Ketanji Brown Jackson

Josh Hawley Absurdly Suggests That Ketanji Brown Jackson Has a Soft Spot for 'Child Predators'

The Missouri senator's attack on the Supreme Court nominee elides crucial distinctions and ignores widespread judicial criticism of child pornography sentences.

|

After President Joe Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court, Reason's Damon Root noted that she "has shown admirable judgment in criminal justice cases." One especially telling example is Jackson's handling of people charged with possessing or sharing child pornography, who face absurdly long sentences under federal law even when they have never committed any offenses involving contact with a victim.

Questioning those sentences is politically perilous, since people tend to erroneously assume that anyone who looks at such pictures is a current or future child molester. Yet as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Jackson frequently imposed sentences below the range recommended by federal guidelines. Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), a former Missouri attorney general, thinks those decisions reveal an "alarming pattern" of "sentencing leniency for sex criminals," whom he equates with "child predators."

Hawley has no idea what he is talking about. His mindlessly punitive attitude elides crucial distinctions and ignores the fact that many federal judges agree with Jackson that the recommended sentences for possessing child pornography are frequently excessive.

Jackson, who is currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, was a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) from 2009 to 2014. During that time, Jackson recognized that people caught with child pornography do not necessarily pose a threat to public safety. Hawley cites a hearing at which Jackson said she had mistakenly "assumed that child pornography offenders are pedophiles" and was "trying to understand this category of nonpedophiles who obtain child pornography."

While Hawley implies that Jackson's interest in this subject is clearly crazy, it is consistent with research that underlines the importance of a distinction that Hawley ignores in his haste to score cheap political points. As Karl Hanson, a senior research scientist at Public Safety Canada and a leading expert on sex offenders, told me more than a decade ago, "there does exist a distinct group of offenders who are Internet-only and do not present a significant risk for hands-on sex offending."

Recidivism research supports that observation. A 2021 USSC study, for example, tracked 1,093 nonproduction child pornography offenders who were released from prison in 2005. Three years later, it found, 3.3 percent had been arrested for a "non-contact sex offense" (which would include possession of child pornography). Just 1.3 percent had been arrested for a "contact sex offense." Even allowing for crimes that were not reported, these finding suggests this category of sex offenders is far less dangerous than people commonly imagine.

Hawley is completely uninterested in such findings. He even faults Jackson for referring to "less-serious child pornography offender[s]," a complaint that bizarrely implies there are no differences among such defendants that might be relevant to the punishment they receive. As far as lawmakers like Hawley are concerned, there is no such thing as an excessively severe sentence for possessing child pornography.

In 2003, the USSC notes, "Congress directly amended the guidelines to add new sentencing enhancements and created new statutory mandatory minimum penalties." As a result, "the underlying conduct triggering such enhancements and penalties increasingly applied to more offenders."

Judges have no choice but to impose mandatory minimum sentences required by statute. But in the 2005 case United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court ruled on Sixth Amendment grounds that federal sentencing guidelines, previously treated as mandatory, are merely advisory. That decision freed federal judges to impose sentences below the guideline range when they thought justice required it.

Jackson was hardly unusual in taking advantage of that discretion. In fiscal year 2019, the USSC found, 59 percent of nonproduction offenders received sentences below the guideline range, compared to less than 16 percent in FY 2005. "There had been a steady increase in the percentage of sentences imposed below the applicable guideline range in non-production child pornography cases," the USSC notes, "which indicate[s] that courts increasingly believed the sentencing scheme for such offenders was overly severe."

In other words, the downward departures that Hawley presents as aberrant, marking Jackson as especially soft on "sex criminals," are actually typical. It is not hard to see why.

The USSC notes that the current guidelines, which are "constrained by statutory mandatory minimum penalties, congressional directives, and direct guideline amendments by Congress," include "a series of enhancements that have not kept pace with technological advancements." Those enhancements "cover conduct that has become so ubiquitous that they now apply in the vast majority of cases." In FY 2019, for example, "over 95 percent of non-production child pornography offenders received enhancements for use of a computer and for the age of the victim."

Thanks largely to congressional intervention, someone who views, possesses, or shares child pornography can be sent to federal prison for two decades, while someone else who does the same thing might receive probation or a sentence of less than a year. That situation is hard to reconcile with anyone's idea of justice.

Hawley's case against Jackson is based entirely on the unquestioned assumption that the current sentencing scheme is just and that any downward deviations from it must be inappropriately lenient. He cites one defendant, for example, who "had more than 600 images and videos and posted many on a public blog." The guidelines recommended a sentence of 151 to 188 months, but "Judge Jackson settled on 60 months, the lowest possible sentence allowed by law."

While a sentence of 12 to 15 years might be appropriate (or even too lenient) for someone who sexually abuses a child, Hawley thinks it's obviously just for a defendant whose crimes consisted of nothing more than collecting and sharing images of such abuse. He likewise thinks it's obvious that a five-year sentence for such conduct is akin to a slap on the wrist. Many people, including many federal judges, disagree.

Hawley's sense of justice does not even comport with the views of average citizens who serve on federal juries. In a 2014 case involving a defendant who was caught with 1,500 child porn images on his computer, for example, James Gwin, a federal judge in Cleveland, asked the jurors what they thought an appropriate sentence would be. On average, they recommended a prison term of 14 months—far shorter than the mandatory minimum (five years), the sentence recommended by prosecutors (20 years), and the term indicated by federal sentencing guidelines (27 years).

Taking a cue from the jury, Gwin sentenced the defendant to five years, the minimum required by statute, which was one-quarter the term that prosecutors wanted but still four times longer than the jurors deemed fair. No doubt Hawley would consider five years insufficient in that case as well. But he does not bother to defend that position, except by lazily and ignorantly classifying all such defendants as "sex criminals" who are "preying on children."

As a federal judge in Iowa, Mark W. Bennett likewise found that jurors did not agree with the sentences that Hawley believes are self-evidently appropriate. "Every time I ever went back in the jury room and asked the jurors to write down what they thought would be an appropriate sentence," Bennett told The Marshall Project's Eli Hager in 2015, "every time—even here, in one of the most conservative parts of Iowa, where we haven't had a 'not guilty' verdict in seven or eight years—they would recommend a sentence way below the guidelines sentence. That goes to show that the notion that the sentencing guidelines are in line with societal mores about what constitutes reasonable punishment—that's baloney."

