The White House on Thursday reacted to Sen. Josh Howley’s (R-MO) revelation about the flexibility of Supreme Court-appointed judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s child porn offenders, calling Howley’s attack on Jackson’s qualifications “toxic” in the High Court, “misinformation” and cherry-picking. Picked. “
White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates said in a statement: “This is toxic and poorly-presented misinformation that relies on taking the cherry-picked elements of his record out of context – and is under the lightest investigation.”
From the White House response, @ AndrewJBates46:
“This is toxic and poorly-presented misinformation that relies on taking the cherry-picked elements of his record out of context – and is under the lightest investigation.” https://t.co/N51nRmWwQ1
– Seung Min Kim (ungseungminkim) March 17, 2022
Howley replied, “So with the exception of this juvenile hysteresis, the White House has no substantive answer for the judicial record of their nominee.”
So with the exception of this teenage histrionics, the White House has no substantive answer to the judicial record of their nominee https://t.co/PEE0eB0XNt
– Josh Howley (awHawleyMO) March 17, 2022
On Wednesday, Howley posted a Twitter thread based on Jackson’s record as a federal judge and, as a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, showed that Jackson consistently sympathized with child pornography offenders and punished them under penalties.
The first tweet posted below, the rest of the thread is quoted and can be viewed by clicking on the tweet.
I am researching Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record, reading his opinions, articles, interviews and lectures. I noticed a disturbing pattern when it comes to Judge Jackson’s treatment of sex offenders, especially those who victimize children.
– Josh Howley (awHawleyMO) March 16, 2022
“I’m researching Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record, reading his opinions, articles, interviews and lectures. I noticed a disturbing pattern when it comes to Judge Jackson’s treatment of sex offenders, especially those who prey on children … Judge and Jackson both have a pattern of hooking off child pornographers for their heinous crimes. . He is advocating for it from law school. It goes beyond “soft to crime”. I am concerned that this is a record that has put our children at risk. “
“As far as his time at law school is concerned, Judge Jackson questioned the registration of offenders as sex offenders – saying that it” leads to stigma and exclusion. ” Yes … Judge Jackson also raised the issue of sending dangerous sex offenders on a civil commitment. We have a civil commitment law in Missouri that protects children. “
“It’s getting worse. As a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Judge Jackson called for a drastic change in the way the law treats sex offenders, eliminating the mandatory minimum punishment for child pornography … Judge Jackson said some people who hold child porn By saying “it is a collection for both, or people who find a place in solitary confinement and their participation in the community.” What community would that be? A community of child exploiters?… Not “challenging or using technology.” A “less-serious” child porn offender? During his time at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Judge Jackson stated that he “mistakenly assumed that child pornography offenders were pedophiles” and that he wanted to understand “non-pedophiles of this class who Children get pornography. “
“On the federal bench, Judge Jackson used his troubling views. In every single child porn case for which we can find records, Judge Jackson has deviated from the federal penal code for child porn offenders.
“In the case of the United States vs. Hawkins, sex offenders had multiple child pornography images. He is over 18 years old. The sentencing guidelines call for up to 10 years in prison. Judge Jackson sentenced the offender to just three months in prison. Three months. “
“In the United States v. Stuart, the offender took thousands of pictures of child pornography and expected a 9-year-old girl to travel across the state line for abuse. The guidelines call for 97-121 months in prison. Judge Jackson sentenced the offender to just 57 months.”
“In the United States vs. Cooper, where the offender had more than 600 photos and videos and posted many on a public blog, the guidelines call for 151-188 months in prison. Judge Jackson ruled in 60 months, the minimum sentence allowed by law. “
“In the United States vs. China, the perpetrator had 48 files of child pornography, which he had access to for several years. The guidelines recommend 78-97 months. Judge Jackson gave him 26.
“In the United States vs. Downs, Perp posted multiple pictures on an anonymous instant messaging app, including a picture of a child under 5 years of age. The guidelines recommend 70-87 months. Judge Jackson gave him the minimum sentence allowed by law, 60 months.”
“In the United States vs. Sears, sex offenders have distributed more than 102 child pornographic videos, including pornographic pictures of their 10-year-old daughter. Guidelines recommend 97-121 months in prison. Judge Jackson gave her 61 months.
“In the United States v. Savage, a sex offender was convicted of travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual behavior, and was also convicted of child pornography. The guidelines recommend 46-57 months. Judge Jackson gave him 36.
“It simply came to our notice then. Protecting the weakest should not be for debate. Sending child poachers to prison should not be disputed … So far, the Sentencing Commission has refused to return all of Judge Jackson’s records since then. In light of what we have learned, this stone must be finished. We must have access to all relevant records. “
Posted in “Toxic … Misinformation … Cherry-Picked”: White House Defends Radical Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson