Hawley: Supreme Court Pick Has ‘Troubling’ Pattern Regarding Child Pornography Cases
ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY…
1922: British magistrates in India sentence Mahatma Gandhi to 6 years imprisonment for disobedience.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) says that Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s previous rulings in child pornography cases raise serious concerns about her judicial ethics.
Hawley outlined his findings in a series of tweets, saying he “noticed an alarming pattern when it comes to Judge Jackson’s treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on children.”
“Judge Jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker. She’s been advocating for it since law school. This goes beyond ‘soft on crime.’ I’m concerned that this a record that endangers our children,” he continued.
“She’s had 10 that I’ve seen that we’ve found and I haven’t found a single case where she’s sentenced — for child porn offenders — where she’s sentenced with the guidelines. Always below, and almost always below the government’s recommendations — in some cases dramatically below.”
Hawley claimed that Jackson “advocated for drastic change in how the law treats sex offenders by eliminating the existing mandatory minimum sentences for child porn.”
“The pattern is pretty distinct and pretty troubling and you couple that with her views on the sentencing commission and getting rid of the existing mandatory-minimum for child porn and then what she’s written in law school, where she said sex offender registries may be unconstitutional, that our sex offender laws were written in a climate of fear and revenge,” he said.
But the White House said Hawley was using “cherry-picked elements of her record out of context.”
“Judge Jackson is a proud mother of two whose nomination has been endorsed by leading law enforcement organizations, conservative judges, and survivors of crime,” said White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates.
“This is toxic and weakly-presented misinformation that relies on taking cherry-picked elements of her record out of context — and it buckles under the lightest scrutiny.”
However, Hawley was undeterred by the White House’s comments.
“So other than these juvenile histrionics, the White House has no substantive answers for the judicial record of a person they nominated,” he said.