Maybe all those jurors are out of their minds. Maybe they, unlike Hawley, are unfazed by child molestation and inclined to treat "sex criminals" leniently. Or maybe they recognize important distinctions that Hawley either does not understand or is determined to obscure.

"Protecting the most vulnerable shouldn't be up for debate," Hawley says. "Sending child predators to jail shouldn't be controversial." But the issue is not whether "child predators" should go to jail. It is whether defendants who are not "child predators" should be imprisoned for, say, 14 months (as the jurors in the Ohio case recommended), five years (the mandatory minimum in that case), or, as Hawley presumably would prefer, the 27 years recommended by federal sentencing guidelines.

Hawley takes the same knee-jerk approach to other public policies dealing with sex offenders. He thinks it is scandalous that Jackson has questioned the justification for publicly accessible sex offender registries and indefinite civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their prison terms. Yet there are very good reasons to question both of those policies.

Hawley is also offended that Jackson "suggested public policy is driven by a 'climate of fear, hatred & revenge' against sex offenders." But she is right about that, as Hawley's emotion-based positions illustrate.

Hawley's complete lack of seriousness on this subject is compounded by the partisan vacuity of his attack on Jackson. He suggests that her decisions in cases involving sex offenders reveal a soft spot for "child predators." He surely would not apply the same standard to Republican nominees such as Justice Neil Gorsuch, who as a 10th Circuit judge wrote a decision that upheld the Fourth Amendment rights of a child porn defendant, or Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who as a 7th Circuit judge sided with a man who was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender even though that requirement had expired.

Reasonable people may disagree about such matters. But Hawley is plainly not a reasonable person.

NEXT: The New York Times Admits That 'America Has a Free Speech Problem'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. While I agree that there is a difference between being a person who is an active child predator who preys on children, and a person who merely consumes child porn, I don't really understand what that matters in the case of possessing child porn.

    When you are locked up for kiddy porn, it isn't because you are a child predator (as the government has plenty of other laws to deal with such people)- it is because you are participating in a market that exploits children. You might not be PRODUCING the kiddy porn (again, there are laws to address those folks as well), but you are creating a market for it. And FWIW, being in that market, according to my reading, generally means you are part of a network of people sharing kiddy porn- so you are also likely engaged in distribution.

    I'm willing to accept the case that "possessing child porn" carries too high of a charge, but it isn't because some of the people are nicer than other people. The possession itself is a crime, and the other conduct of the person- whether they are also a producer or predator or just another trafficker- should be handled separately.

    1. re: "creating a market for [child porn]"

      First, no you're not. Not in the vast majority of cases, anyway.
      Second, even if you were, can you point to a single example of legislating away demand that works? We've tried locking up drug users for decades. We still have just as many drug users. We've tried to outlaw prostitution for, arguably, centuries. That's failed, too.

      1. "First, no you're not."

        By definition, you are. And you skipped over the part where I pointed out that just getting child porn generally requires you to participate. Like the old software pirating sights of the past, participating in these sites often requires you to share your own library.

        "Second, even if you were, can you point to a single example of legislating away demand that works?"

        I am not arguing for deterrence. Laws against murder and fraud aren't merely to deter, but to punish a person for committing a wrong.

        Anyways, as I said, I am happy to discuss whether we ought to reduce the sentences for posessing child porn- but drawing the distinction between people who possess the kiddy porn is not the appropriate approach.

        1. drawing the distinction between people who possess the kiddy porn

          ORLY? Distinguishing between the speaker, the platform/publisher/distributor and the listeners/recipients would be a new concept under free speech?

          1. If you are doing something different like producing, then that is a different crime. Possession should carry a penalty for the damage of possession and that some of the people possessing also produce should be handled with additional charges for those crimes.

            1. [Be Your Own Boss] Work online from home and earn over $15,000 just by doing an easy job. yui Last month I earned and received $20,000 from this job doing an easy part time job. In fact, this job is so easy to do and regular income is much better than other normal office jobs where you have to deal with your boss. http://WorkStar24.blogspot.com/

        2. "...but drawing the distinction between people who possess the kiddy porn is not the appropriate approach."

          I think this is wrong. Part of the issue is the child porn laws are way to broad. I would suggest their is a vast difference between consumers.

          Examples:
          Traci Lords. Anyone who watched, rented, owned, or otherwise consumed her pornography from her earliest years is guilty of child porn, as she was underage when she entered the profession.

          Casual "barely legal" porn consumers who frequent any sort of armature sites are likely to view at least some "not quite legal" porn made the same way underaged kids buy alcohol... fake ids.

          16 year olds who share porn pics of their 16 year old girlfriends.

          All of those examples are child porn. But should they be prosected and sentenced the same way as the Subway dude? Are they the same sort of evil that consumes pre-pubescent/pedophilia porn?

          1. I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. KLA05 I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.

            For more detail.......... http://applyjobs4.tk

      2. I'd add a third, if the crime is creating a market, criminalize the transactions (outside of production), not the possessed artifact, much like decriminalization of drugs started stratifying possession vs. trafficking. That would do away with a lot of the issues with people sending around unsolicited nudes or otherwise winding up with inappropriate nudes. If you didn't pay anything, you aren't contributing to the market.

        1. I can agree with that.

      3. Only that the democrats want to legalize pedophilia.

    2. One of the examples Hawley cited was her reducing a sentence on someone who distributed and transported their own child. So Sullums claim that merely owning cp doesn't harm children is even more laughable.

      1. When you don't consider mutilation and permanent disfigurement to be a problem then what's a little repeated sexual trauma and betrayal by those who are supposed to protect you?

    3. Well done, Overt. Could not have said it better myself.

      While I think anyone could get behind the law treating people in possession of child pornography differently than people who physically abuse children. In distinguishing between the two in this article, the author appears to be downplaying the immorality of the act itself, which I find profoundly concerning.

      If I sent you a nude picture of my wife without her consent and you were aware of this, I think everyone here would agree that we both violated her privacy/bodily autonomy, irrespective of her actual knowledge of this violation. Children do to have the capacity to consent. Involvement in the dissemination of these images at any level is, therefore, inherently exploitative and immoral.

      1. If I sent you a nude picture of my wife without her consent and you were aware of this, I think everyone here would agree that we both violated her privacy/bodily autonomy

        WTHF? Do not agree. *You* violated her autonomy/expectation of privacy. *I* answered my fucking phone. If I text back "Does your wife know you took these?" and you reply, "Yes." I'm off the hook. If you reply "No." I may be on the hook for not being a Good Samaritan and reporting it to the police. If I don't ask either way and forward it to my friends, I may be trafficking in ill-gotten goods but I *still* have not violated anyone's privacy.

        Because we conflate these issues it creates the most heinous of all libertarian issues: victimless crime. If I get a photo of a 36 yr. old who was 16 at the time in the effects of someone who took the photos and died, am I guilty of possessing child pornography? I've got photos of myself (with others) in the bathtub below the age of 10, does that count? Because we conflate the production with the distribution and possession, there's no statute of limitations and it's free to be slurred across cultural and generational norms.

        Producing child porn? Absolutely. Drag the asshole face down over hot coals with a team of turtles. Distributing or trafficking child porn? Give them a sentence and/or put them on a list. Possessing child porn? Do we stop when we've locked up everyone who uses a Bouguereau or Titian painting as their desktop background even though the guys have been dead for over 100 yrs.?

        1. In none of the cases cited were the people unwilling participants of receipt of images.

          1. I'm not arguing in KBJ's favor. She should be enforcing the law as written and Hawley is 100% in the right to call her out on it.

            I am arguing that the law should be changed. But, again, the bench is not the place to do it.

        2. I think the problem here is the one in the photo cannot knowingly consent to the distribution and a lot of the time the recipient knows that as well.

          Then there is the content itself. Pictures in a scrapbook of you in a bathtub at 2 are a far cry from pictures of an adult masturbating you at 2 or even 10.

          Some of my problem is we throw all that, which can have some nuance, together with some nude selfies from a 17 year old and call it all child porn.

        3. "WTHF? Do not agree. *You* violated her autonomy/expectation of privacy. *I* answered my fucking phone. If I text back "Does your wife know you took these?" and you reply, "Yes." I'm off the hook.

          You completely misrepresented my argument and missed the entire point in the process. My hypothetical explicitly stated that YOU WERE AWARE of the fact my wife did not know. This is the operative language because the morality of this particular action is contingent upon consent, which a child can never give. Because a child cannot consent, you are inherently exploiting that child by looking at those pictures.

          "Because we conflate these issues it creates the most heinous of all libertarian issues: victimless crime.

          My concern is exactly the point you're making. While looking a child pornography isn't as bad as sexually abusing a child, it absolutely isn't a victimless crime for all the reasons I stated above.

          "If I get a photo of a 36 yr. old who was 16 at the time in the effects of someone who took the photos and died, am I guilty of possessing child pornography? I've got photos of myself (with others) in the bathtub below the age of 10, does that count?"

          You and I both know that these are remote possibilities and are not representative of a majority of child pornography cases. Jeffrey Epstein took plenty of pictures of girls who are now full-grown women. If given the opportunity, you don't think those women would want to destroy those images because Jeffrey Epstein is dead, 20 years has passed since the photos were taken, and they don't know the specific identities of the people with access to those photos? Such an assertion would be ridiculous on its face.

          1. You aren't considering what you're saying and your own assertions are ridiculous on their face. Looking at a photo, any photo, is a victimless crime. Full stop. To say otherwise not just infringes on, but critically, if not wholly, undermines free speech. By your own assertions, it gives the government free reign to abjectly void the 1A on literal whims. You said:
            "If given the opportunity, you don't think those women would want to destroy those images because Jeffrey Epstein is dead, 20 years has passed since the photos were taken, and they don't know the specific identities of the people with access to those photos? Such an assertion would be ridiculous on its face."

            If, as *you* say, nobody knows who has access to those photos, they cannot knowingly be successfully purged. To insist that the government has an obligation to purge them at the girls' behest insists that the government has an obligation to go on endlessly searching for and purging photos in an endeavor that can't be knowingly or successfully completed. It's absurd on its face and by your own premises.

            Along another angle, by the letter of your own law, if you suspect your wife of cheating on you and hire a PI, who takes photos of her with someone else in various states of undress, you are guilty of producing and possessing illegal pornography. You paid to have them produced. You knew they would be taken without her consent. If you confront her or her lover with them, are they guilty of viewing the photos? What if you turn them over to your attorney? Are they legally prevented from viewing them?

            Consent is a non-issue with regard to tail-end distribution and possession. You can take an adult's photo in a public place without their consent and share it all you like. Even if they have copyright or other claim to the photo, the law can't simply try and convict anyone and everyone who's seen the photo or has a copy. It's a violation of their rights. To say otherwise creates a right to be forgotten and makes it a positive right. It gives the government an obligation to delete documented history.

            Your stance, honestly, sounds a lot like the Native American's mystical animus against photography, whereby simply taking a photo steals someone's soul, except what you're saying throws in an even more absurd bit of Harry Potter-style horcruxing where each copy of the photo divides the persons soul that much further. Even if the subject of the photo has no idea how many copies are viewed by how many number of people, they are somehow harmed by each viewing. Again, I'm 100% against the production of child porn. That's the crime. But you people are making it into a mysticism very much along the lines of transgenderism's notion of bodiless genders and the anti-smoking crusade. And there's only less liberty, not more, down that path.

            1. No one is a passive consumer of child porn. No child porn gets accidentally sent to someone.

              1. And at any time did any child consent to be used for such purposes.

              2. No child porn gets accidentally sent to someone.

                Sounds like you've got a pretty tight rein on all the child porn everywhere. Seen any Netflix movies lately?

            2. Thinking clearly isn't your strong suit, champ, but I appreciate that you gave it a shot. This is obviously pointless, but I'm bored so fuck it. I'll respond.

              "To say otherwise not just infringes on, but critically, if not wholly, undermines free speech."

              First, you clearly have zero fucking clue how any aspect of the law works. I am not going to bother explaining these concepts to you because it would be about as useful as explaining how the internet works to a golden retriever, but just know the first amendment does not protect your ability to say and do whatever you want. The idea that the first amendment protects your ability to look at kiddie porn is an indefensible legal argument. You cannot cite a single legal precedent that could be used to support this proposition.

              "If, as *you* say, nobody knows who has access to those photos, they cannot knowingly be successfully purged. To insist that the government has an obligation to purge them at the girls' behest insists that the government has an obligation to go on endlessly searching for and purging photos in an endeavor that can't be knowingly or successfully completed."

