Every parent’s worst nightmare: SCOTUS nominee says some child porn offenders should get lighter sentences, past rulings confirm that

Share:

The editorial comments in this article are brought to you by a US veteran and staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

WASHINGTON, DC – Joe Biden’s nomination for the Supreme Court continued her confirmation hearing by raising some eyebrows. Sadly, a specific topic of conversation didn’t raise enough.

One particular case that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson presided over was US v. Hawkins. And that case was brought up several times during her latest round of questions.

That 2012 case centered around 18-year-old Wesley Hawkins. He was found to be in possession of multiple images of child pornography.

While federal sentencing guidelines call for a sentence of up to 10 years, the Supreme Court hopeful sentenced him to only three months for the 30+ images and videos found on his computer and phone.

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley alluded to this case being part of a pattern of sentencing child sex offenders to much lower sentences than recommended, as did Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

Even the left-leaning Washington Post spoke up supporting the senator’s argument. They reported that after the end of his prison time, Hawkins went right back to searching for “sexually arousing” photos of minors.

“A person familiar with the Hawkins case read to The Post the probation office request that led to Jackson’s order. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to publicly discuss it.

The probation office petition did not allege that Hawkins committed any new sexual offense or violation of conditions. However, it stated that ‘despite being in treatment for more than five years,’ Hawkins ‘continues to seek out sexually arousing, non-pornographic material and images of males 13 to 16-years-old.'”

In other words, Hawkins may not have been viewing pornographic images, but he was definitely satisfying his carnal cravings by looking at pictures of underage boys.

And what did Brown Jackson say at the time?

“At Hawkins’s November 2013 sentencing she cast the challenge as finding a ‘just sentence’ — ‘One that allows you, Mr. Hawkins, to spend enough time in prison to understand and appreciate the consequences of your actions … but not so long that you will be subjected to harm in prison or introduced to incorrigible influences such that you are lost to society forever.'”

The judge weighed numerous aspects before handing down the sentence. For example, Jackson noted that Hawkins didn’t produce the videos or take the photographs, he merely viewed them.

Speaking to Hawkins, who told detectives he was interested in 11- to 17-year-old boys, she said:

“You were only involved in this for a few months. Other than your engagement with the undercover officer, there isn’t an indication that you were in any online communities to advance your collecting behavior.

Most child pornography offenders are middle-aged adults who are deviants drawn to pictures of vulnerable children … This case is different because the children in the photos and videos you collected were not much younger than you. This seems to be a situation in which you were fascinated by sexual images involving what were essentially your peers.”

Umm…what? Those aren’t peers, judge. They are the most vulnerable members of society. You said so yourself in the same hearing.

Do you recall telling Hawkins that his crime was:

“very serious and, in many ways, heinous crime, one that capitalizes on the victimization of the most vulnerable members of our society … I cannot even express adequately how horrifying it is for me to know that somewhere out there, there are children who are being trapped and molested and raped for the viewing pleasure of people like yourself.”

During another questioning period from South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, the judge double down on not ruining the lives of people who prey on children.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk1776)

In essence, the judge said that if you are merely dabbling in child predator activity or child porn, you shouldn’t get as harsh a sentence as an individual who is distributing 1,000 images or photos.

But she contradicts herself in the very next sentence.

“On the internet, with one click, you can receive, you can distribute tens of thousands of these. You could be doing this for 15 minutes and all of a sudden, you are looking at 30, 40, 50 years in prison.”

So, if you are only doing for a few minutes, you should get a light sentence, even though, with just a click of a button, you can disseminate 10,000 photos, probably in a matter of a few minutes, thus earning you a longer prison term.

As a parent, I watched this particular part of the hearing mortified. And this came after hearing that she cannot define the word woman and that she doesn’t know if a baby can feel pain at 20 weeks.

She also said that she wasn’t aware that at 20 weeks, fetuses are given anesthesia for life saving procedures.

This is a woman that the President of the United States wants to sit on the highest court in the nation.

As an American, her stances are scary. As a parent, they are horrifying.

https://fundourpolice.com/

‘Endangers our children’: Senator raises concerns about Biden Supreme Court pick being soft on child sex offenders

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As confirmation hearings are set to begin shortly for Biden Supreme Court pick and radical leftist Ketanji Brown Jackson, one Senator has raised the alarm on Jackson’s apparent history of being soft on child sex and pornography offenders.

In an 18-part Twitter thread, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) recently introduced multiple concerns regarding Judge Jackson’s attitudes and actions toward child sex offenders and pedophiles.

Hawley began:

“I’ve been researching the record of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, reading her opinions, articles, interviews & speeches. I’ve noticed an alarming pattern when it comes to Judge Jackson’s treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on children.”

