Her Judicial Record
Washington, D.C., March 31, 2022
Tags: Law Enforcement
I don’t understand the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court. I really don’t.
In all of our nation, there is no higher court. Its rulings affect virtually every other court, and there are no avenues of appeal beyond it. This means how the Supreme Court interprets our Constitution and matters of law is vitally important.
It also means the justices serving on the Supreme Court MUST be exceptionally well-qualified, with a judicial record that exemplifies those qualifications. Concerning Judge Jackson, that’s what we need to focus on here: her judicial record.
There are a number of questionable things throughout her career. For example, as a public defender, Jackson fought for ending indefinite detention of terrorists captured as enemy combatants. There also appears to be a laundry list judicial activism from her on the bench, particular on matters related to illegal immigration. But perhaps the most alarming is her sentences for those convicted of child pornography crimes.
Child pornography is among the most monstrous, inexcusable crimes. Typically those cases can be classified either as “possession” or “distribution.” In other words, either being in possession of child pornography, or distributing it.
POSSESSION – When sentencing convicted criminals for crimes related to the possession of child pornography, the average sentence nationally is 68 months. However, Judge Jackson’s average sentence for these crimes has been less than 30 months.
DISTRIBUTION – National average sentence: 135 months. Judge Jackson: less than 72 months.
With heinous crimes against the most vulnerable victims, this is ridiculous. If you want to look at sentencing for all federal crimes, the national average is a bit over 45 months. But Judge Jackson’s average is less than 30 months. This is all according to sentencing data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
I think this speaks volumes about Judge Jackson’s positions on crime & punishment. Which is par for the course when it comes to liberal philosophy, but has NO PLACE on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court.