Democrats and their media allies appear to have forgotten the utter hell they put Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh through just a few years ago and are now crying foul at pointed questions and concerns some Republicans have raised about Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden’s nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
Those questions and concerns have to do with rulings and writings from Judge Jackson that seemingly display a rather lenient attitude toward individuals convicted of child pornography crimes, and the GOP has every reason and right to raise that legitimate issue, the Washington Examiner reported.
Despite the left’s outcry, Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee — in this particular case, led by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) — can and should demand answers from Jackson as to why she appears to have consistently delivered shockingly light prison sentences for convicted child porn offenders.
This seems problematic and needs to be addressed
The issue regarding Judge Jackson and child porn cases was first raised last week in a thread of tweets from Sen. Hawley that showed how Jackson, in law school and on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, had argued against punitive mandatory-minimum sentences for child porn convicts.
The senator also showed how Jackson, as a federal judge, had consistently imposed sentences that were well below federal sentencing guidelines — which she herself helped establish — as well as the minimum recommendations of federal prosecutors.
In an op-ed for Fox News on Monday, Hawley expanded upon his prior tweet thread and reiterated his real concern for Jackson’s apparent attitude of leniency toward sex offenders who prey upon children and argued that her revealed stance was well outside the desires of a vast majority of the American people, which is to prosecute and sentence such individuals to the “fullest extent of the law.”
Legitimate issue hasn’t been “debunked”
As noted, many Democrats and media pundits have decried Sen. Hawley for daring to question Biden’s nominee about anything, really, and have repeatedly insisted that the issue he has raised has been “debunked” or discredited — which is simply not the case, according to a separate report from the Washington Examiner.
In fact, there actually isn’t anything here that even could be “debunked,” as all Hawley has done is highlight Judge Jackson’s imposed sentences in specific cases and prior legal writings from before she became a federal judge.
And, more to the point, what better setting than a Senate confirmation hearing to raise the subject and provide Jackson an opportunity to try to explain her position on the issue in response to Republican queries?
“Judge Jackson is entitled to her opinion that the child pornography mandatory minimum sentences are unjustly too high,” the Examiner wrote, making it clear that it didn’t agree with her stance. “A Supreme Court nomination hearing is a perfect venue to air these views, and we look forward to the debate.”
Biden WH stands by nominee
For what it is worth, President Biden’s White House has stood solidly in supportive defense of its nominee, and press secretary Jen Psaki even asserted during Monday’s press briefing the prevailing belief that at least a few Republican senators will ultimately vote in a bipartisan fashion to confirm Jackson to the Supreme Court.
“Well, without being able to get into the minds of a range of Republican members, our view is that given she has been confirmed three times with bipartisan support, that she has extensive experience, that she has ruled in favor of Democrats and Republicans under leaders of both parties, that she certainly deserves that. But we will see what the outcome ends up being,” Psaki told reporters.