Hawley continued:

“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.”

Hawley went on to describe a longtime approach from Jackson, dating back to law school, that appeared to exhibit a soft touch with child sex offenders.

He wrote:

“As far back as her time in law school, Judge Jackson has questioned making convicts register as sex offenders – saying it leads to ‘stigmatization and ostracism.’

“She’s suggested public policy is driven by a ‘climate of fear, hatred & revenge’ against sex offenders.”

Hawley also reported that Jackson “questioned sending dangerous sex offenders to civil commitment.”

In addition, Hawley raised concerns that Jackson, as part of the U.S. Sentencing Commission,  called for “drastic change in how the law treats sex offenders by eliminating the existing mandatory minimum sentences for child porn.”

Hawley then referenced some of Jackson’s past words, quoting her as saying:

“So the people who are in this [child pornography] for either the collection, or the people who are loners and find status in their participation in the community, but would be categorized as non sexually motivated, how many are we talking about?”

Regarding these words, Hawley asked:

“What community would that be?  The community of child exploiters?”

Hawley also gleaned from Jackson’s words a question on a “less-serious child pornography offender,” apparently motivated by “technology.”

Jackson reportedly stated:

“And I’m wondering whether you could say that there is a – that there could be a less-serious child pornography offender who is engaging in the type of conduct in the group experience level because their motivation is the challenge, or to use the technology?

“They’re very sophisticated technologically, but they aren’t necessarily that interested in the child pornography piece of it?”

Hawley went on to summarize several cases of Jackson’s in which she appeared to be lenient with child pornographers and child sex offenders.

For instance, he wrote:

“In the case of United States v. Hawkins, the sex offender had multiple images of child porn. He was over 18. 

“The Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of up to 10 years. Judge Jackson sentenced the perpetrator to only 3 months in prison.

“Three months.”

Also for example:

“In United States v. Stewart, the criminal possessed thousands of images of child porn and also hoped to travel across state lines to abuse a 9-year-old girl. 

“The Guidelines called for a sentence of 97-121 months. 

“Judge Jackson sentenced the criminal to just 57 months.”

Hawley also wrote:

“In United States v. Chazin, the offender had 48 files of child porn, which he had accessed over a period of years. 

“The Guidelines recommended 78-97 months. 

“Judge Jackson gave him 28.”

Hawley then opined:

“This is a disturbing record for any judge, but especially one nominated to the highest court in the land. 

“Protecting the most vulnerable shouldn’t be up for debate. 

“Sending child predators to jail shouldn’t be controversial.”

Hawley’s concerns over Jackson’s attitudes and actions toward child predators will likely be front and center in his upcoming questioning of Biden’s Supreme Court nominee.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

‘She believes the Constitution is racist’: Editor says Biden Supreme Court nominee’s radical ideology should disqualify her

Originally published March 19, 2022

The following includes editorial content which is the opinion of the writer. 

WASHINGTON, DC- Joe Biden boxed himself into a corner when he decided that his first nomination for a vacant Supreme Court opening had to be a woman and she had to be black.

That certainly eliminated a plethora of overwhelmingly qualified candidates.

Still, there were a number of qualified jurists who fit the bill. Yet, Biden decided to pick probably one of the most radical possible choices for the seat of retiring Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.

According to a piece in Breitbart, Joel Pollak, Senior Editor at Large paints a disturbing picture of Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom Biden has put forth for the Supreme Court.

She apparently is a proponent of Critical Race Theory, admires the Black Lives Matter movement, and has touted the bogus “1619 Project.” All of this, Pollak proposes, should disqualify her from serving on the United States Supreme Court.

Pollak noted that Jackson’s sentiments about these radical beliefs and ideologies were discovered during a recently discovered lecture she delivered at the University of Michigan Law School.

These were not the sentiments, he wrote, of a young student but rather were delivered while she sat as a federal judge in 2020, who would be confirmed a year later to the D.C. U.S. Court of Appeals.

For reasons which are unknown, all of this somehow escaped scrutiny during Jackson’s previous confirmation hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

However it is one thing to sit as a district judge and perhaps an appeals judge. It is an entirely different matter for a Supreme Court justice to admire philosophies which run counter to the foundation of our republic, since part of their responsibility is to uphold our founding documents, including the Constitution.

Hopefully, and it seems that it is so, Republicans are paying close attention to Jackson’s radical beliefs, which paint her as likely the most radical judge ever appointed to the nation’s high court.

Pollak notes the sheer irony in Jackson’s selection as a SCOTUS nominee, due to Biden’s declaration his nominee was being put forth solely based on their gender and the amount of melanin in their skin, which he notes invokes “the kind of discrimination that the Supreme Court itself has said is unconstitutional.”

