In recent years, right-wing conspiracy theorists have become obsessed with accusing libertarians of being involved in child rape and child trafficking (see Pizzagate, QAnon, and their use of the term “grooming” to describe Florida’s opposition to “Don’t Say Gay,” just to name a few). It is perhaps only a matter of time until a Republican politician weaponizes the issue against a personal political goal.
But who could use it against a Supreme Court nominee who also happens to be the first Black woman to be nominated to the court?
In a tweetstorm last week, Sen. Josh Hawley screams about an “alarming pattern” regarding the “handling of sex offenders, especially child predators” by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Hawley also raised his concerns in a confirmation hearing on Monday.)
It’s no surprise that the ambitious Mr Hawley – the first Republican senator to announce he would oppose Joe Biden’s election endorsement and who famously waved goodbye to Capitol protesters on Sunday January 6th and then trying to monetize it – would do as an allegation of disrespect.
The only trouble? As noted by National Review’s Andrew McCarthy – a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York – the charges do not hold water.
Hawley is smearing Judge Jackson and her sentencing record, planning and simplicity.
As McCarthy explains, “Hawley’s accusations appear to be educationally futile.” For example, Hawley makes no distinction between rapists and kidnappers — or providers of illegal content and consumers of that content. We can agree that all of these crimes are serious, but the idea that some crimes should be punished less severely than others is not proof that someone is soft on the crime. offense.
There are also other differences. Drawing on his experience as a prosecutor, McCarthy recalls, “If the offender had only one day left of his 18th birthday, we would drop the case; but if it was a later date, and we handled the case, he would consider a mandatory minimum sentence of several years in prison. “
Should the same sentence be given to an 18-year-old male who owns a nude image from his 17-year-old girlfriend, and a 50-year-old man who possesses an offensive image of a child? Should 18-year-olds go to jail with stalwart criminals for 5 years and be stigmatized forever? Usually it seems to suggest that these two scenarios belong in completely different categories.
Finally, McCarthy writes, “implying that [Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson] give light credit to ‘sex criminals’ who are ‘child predators’ as she argues against the strict mandatory minimum prison sentence for receiving and distributing pornography as a slander”.
It is worth noting that such dishonest political attacks are, sadly, not uncommon. Democrats routinely and unfairly smear Republican candidates for high court — hence the term “Borking.”
But instead of continuing this bipartisan tradition of apologizing, Republicans should (remove some really ineligible information that somehow escaped the last three Senate confirmation hearings) her) focuses on Jackson’s judicial philosophy.
In my opinion, this includes resisting the temptation to criticize her tenure as a public defender—where her mission is to protect people without any other way to defend yourself.
Both the left and the right can be hypocrites when it comes to attacking lawyers based on the guilt of their clients. But whether you represent Enron, Big Tobacco, an accused terrorist, Harvey Weinstein, or (as was the case with John Adams) British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, everyone deserves to be dealt with properly. procedures and have the right to be consulted.
That doesn’t mean I’m going to vote to confirm Judge Jackson. I will not. I can’t wait to follow the hearings, but it seems pretty clear that as conservatives our philosophies are at odds. I want the judges to follow the pattern of the late Antonin Scalia. It’s fair game for any intellectually honest conservative senator who considers a candidate’s non-textual methodology to be disqualified. But beyond this categorical approach, I don’t see anything outrageous about Judge Jackson — so far.
But doesn’t President Joe Biden deserve the nomination?
While there may be some benefits to delaying a president (who nominates a qualified candidate), this is a whole life appointed, and the Senate is responsible for providing advice and consent. Biden, for example, voted against Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito (who was then a Senator. Barack Obama famously tried to get rid of it). Each nominee is highly qualified.
Perhaps Hawley’s decision to smear Judge Jackson as soft in child porn is a perverse attempt to destroy this nominated candidate while steering clear of anything remotely close to race issue. However, the abuse and exploitation of children is particularly serious, and accusing someone unfairly can damage their reputation.
Whatever Hawley’s reasons, this latest move links him to politicians and activists across the aisle who have made shameful and desperate attempts to block a candidate. qualified members.
Republicans can vote against Judge Jackson with their heads held high. Doing so would be perfectly legal. It is unacceptable to misrepresent her profile and attempt to assassinate her character.
Hawley, the proponent of Big Lie, can’t get any better than that. But so should his fellow GOP senators. The “loyal opposition” should not be the “dishonest opposition”.
(Disclosure: My wife served as a fundraising consultant for Hawley’s 2016 campaign for the Missouri attorney general.)
https://www.thedailybeast.com/conservatives-can-oppose-ketanji-brown-jackson-without-lying?source=articles&via=rss Conservatives Can Oppose Ketanji Brown Jackson Without Lying