              Secondly, I know reading comprehension is not your strong suit, but this is a truly pathetic non-sequitur. I made moral arguments about why looking at naked children is wrong. You pulled this bullshit about government obligations straight out of your ass. The argument that the government cannot literally keeps tabs on every piece of pornographic content involving children has zero bearing on the morality of seeking out said photos.

              "You can take an adult's photo in a public place without their consent and share it all you like. Even if they have copyright or other claim to the photo, the law can't simply try and convict anyone and everyone who's seen the photo or has a copy. It's a violation of their rights ... It gives the government an obligation to delete documented history."

              This hypothetical is not in any way analogous to the subject under discussion. There is a big difference between looking at a picture of a fully-clothed adult in a public place and looking at a nude picture of a prepubescent girl in the privacy of her own home. The law can, and in fact does, treat these two situations differently because they share virtually no similarities. Contrary to what you stated here, a person has absolutely zero right to possess a picture of a naked child, and the government can, does, and should confiscate those photos whenever they have a reason to believe that a sick fuck such as yourself is in possession of said content. You are openly suggesting that law enforcement shouldn't even bother taking down child pornography on the internet because there is somehow value in the pornography being part of documented history. A more persuasive argument could have been crafted by a full-blown retard mere hours after being lobotomized.

              "Your stance, honestly, sounds a lot like the Native American's mystical animus against photography, whereby simply taking a photo steals someone's soul."

              No, it really does not. Your assertion that the emotional distress experienced by the Epstein accusers is as baseless as Native Americans with superstitious beliefs about cameras says way more about you and your beliefs than it does about me and mine.

              1. First, you clearly have zero fucking clue how any aspect of the law works.

                You clearly don't understand how reality works. Show me a single case of victim of child pornography who didn't have their photo taken. The production is the crime. Looking at a photo, any photo, is not a crime. If the 1A doesn't defend your right to view a photo, it's worthless. Your animus is getting to be retarded.

                Secondly, I know reading comprehension is not your strong suit, but this is a truly pathetic non-sequitur.

                Logic is your failure. If you don't know who has access to the photos, you can't possibly purge them or prevent their looking at them. If no one knows who has the photos, literally no crime is taking place. But you don't want or can't accept that reality. More importantly, regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about it, there's nothing short of killing every last human, that can be done. This isn't my belief, this is fact. It's like the notion that we should criminalize bitcoin or encryption. Short of annihilating humanity, it can't be done.

                There is a big difference between looking at a picture of a fully-clothed adult in a public place and looking at a nude picture of a prepubescent girl in the privacy of her own home.

                With regard to distribution, no there isn't. The systems that distribute the photo don't know the difference between 'clothed adult' and 'naked minor'. Moreover, as I point out above, with strong encryption, they, no one, can.

                Procution, OTOH, can't be encrypted and can be readily distinguished.

                Your assertion that the emotional distress experienced by the Epstein accusers

                I made no such assertions. You're the one that's asserting that they are harmed by each shared photo in perpetuity. If you're not, then you have to acknowledge that at some number of copies and some statutory limit, they don't. The law, currently, doesn't make that distinction and is determined to fail that standard. Again, no feeling, wish, or intent, it's just fact. It's an infinite game that can't be won, only maintained.

    4. Would you apply the same standard for those who smoke Marijuana or use other drugs. The drug industry does much worse than the child porn one. They actually murder people.

      How about punishing everyone just for their own acts.

      1. Hey pedo, raping kids and smoking weed have nothing to do with each other.

    5. If you own the slaves, you weren't complicit in capturing the people being sold into slavery, you are guilty of the lesser crime of merely owning the slaves! Amirite?

        1. In the opposite direction too, owning pictures of a slave auction makes you complicit in slavery, even if you weren't there, because the slaves didn't consent. As long as the photos exist, slavery exists.

    6. The logic trying to justify stiff sentences for CP offenses has always been asinine, including the whole "making a market" argument. There will always be people making things no matter how small the market is. Did you know people are still making new video games to play on the Atari 2600? It is a small market but it is out there.

      You also make an assumption that most who view it are also sharing it. I personally possess many things in which I don't share, even things that are purely digital.

      I'm just amazed you did not go into the "they are crime photos" argument. Those who actually think that looking at a picture is at the same level as an abuser is as silly an argument as looking at a murder video makes you a killer.

      1. You're not going to share the Book photos you got from Jeremy?

    7. Under your "logic" we should sentence a drug dealer and drug user to the exact same sentence. You're participating in a market that creates cartels so therefore every user must be held accountable for the crimes of the cartels which means simple possession is equivalent to mass murder.

      1. What if the man in possession of child porn is caught masturbating while looking at it? Wouldn't that prove they have CP for more than just research?

  2. The Missouri senator's attack on the Supreme Court nominee elides crucial distinctions and ignores widespread judicial criticism of child pornography sentences.

    Oh my! Next thing you are going to tell us that the Kavanaugh accusations were not entirely well-founded!

    This is politics. After what Democrats have done to every nominee since Thomas, hopefully Republicans are going to get some backbone and drag every Democratic nominee through the mud as well, with anything they can find.

    And KBJ is an awful judicial nominee on the merits. Unfortunately, you can't attack her with that because the kind of ideologically driven ignorance and incompetence that KJB is guilty of is exactly what Democrats are looking for.

    1. After what Democrats have done to every nominee since Thomas,

      Hawley's citation of cases, convictions, and sentences really makes "Who put a pubic hair on my coke?" seem frivolous in the utmost.

    2. Indeed. Paybacks are a biatch.

  3. Hawley is the AOC of the right wing.

    1. Disagree. Hawley has an actual law degree and worked as a professor and a lawyer before getting elected.

      Maybe you're making the usual anti-BOWF SIDEZ point, but the brevity makes it unclear.

      1. Hey, AOC has a degree in economics from Boston University! It should probably be revoked, since she knows less about that field than my 10-year-old niece, but at least she was smart enough to get a job serving drinks instead of trying to put that degree to use.

        1. Make AOC a bartender again.

      2. Good to know "libertarians" only want Ivy League institutionalists whose mommy and daddy bought them a nice degree and internship in government.

    2. He cited her cases directly. When has AOC backed her assertions with primary evidence?

      Agree with him or not he simply cited actual evidence which he disagreed with. Literally a discussion of her career and her policy positions.

      Not sure how you can find that offensive. Isn't that how judges should be vetted?

