The WaPo story includes this bit:

Cathy Catterson, the executive who manages the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, said the computer server at issue is private property, maintained by one of Kozinski's sons, who downloaded "some but not all" of the images in question.

"The bottom line is: The server and contents are a private matter, and it was not meant to be accessed by others," Catterson said. "Had he known, he would have been more careful of its contents."

Which makes it sound more like personal storage of porn and not "Kozinski and his porn website," as your post said.

He's against censorship, and he has a healthy, prurient interest in porn. What's not to like?

Besides - dammit! - what's so wrong about sexually aroused farm animals?

Memo to Justice Kozinski:

'Publish on the internet' and 'keep private' are inconsistent concepts. Like most jurists at any level, the judge has no clue as to how the world wide web actually works…

The bigger issue is, we have no privacy anymore. What the Judge does is his business, I don't care what he looks at, but we have allowed, under this President, to have privacy be a thing of the past.

Uh, then virtually every male is disqualified.

This is the Must Read and nothing about Kucinich's impeachment. Thanks, Josh!!

"The WaPo story includes this bit:

"Cathy Catterson, the executive who manages the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, said the computer server at issue is private property, maintained by one of Kozinski's sons, who downloaded "some but not all" of the images in question.

""The bottom line is: The server and contents are a private matter, and it was not meant to be accessed by others," Catterson said. "Had he known, he would have been more careful of its contents."

"Which makes it sound more like personal storage of porn and not "Kozinski and his porn website," as your post said."

Unless it's not true, of course. Why the tie-in -- elsehwere -- about his objection to "Washington" overseeing his gov't-issue, taxpayer-funded computer? Arrogance aside, his computer at the court -- which actually seems to be the computer in question -- is not "private" "property".

Otherwise, a fascinating hypocrisy: he's a Republican, so that makes him a bad guy -- except that he isn't because he has an affinity for freakish sex. That somehow absolves him of the fact that he's otherwise a right-wing Republican.

Apart from the obvious hypocrisy

WHAT obvious hypocrisy? The judge is PRESIDING over the case, not prosecuting it. If I were the defendant, I certainly would prefer to have a judge who didn't have a problem with porn.

Furthermore, we don't know what those images actually were--many merely silly images can be described to sound inexcusably out of bounds. For example, the barnyard escapades are most likely that hilarious video (which I saw on YouTube posted as one of America's Funniest Home Videos) of a donkey trying to get it on with some poor guy who apparently had been relieving himself in the donkey's pasture--he's frantically trying to fend off the donkey and run away with his pants falling down around his ankles. It's definitely not porn--except maybe for the Marx Brothers.

Kozinski is a libertarian rather than a social conservative, and an ardent defender of the First Amendment--he has defended the rights of flag-burners, for example. Perhaps some of you shouldn't be so quick to judge the judge until you have all the evidence.

how is a judge who likes porn presiding over a pornography case any different than pro lifer Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts presiding over women's rights cases?

besides, everyone looks at porn of some sort. most people are just afraid to admit it.

Porn-by whose definition?

Read the story, JNagarya. The *fact* is that it was not on a public computer. The stuff was hosted in a subdirectory of alexkozinsky.com, which is not a government domain but his own private domain (of which he was no doubt the master...). The tie-in to the bit about his objections to the filtering put on the court system computer indicates his intellectual consistency, if anything. He's a strong libertarian who does not believe in government intervention in private affairs or limitations on free speech, even when it is not a "conservative" viewpoint - and if you don't know the difference between "conservative" and "libertarian," you really ought to look it up. In many ways, libertarians are a lot closer to liberals than to "conservatives." He is not at all hypocritical in his viewpoint and is universally recognized among those with a legal background as being brilliant.

And he is, without a doubt, the most colorful and downright brilliantly hilarious judge ever. It is a shame to see him be humiliated in this way, although he should have refused to sit on that case to begin with, just as a matter of internal conflict avoidance even in the absence of this becoming public.

Mitch

Well the Bush administration has always been run like George Orwell's "Animal Farm" but even this seems a bit much. No wonder the Neo-Cons feared gay marriage would lead to people marrying animals they have already been practicing for the day when it comes... No pun intended.

"Kozinski, appointed by President Regean in 1985, has been mentioned as a possible candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court. He is considered a judicial conservative on most issues."

Whew, I was a little worried there for a minute, when you said 9th circuit. I was afraid it was one of our guys.

I should have known better, heh. Anything kinky and it's sure to be GOP.

Not that there's anything wrong with kinky...:)