question here is, who’s paying for the lawyers? What’s their motivation? Why are they trying to destroy Fox News? And, importantly, what about the First Amendment? Let’s not bury the real story here.

“Please see Donald Trump’s Twitter comment that Hillary’s campaign is paid for by Wall Street, which will demand that its investment pay off, and then immediately look away.”

The answer is this affects federal prisons only. From Jezebel’s vague article, I think the writer doesn’t understand that and wanted to keep it unclear.

“People convicted of crimes AND sentenced to relatively short terms of incarceration ...” is what I meant to write.

FYI: People convicted of crimes are sentenced to relatively short terms of incarceration are often put in jail rather than prison. I’m talking about post-conviction sentences here, i.e., punishment for crime, not pretrial detention. So, again, I ask: What exactly is “spectacularly fucked-up” about punishing these…

Why is it “spectacularly fucked-up” for non-violent offenders to be jailed? It should be obvious that there’s plenty of “non-violent” ways to harm victims, such as theft and fraud. Moreover, there’s plenty of “non-violent” albeit antisocial behavior, which harms society as a whole, such as tax evasion and political…

The phrase to describe the mentality around here - and elsewhere - is “criminal justice reform without criminals.” It’s all good in the abstract. Once actual criminals are involved, well, you see how it goes.

How about refraining from bringing a rapist back into the White House?

How can we demand that “the authorities etc.” believe people who we don’t? It’s a ridiculous position on its face.

Who is faulting Hillary for failing to “immediately” turn on her husband? Broaddrick leveled her claims in 1999. Hillary has had almost two decades to consider them.