      If you disagree with the length of child porn make that argument. Don't attack Hawley for simply bringing it to the forefront. He most likely agrees with long sentences. Frankly I do as well. Exploitation of children is long lasting and damaging to them.

      1. "Exploitation of children is long lasting and damaging to them."

        Here's another asinine argument. It is more a self-fulfilling prophecy. People tell abuse victims they are scareed for life and they buy into it, so now you teach them to base every life successes and failures based on this one event. Are you a failure? Blame it on victimhood.

        And yet, people who experience many terrible events in their lives are expected to get over it. War? Get over it. You parents were shot to death in front of you? Get over it. A drunk South Florida lobbyist crashes his Lambo into your vehicle and caused you to break your neck? Get over it. But we put sex abuse victims in an exalted position and what a shock when there is no incentive to overcome it.

        1. For those who have experienced such attacks which is a violation of their bodily integrity by force, is one of the most traumatic events in their lives. Most of them never get over it, they merely live their lives as best they can.Some of course never manage to even get past the trauma.
          Telling a young girl of thirteen or fourteen to get over being drugged and gang raped, to get over it is beyond the absurd.
          What about the poor victim of these animals:
          https://neonnettle.com/news/18594-two-african-migrants-get-slap-on-the-wrist-for-raping-child-in-utah

          1. Again, rake the producers over the coals. However, at the same time, telling the victims they'll never be whole or functional again as long as the photos exist is very much a psychological raping. They don't know and can't consent to the notion that they'll ever overcome the trauma and you're denying them that. And it's not like none of the people denying them that are doing so for professional or self-gratification.

            We don't live in some barbaric society were photos of your rape could be used to demonstrate your infidelity and get you stoned to death. Even if it were legal to possess the photos, no one in their right mind is going to go to your employer or the media with photos of your rape as a child and expose you as a rape victim. The vast majority won't even want to see them any more than they'd want to watch a beheading video and the vast majority of the one's that would look at them or have them shown to them would resolutely reject them as a consideration or even be more sympathetic to the victim and hostile to the messenger.

        2. Uh pretty much every veteran accused of heinous violent crimes tries to trot out the PTSD defense and it often works.

        3. If child sex abuse victims would keep their little pie holes shut we wouldn't have or need a sex offense registry.

    3. MTG is the AOC of the right.

      1. ^

      2. This is fun. Who are the other "Squad" members of the right?

        1. Lauren Boobert. She can MTG can put two and two together and come up with three.

  4. I fail to understand why the media, both mainstream, alternative, and fringe, don't just laugh in the face of Josh Hawley every time he opens his mouth.

    1. What did he say that was wrong?

      What the actual fuck is wrong with some of you. He cited her actual case and policy history. And the only thing you can muster is an ad hominem attack on response.

      1. It's almost like Brandyfuck is a sarcasmic sockpuppet who posts nothing but ActBlue talking points straight out of the weekly PDF.

    2. I don't understand why brandybuck is such a devout defender of preying on children

      1. Me either. The fact that there is more than one person in this thread questioning whether looking at child pornography is immoral in the first place is truly disturbing.

        1. Every advanced society starts to involve into this type of sexual society where men become women, kids are exploited, etc. Not sure why but all major past cultures have.

          1. I have no idea where you got that from. Could you send me some links to articles/research discussing this phenomenon? If your observation is correct, it could explain why the most durable institutions in history are all affiliated with major world religions.

            1. You find it in the Greek and Roman empires as well as the ottoman empire.

              It would be dozens of citations needed or book titles. But Google feminization of men on ancient empires or pedophilia ancient empires.

              China even went as far as banning feminine men from television as they understand the historical marker preditermining a collapse of society.

          2. This is part of the plan to destroy society as we know it. It is part of the great reset.
            "Know the outcome and you will see the journey" David Icke.

        2. I don't think people are questioning the immorality of child porn but rather if the current scope misses the mark and is too broad. I think the core stands but the edge cases are too common, understandable and mundane

          1. The primary purpose of the criminal justice system is retributive, and retribution dictates that the punishment be proportional to the crime. It is self-evident that a person who forcibly rapes a 12 y/o girl commits a greater moral sin than the person jerking off to a picture of a naked 12 year old in his mom's basement. So, of course I believe that the former should be given a longer sentence than the latter.

            But, that does not imply, as mad.casual asserted above, that I believe looking at child pornography is a "victimless crime," which I really don't see as very far removed from saying it isn't immoral at all. The retributive nature of criminal justice system means that our criminal laws are a contemporaneous reflection of societal morality. What does that say about our American society if possession of child pornography is only punishable by 8 months in jail? I think many people believe that this would be a miscarriage of justice and proof positive of the significant moral erosion of our culture, myself included.

            "... the edge cases are too common, understandable and mundane"

            The problem I have with statements like this, is that it's hard for me to believe there are actually many situations touching on this issue that I could sincerely describe as "understandable" or "mundane". If someone has actual or constructive knowledge that they are in possession of compromising and sexually explicit pictures and videos of children, that person has committed a deeply immoral act by definition. Period. I have yet to find anyone who can craft a persuasive hypothetical showing how one could "understandably" or "mudanely" consume kiddie porn.

            1. But, that does not imply, as mad.casual asserted above, that I believe looking at child pornography is a "victimless crime," which I really don't see as very far removed from saying it isn't immoral at all.

              Looking at a photo, any photo, is a victimless crime. To say otherwise voids the 1A.

              1. consumers of child porn procure child porn, they don't just incidentally happen upon a photo that they look at theough no fault of their own.

                1. First, we put people who urinate in public on the sex offender registry.

                  Second, you said consumer, not viewer. A consumer is someone who purchases goods and services. The purchase is the crime, not the goods. Otherwise, you grant the government further power to criminalize goods (and, in this case, regulate speech).

              2. how about posting a link to said photo on a "libertarian website"?
                - SPB

      2. Seems more like you're a child molester over compensating for your own crimes against children.

    3. I voted for him. I think I'll continue to vote for him until it ceases to amuse me, or 'they' give us a better candidate.

    4. Let THEM laugh at him (and morn his being in the position he's in). WE vote for him and people like him. Deal with it. (Or you think perhaps people with ideas like mine should lose their franchise?)

  5. Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), a former Missouri attorney general
    ...
    Hawley has no idea what he is talking about.