Moreover, there are pending cases due to come before the high court that Jackson would hear as a justice, which makes her views on these topics overwhelmingly important.

And the fact that Jackson admires the 1619 Project raises a number of alarm bells, since the author of that garbage, Nikole Hannah Jones, proposes that the United States was founded upon racism and slavery and is therefore a systemically racist country. That fact alone should disqualify Jackson.

The title of her University of Michigan lecture was “Black Women Leaders in the Civil Rights Movement Era and Beyond.” There is certainly not, as Pollak notes, anything controversial inherent in that title; it was clearly an acceptable topic.

Jackson’s remarks, which were delivered in observance of Martin Luther King Day were generally that black women have served on the front lines in the fight for equal rights in the United States, which would hopefully direct the country to adhere to our founding principles. She noted that due to those women, America became a freer country for everyone. Sounds good, right?

Unfortunately, Jackson went off the rails when she claimed that Critical Race Theory and its founder, Derrick Bell were a “source of inspiration,” Pollak wrote.

Bell proposed that America is a fundamentally racist country, with that racism being part and parcel of all of our institutions, claiming that because slavery was prevalent when the Constitution was written, it was therefore acceptable in the founding of our country to engage in racism. Which of course, makes no sense.

Bell posited that only through the redistribution of wealth…aka socialism…could our country be saved from so-called “systemic racism.”

Jackson cited Bell’s book, Faces at the Bottom of the Well, which she said was “omnipresent” in her home when she was growing up, a book which posited that “America is so racist that we would sell our black citizens to space aliens for gold to pay off our national debt.” Tremendous role model right there.

Then there is the Hannah-Jones program of fiction, the 1619 Project.  In the opening essay published in the New York Times magazine, Hannah-Jones made the absurd, ridiculous, and easily debunked claim that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery.

Therefore in her mind, slavery was the “founding principle” of the United States. An overwhelming number of historians have dismissed Hannah-Jones’s claims as fantasy.

Then there is her admiration for Black Lives Matter, an organization that has been marred by allegations of financial malfeasance and whose founder, Patrisse Cullors has somehow been able to leverage into a significant real estate empire.

Jackson said in the lecture that her “favorite civil rights photograph of modern times” was a picture of a BLM protester being arrested by Baton Rouge, Louisiana police at a 2016 march protesting police shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.

It apparently didn’t enter into the equation that both of those men were shot while armed. And of course, we don’t have to address the violence BLM fomented in 2020 after George Floyd’s overdose death in Minneapolis.

All of this raises concern about Jackson’s judgment and what her judicial philosophy would be if she was elevated to the Supreme Court. As Pollak notes, “we cannot have a Justice who believes the Constitution is racist; who believes America was founded on slavery; or who believes police are guilty until proven innocent.”

About the only thing that can be said is as the court is currently constructed, a potential Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would be in the minority—for now.

There are important questions that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee need to ask Jackson, although it is pretty much a given that Democrats’ questions will be typical hanging curveballs. That’s why it is important for the Republicans on the committee to ask her tough questions and not worry about being labeled as “racist” for simply asking questions that it is important to know the answers to.

“Does she share Derrick Bell’s view that the Constitution is racist? Does she share the 1619 Project’s view on the American Revolution? Does she believe the officers who shot Sterling and Castile are guilty of murder? And—crucially—does she believe the race and gender criteria of her own nomination are acceptable?” Pollak asks.

All of these are important questions.

Also, Jackson’s comments…only two years old…are certainly pertinent to her nomination. Breitbart cites the case of a Trump nominee, Ryan Bounds, who was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2017.

In that case, two Republicans—Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tim Scott (R-SC)—slammed Bounds for writings he authored…as a college student…twenty years prior. The essays mocked identity politics and political correctness, yet were characterized as “racist.”

While Bounds apologized for his writings as a young college student, his nomination went down in flames.

However, as Pollak notes, nothing Bounds wrote comes anywhere near the “racial extremism” of Jackson’s role models.

Racial extremism goes both ways, or at least it should. We agree with Pollak.

“If a Republican nominee had to withdraw because of skepticism of racial politics as a student, a Democratic nominee with radical racial views in the present day should not be on the Supreme Court.” [emphasis added]


For our prior article on the threat Judge Jackson poses to the Second Amendment, we invite you to:

DIG DEEPER

By Larry Keane and our friends at NSSF

President Joe Biden’s nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer gives him his first chance to put a lasting stamp on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Jackson, who was only recently elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has authored just two opinions on the merits, both in the past month. Her judicial record tells us truly little about her views on the Second Amendment or about the firearm industry.

