Jackson Bemoans Unfairness of Giving Child Pornographers 50 Years, But Lindsey Graham Just Says 'Good'
We know that the far-left Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson will be confirmed by the Senate, no matter what the Republicans say or do. But she really has made some colossally stupid comments, hasn’t she?
Asked by GOP Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee to define a woman, she declined, explaining that she’s not a biologist. Asked by her Republican colleague Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas if crime-ridden cities should have more or fewer police officers, she refused to answer, saying that she will stay in her lane.
“The determination about whether there should be more or fewer [police] is a policy decision by another branch of government. It is not something that judges have control over and I will stay in my lane in terms of the kinds of things that are properly in the judicial branch,” Jackson said, according to the New York Post.
During an exchange with Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina about the light sentences she has issued to child pornographers, Jackson grew frustrated. “In comes the internet. On the internet, with one click, you can receive, you can distribute tens of thousands [of child porn]. You can be doing this for 15 minutes and all of a sudden, you are looking at 30, 40, 50 years in prison.”
Graham cuts her off. “Good! Good! Absolutely! Good!”
KBJ: “With one click, you can distribute tens of thousands [of child porn]. You can be doing this for 15 minutes and all of a sudden, you are looking at 30, 40, 50 years in prison.”
Graham: “Good!” pic.twitter.com/znnVcyWNoO
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 23, 2022
It certainly wasn’t a very thoughtful remark. What difference does the length of time make in the commission of a crime? I could murder someone in ten seconds and I’d be looking at years in prison. Would I tell a judge that I only spent ten seconds of my life committing this crime?
Her response sounded more like the answer an adolescent would give when backed into a corner rather than that of a legal scholar.
In the following clip, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asks Jackson to clarify her position on child pornography cases “that do not involve the production of pornographic material. They’re known as non-production cases.”
He also read a statement that Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri had made earlier in a Twitter post: “Judge Jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes both as a judge and a policy maker. She’s been advocating it since law school. This goes beyond soft on crime. I’m concerned this is a record that endangers our children.”
Brown said all the right things. She described the lasting effects child pornography has on its victims and said she frequently hears from adults who had been sexually abused as children and are now incapable of engaging in normal adult relationships.
She testified that she looks into the eyes of the defendants as she issues her “significant sentences.”
Except that she doesn’t issue significant sentences. On the contrary, she issues very insignificant sentences.
These defendants have been convicted of heinous crimes but are being bailed out by an activist judge who tells us she sees the horror of their crimes and the damage it does to the young children being ruthlessly exploited. But her sentences do not reflect her testimony.
In other words, she talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk.
When confronted over it, she provides nonsensical responses. Since when does the duration of time it takes to commit a crime correlate to the sentence received?
And why would she go softer on a child pornographer because technology allowed them to perform their crime faster and more efficiently?
Would you give a gunman who used an AR-15 a lighter sentence because the technology allowed him to kill more effectively than if he were using a musket? Of course not!
As we’ve already learned by watching Vice President Kamala Harris’ dismal performance over the past fourteen months, this is what happens when a president decides to pick a nominee based on gender and skin color, rather than seeking the best-qualified candidate available at the time.
May God watch over Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for the next three years.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.