    Not to defend Hawley but, damn. Sure, Sullum, I'm sure Hawley's time as AG and his getting elected into a decision-making chair for Jackson's nomination makes him inferior to your economics and psych degrees, let alone your years of writing for illustrious legal publications like The Chicago Sun-Times, The New York Post, and Reason Magazine.

    1. It’s funny people still pretend that Reason doesn’t attack the right more than the left. By a lot.

      In the past week they’ve attacked Hawley for questioning low sentences for possession of child porn, and claimed MTG spoke at a white nationalist event that had several black men and an Asian woman also speak. It’s getting really embarrassing.

      1. Only those who have drunk the Kool-Aide (a lot of it) don't notice the servings offered here.

      2. Imagine saying that KBJ wasn't just narrowly wrong in her decision making but that, despite her legal expertise, she has no idea what she's talking about when it comes to the law. Now imagine saying it with *zero* legal background. Now imagine saying it when she's abjectly right and doing her job as straight and true as any arrow could possibly be loosed.

        Sullum's statement is a discredit to both journalism and the law.

        1. He’s a discredit to the concept of “reason” and his family.

      3. Well, Tony was a philosophy major. So, there. Yeah.

        Yep.

    2. Anybody whose past includes writing for newspapers must be suspect.
      They are expected to lie to your face, twist the truth and obfuscate the facts.

    3. It's fucking amazing that in a "libertarian" site's comment section you have people claiming that previously holding a different position in the corrupt state I thought libertarians wanted to do area at with somehow makes a person more credible instead of less.

  6. He cites one defendant, for example, who "had more than 600 images and videos and posted many on a public blog." So he wasn't just consuming, he also was distributing.
    "Judge Jackson settled on 60 months, the lowest possible sentence allowed by law." Hawley is right, lenient it is.

  7. Hawley literally quoted her own policy positions and judicial decisions. How is that absurd?

    1. Because Sullum wants legal child pornography and consequence-free child rape, so he had a visceral temper tantrum when someone called out one of his allies on it.

  8. Speaking of leniency, why does Reason still let a known CP peddler post here?

    1. Shackford, Sullum? Who exactly other than PBP would you be talking about?

    2. The only Communist Party activist posting here is Tony. Compared to Nixon's snake-juggling Moral Majority, Tony is almost a beacon of sanity.

      1. Disagree. Nixon could reliably string two sentences together without sounding like a self-loathing retard. There are certainly sentences where Nixon failed but his failure rate is nowhere near Tony's. I certainly don't agree with everything Nixon said and certainly not with what he did, but he was far, far more morally grounded and logically consistent than Tony.

  9. And by the way sullum...

    You want lower sentences for child predators and collectors of exploited children...

    Yet you remain fucking silent on sentences of 51 months for no damages or violence for hundreds of protestors J6. So fuck right off you disingenuous shit.

    1. Sullum likes beating his microchode to child porn. He doesn't like protesting government abuse.

      Isn't it interesting that Sullum accidentally outed his Lord Strazele commenting sock, who shares a lot of similarities with shrike, who posted child pornography at Reason.com?

    2. And just how many ANTIFA and BLM rioters have been convicted and sent to jail for looting, arson destruction of private property, setting fire to police cars and stations, setting fire to federal buildings and causing billions on destruction along with the mayhem and murder that took place.
      How many? You can practically count them on one hand.

  10. I guess people write about things -- "distinctions" -- that are important in their own minds.

  11. Gee what a shocker, the perpetual kiddie porn and child rape apologist Sullum supports a judge who shows leniency to kiddie pornographers and child rapists.

    I couldn't be happier that this is the hill that libertarians have chosen to die on for the sake of their globohomo child molesting paymasters. Legal child porn and the absolute right of teachers to expose children in grades K-3 to cartoon pornography and graphic descriptions of gay sex acts.

    1. The left (including Reason) dying on the "people have a right to abuse and molest young children" hill is... less than surprising.

    2. This has nothing to do with Libertarians. Furthermore you know nothing about the Libertarian ideals.
      Only what some propagandist from the N.Y. Times spews out.
      Again, you know nothing about the Libertarian movement.
      Nothing.

  12. But Hawley is plainly not a reasonable person.

    He's a politician. You're an idiot if you think anything he says gives you any insight into what he thinks.

    1. Calling anyone else an unreasonable person when your position is that child porn should be legal and that sentences for fucking little kids are too harsh is the height of hilarity.

      1. The fucking virtue signaling from you dipshits who didn't even read the short article is as pathetic as any resistor's Twitter. Convinced any self described libertarian who thinks the state can solve this problem with more state power is a child molester compensating for their crimes.

        1. Incarceration works. Every time. If we as a society have decided that kids are too valuable to be used as sexual objects, and we pass laws that put that thinking in place, then they all should go to prison and rot. In prison, they can’t exploit kids.

          Look if you want to argue that the above is normal instead, then go for it. Maybe then you’ll get laws changed. Good luck with that.

    2. Sullum is a "journalist" so he is by definition an idiot. And given the things Sullum defends he isn't capable of recognizing a reasonable position.

  13. Sullum, you just had a Libertarian moment, and I don't mean that in a good way. This is like when GJ had concerns about selling drugs to kids and he was booed down in response.

    Outside of overzealous conservative censors mis-labeling Japanese media as CP, people who consume CP are pedophiles. That's literally what the definition is. Just because they don't fuck kids doesn't change the fact they want to and get off on it.

    Remove them from civil society, they don't belong. Stop defending degenerates like that.

    1. Giving the state the right to remove people from society, from someone who calls themselves libertarian. You're a child molester too.

  14. Some of the comments Hawley made directly from primary sourced material:

    So people can actually read what he wrote and see what he is citing instead of just saying "bad man bad."

    https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1504221927665250305

    Judge Jackson has said that some people who possess child porn “are in this for either the collection, or the people who are loners and find status in their participation in the community.” What community would that be? The community of child exploiters?

    Judge Jackson has opined there may be a type of “less-serious child pornography offender” whose motivation is not sexual but “is the challenge, or to use the technology.” A “less-serious” child porn offender?

    The shrike defense.

    In her time on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Judge Jackson said she “mistakingly assumed that child pornography offenders are pedophiles” and she wanted “to understand this category of nonpedophiles who obtain child pornography.”

    C'mon guys, they are just collectors!

    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.

    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.

    Doesn't sound like a collector.