Unlike Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who openly told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that her family is a gun-owning family and openly advocated for originalism on the court, Judge Jackson doesn’t offer similar insights.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented on a D.C. Court of Appeals decision to uphold a ban on most semiautomatic firearms and a firearm registration requirement in Washington, D.C. Justice Neil Gorsuch, an outdoorsman and hunter, was introduced as an originalist jurist and “very much in the mold” of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Her Record

Judge Jackson would undeniably be paving a new path if she is confirmed. She would be the first African-American woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

When it comes to gun rights, her judicial experience and philosophy are less obvious. Judge Jackson could be expected to be in the ideological mold of the justice she is to replace, Justice Breyer for whom she clerked from 1999-2000.

When it comes to firearms and gun rights, Justice Breyer was certainly no ally of gun rights.

Justice Breyer dissented on Heller and MacDonald, and holds views that are hostile to individual Second Amendment rights. Justice Breyer once claimed the Founding Fathers intended for government to strictly regulate firearms, though no legislative evidence shows this.

In fact, the first gun control laws were openly racist and intended to deny guns to slaves. The Atlantic, a liberal news publication, pointed out that in 1640, Virginia had laws on the books preventing Blacks from owning guns. In 1712, a law for a total ban on Black gun ownership was enacted to prevent slave revolts.

Slave Codes were renamed Black Codes during the post-Civil War reconstruction era and those were racist laws designed to suppress recently freed Blacks.

Still, Judge Jackson’s judicial record affords no direct insights into how she might rule on Second Amendment-related or firearm industry-related cases. An opinion she authored in her eight months on the D.C. Court of Appeals was published just one day before her nomination.

That case related to unions and the federal government. The closest case that Judge Jackson related to firearms was Baisden v. Barr, in which she dismissed the complaint of a convicted felon petitioning to reclaim gun rights.

The plaintiff offered no evidence that he ever owned a firearm, obtained a permit, ever used, intended to use, or expressed a desire to possess a firearm prior to his conviction.

Her Philosophy

U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton directly asked Judge Jackson about the Second Amendment when she was nominated to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Her answer was similar to Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who both stated that they would be bound by Heller’s precedent. Little more was said.

Gun rights advocates would disagree that both Justices Kagan and Sotomayor respect individual gun rights, especially after hearing their questions to the pending New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett hearing.

Justice Kagan posed the question of whether Heller put a “stamp of approval” on certain gun control measures. Justice Sotomayor said she couldn’t “get past all that history” of gun regulations.

While Justice Barrett openly embraced her ideas on originalism and how that informs her judicial philosophy, Judge Jackson has been ambiguous on her answers of a “living Constitution” approach.

Professor Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, wrote in The Hill that Judge Jackson told the courts she didn’t believe in the concept when nominated to the district court.

Later, when she was nominated to the appellate court, she told the Senate she didn’t have the experience to make such interpretations as a judge.

Professor Turley was baffled by that response since it wasn’t a question of her signed opinions but her judicial opinion on how the Constitution should be interpreted. Judge Jackson has been overruled for judicial overreach.

There’s proof she’s willing to engage in legislating from the bench when faced with questions she doesn’t like.

Her Critics

When President Biden nominated her last year to the Court of Appeals, the National Review wrote that Judge Jackson is, “not highly regarded as a judge” and was, “considered to have a middling reputation.”

The article added that Judge Jackson has, “a striking record of reversals by the [Court of Appeals for the] D.C. Circuit—including by liberal judges—in her high-profile rulings.”

Professor Turley noted that as a district court judge she was reversed in 2018 by a unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a federal workers’ collective bargaining case based on lack of jurisdiction and again overruled in an immigration case in 2019 for judicial overreach.

Carrie Severino, President of Judicial Crisis Network, wrote for Fox News that Judge Jackson would be little more than a politician in robes for liberal special-interest causes. She said Judge Jackson’s nomination is, “paying back the liberal Arabella Advisors dark money network” that was instrumental in President Biden’s campaign.

“Since it comports with a strategy of moderate rhetoric/radical substance, expect to hear little from Biden and his supporters about Judge Jackson’s past advocacy for terrorists, softness on crime, upholding racial preferences, hostility toward pro-lifers, and reversed decisions involving Trump-era policies.”

There’s nothing to indicate that Judge Jackson will strictly interpret the Constitution. She will be what President Biden wants – a secure replacement for Justice Breyer. When it comes to gun rights and the industry, that’s what America can expect. Judge Jackson will be a solid vote against the Second Amendment and the firearm industry.

There’s just one other thing that won’t change. Should Judge Jackson be confirmed, the composition of the Supreme Court remains the same, currently a 6-3 conservative majority.

____________________

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Share:
Submit a Correction
Related Posts