    In United States v. Sears, the sex offender distributed more than 102 child porn videos. He also sent lewd pictures of his own 10-year-old daughter. The Guidelines recommended 97-121 months in prison. Judge Jackson gave him 71 months.

    In United States v. Savage, the sex offender was convicted of travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, and also admitted to transporting child porn. The Guidelines recommended 46-57 months. Judge Jackson gave him 37.

    And there were more cases. In every case on child pornography she adjudicated over she went well under the guidelines.

    1. So she is being promoted to protect Hunter and maybe Joe from their actions.

    2. Some people collect stamps, or bottle caps, or coins. Perhaps she doesn't see the difference between those hibbies and collecting and distributing child pornography? (How does she think someone gains "status in their participation" other than sharing it, especially new instances of it?)

    3. So Sullum is lying.

  15. Will this also be proven 100% true in two years?

  16. Is she another Soros minion?

    -jcr

    1. DEMAND JUSTICE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BRIAN FALLON: “If [Jackson] is picked for the D.C. Circuit, I’d expect her stay there to be rather brief, because I’d expect her to be the lead candidate for a Supreme Court vacancy in the event that Justice Breyer retires.”

      And Demand Justice is a Soros group.

      https://www.worldtribune.com/soros-funded-demand-justice-group-offers-to-help-out-this-time-in-florida/

  17. LOL.

    This the same TOKEN black judge who had her clerk smudge up the other judges on Wikipedia and then change her bio so it looked better?

  18. Defending purveyors of child porn is one of the main reasons libertarians will never win elections.

    1. Do you have a cite supporting your claim?

      1. How is the article above not such a defense?

    2. Libertarians have won every election (by forcing repeal of cruel laws) despite plants and infiltrations orchestrated by mystical bigot and anarcho-communist brainwashees. I have tried to force deletion of the 1982 child molester plank since 1990. That the LP continues to grow despite such deliberate sabotage says a lot about how voters compare us to both Kleptocracy parties before choosing how to cast a ballot.

      1. What color is your sky?

  19. Sullum pro-kiddie porn, Shackford pro-grooming, who funds this website, NAMBLA?

    1. Epstein didn’t kill himself.

    2. Looky here! The NAMBLA boy who single-handedly bankrupted The Intellectual Activist and helped mystical bigots depict objectivism as a Satanic rite is now recycled to do a sockpuppet whack job on libertarian publications. No idea is too dumb--if intended to stop libertarian spoiler votes from repealing moronic laws!

      1. The Intellectual Activist? Are you talking about Peter Schwarz?

  20. Anybody that voted for Biden has a soft spot for child predators

  21. The basic and justifiable argument on the illegality of child porm is that an actual child was harmed in the making.

    When congress passed the law (or the supreme court upheld the law - can't remember which) that animated child porm - you know, where no actual child is harmed - was as illegal as actual child porm, the anti-child porm movement lost all credibility.
    Anyone with half a brain can see the vast consumer demand for this crap and children could have been spared harm if animated were declared legal - real child porm going forward would have virtually disappeared.

    Y'all want to do some real fucking good? Stop bitching and moaning about judges using common sense and empathy in abating sentences that don't fit the crime and demand that your congressmen let that market - whose creative product is a horrid crime by its production - die by replacing it with animated, that hurts no one.

    1. Anyone with half a brain can see the vast consumer demand for this crap and children could have been spared harm if animated were declared legal - real child porm going forward would have virtually disappeared.

      The theory is that exposure to such materials causes people to eventually seek to actually harm children. It's plausible, even likely, but not proven.

    2. Hey pedo, the children who are abused to make CP didn’t make it illegal to own CP cartoons.

    3. LYSANDER SPOONER, 1875 on rape versus consent: And it is usually holden that a female child, of no more than ten years of age, has such reasonable discretion, that her consent, even though procured by rewards, or promises of reward, is sufficient to convert the act, which would otherwise be a high crime, into a simple act of vice. (Footnote: The statute book of Massachusetts makes ten years the age at which a female child is supposed to have discretion enough to part with virtue. But the same statute book holds that no person, man or woman, of any age, or any degree of wisdom or experience, has discretion to be trusted to buy and drink a glass of spirits on his or her own judgment! What an illustration of the legislative wisdom of Massachusetts!)

  22. I went to the same law school (HLS) at the same time as this woman and I can tell you from personal experience that she is a typical product of affirmative action--completely unqualified to serve both temperamentally and intellectually. She viciously attacked me in con-law class for the sin of being white on one occasion long before "white supremacy" had come into fashion (fortunately the prof told her he was "not comfortable with her assault), and blundered her way through a group assignment humiliating herself before actually having the nerve to come to me asking for help. Her portion of a joint writing assignment was something that I--a scion of the trailer park and the first person in my family's history to ever go to college of any sort (as far as is known) would have been ashamed to turn in as a sophomore in high-school.

    course, like so many of her type (think either one of the Obamas) she resents the living hell out of those who have handed her everything in life on a silver platter on account of her skin color---and hates all non-blacks with a burning passion. More to the point, she is the type that I saw over and over at Big Law: whatever work you gave her had to be done twice: once by her for something you could show the client's "diversity committee," and a second time by a non-black for something you could show to the client itself or to a court.

    She epitomizes everything that is sick and wrong with America.
    I have no idea about the specific subject matter of this article, but she belongs on the Supreme Court like Elmer Fudd does.

    1. Winnie, nice story, but she's married to a white guy and has children with him, so if she hates white people, it must be difficult at home. She also went to a high school that was about 75% white and she was class president, most likely to do this and do that, and is known for her highly social and accommodating personality. You're lying.

        1. Sure:

          "In 1996, Jackson married surgeon Patrick G. Jackson, whose family is considered Boston Brahmin. Through her marriage, she is related to former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.[95] Patrick Jackson is descended from Jonathan Jackson, a delegate to the Continental Congress, and is related to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.[96] The couple have two daughters.[97]" Wikipedia

          "...I met Ketanji in 1982 in a 7th grade civics class housed in a portable classroom at our public junior high school in Miami....Year after year, she was elected by our peers to be class president in our large, diverse public high school. She was something of a living legend within the 1980s high school speech and debate circuit, a perennial champion who was not just widely esteemed but truly adored.
          In college, she became a devoted student of American government, graduating with high honors in the field.
          As a student at Harvard Law School, Ketanji was brave, poised and outspoken in classroom discussions on legal issues. I recall being in a large class with her called "Race Relations and the Law." It delved into the kinds of legal issues that engender strong and conflicting opinions across the political spectrum.
          Ketanji had a knack for making insightful remarks that would steer the classroom conversation in a valuable new direction. Owing to her thoughtfulness and personable manner, she was always well-liked and respected by those who held differing views...."

          https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/01/opinions/ketanji-brown-jackson-classmate-yearbook-rosenthal/index.html

          1. "Judge Jackson has spoken often, including in her 2013 swearing-in as a judge, about how much high school meant to her. She was the class president and has helped organize class reunions. But above all, she was a top debater.

            Judge Jackson grew up in what she has described as a predominantly Jewish suburb of Miami, attending her friends’ bar and bat mitzvahs. At the time, Palmetto was in an unincorporated residential neighborhood known as East Kendall that is now the upscale village of Pinecrest.

            She joined speech and debate in junior high, heading over to Palmetto for early-morning practice on the high school team. The coach, Fran Berger, had grown Palmetto into such a debate powerhouse that it had become not just an extracurricular activity but a full-fledged for-credit class....

            Judge Jackson competed in two disciplines that were more speech than debate: oratory, where contestants write and deliver original speeches, and interpretation, where they perform dramatic or humorous parts from existing material. She was a national champion in oratory.

            Ms. Berger died in 2008. Judge Jackson was among several debaters quoted in her Miami Herald obituary.

            The debaters’ résumés are impressive. Nathaniel Persily, a constitutional law professor at Stanford. Judge Laura Anne Stuzin of Florida’s 11th Judicial Circuit. Benjamin G. Greenberg, the prom date turned United States attorney, now in private practice.

            “It’s like doctor, doctor, professor, professor, lawyer, lawyer, professor, judge, judge, doctor,” said Stephen F. Rosenthal, a Miami lawyer who has known Judge Jackson since junior high and counts her as one of his best friends. He met his future wife, Mindy Zane Rosenthal, a debater at Miami Beach Senior High, in a competition. (Then he went to Harvard.).."

            https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/26/us/ketanji-brown-jackson-high-school-debate.html

            "Former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is supporting Ketanji Brown Jackson after President Joe Biden nominated her to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.

            Ryan, a Republican from Janesville, and Jackson have a family connection: Jackson's husband has a twin brother who's married to Ryan's sister-in-law.

            In a tweet, Ryan said he was happy for Jackson, who's currently a federal appeals court judge in Washington.

            "Our politics may differ, but my praise for Ketanji's intellect, for her character, and for her integrity, is unequivocal," Ryan wrote.

            Ryan made similar comments after former President Barack Obama nominated Jackson to serve as a district court judge in 2012.

            "I know she is clearly qualified, but it bears repeating just how qualified she is," Ryan said in a December 2012 confirmation hearing in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary."

            https://www.wpr.org/paul-ryan-backs-ketanji-brown-jackson-bidens-supreme-court-pick

            1. Josh Hawley’s misleading attack on Judge Jackson’s sentencing of child-porn offenders

              By Glenn Kessler

              "Hawley, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, signaled he planned to question Jackson closely on the issue.

              But the picture that Hawley provides is a selective one that lacks significant context. He suggests that Jackson is out of the judicial mainstream with her sentencing of child-pornography defendants. But he ignores a long debate within the judicial community about whether mandatory minimums were too high. As a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which is charged with reducing sentencing disparities, Jackson was intimately involved in that debate. Hawley selectively quotes from testimony, USCC materials and various court cases to make his case. Let’s take a tour through his technique...."

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/19/sen-hawleys-misleading-attack-judge-jacksons-sentencing-child-porn-offenders/

              1. Josh Hawley's keen political instincts led him to side with an inevitably failed coup attempt.

              2. Jesse quoted his statements about specific sentences she made above. I’m not reading another smear opinion.

                If he’s wrong, point to a specific sentencing he mentioned and tell me how he’s wrong.

            2. “But above all, she was a top debater.”

              “Judge Jackson competed in two disciplines that were more speech than debate: oratory, where contestants write and deliver original speeches, and interpretation, where they perform dramatic or humorous parts from existing material. She was a national champion in oratory.”

              If you contradict yourself so thoroughly as this, I don’t trust anything else you say.

          2. This is an opinion piece from CNN from some white lefty that admits she embarrassed him in high school by making him look like a bitch holding a teddy bear in the high school yearbook. He still thinks she’s great.

            1. From CNN, he says--with a straight face.

              Res ipsa......

              1. The sad thing is he thinks finding this white cuck that says she treated him like a cuck contradicts your statement.

                It actually fits your assessment quite nicely.

      1. I was there--you were not.

        These anecdotes attempting to retroactively burnish the bona fides and credentials of the AA class almost uniformly turn out to be complete fabrications.

        I am not the least bit surprised she ended up marrying a well-to-do white man. So many of them do. AOC anyone? I told you she shamelessly came to ME--the bluest eyed blondest haired piece of white trailer-trash you will ever see in your life--for a lifeline after she had made a fool out of herself launching into a tirade against me in a Con-law class with 100 plus student witnesses a mere few months earlier. These people hate the very hand that feeds them, yet know they can only achieve at the hands of the very people they resent so much. Makes for some very interesting interpersonal dynamics.

        You can sit there on the sidelines and apply your bare "logic" all day long--but until you have been there--inundated and marinated in it for two decades like I was--you will never know how the whole charade of AA at elite schools and firms and government positions really works.

        And no, I am NOT saying that there are no brilliant blacks who absolutely belonged--just that vanishingly few were--or are--to be found from the "elite" schools.

        1. If there were so many witnesses you should have no problem finding one willing to put their real name to backing up your anonymous account.

          Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and given her partner and lack of any evidence of your claim (such as being unduly harsh on white defendants), you've offered no evidence at all to back up your story, not even the bare minimum of establishing you are in fact who you claim to be (a Yale Law grad who hangs out in Reason.com comments sections telling fantastically unlikely stories).

          Even assuming you were there, since there's nothing public to suggest the Obamas are like that too, let me guess, you've conveniently met them too while they've gone mask-off around you to explain their disdain of white people? No, I don't believe that at all, so if you were there, my bet is you were being obnoxiously racist, and resent one of those n's being a SC nominee while you, despite your pedigree, have amounted to so little you have time to argue with people in the comment section of reason.com.

          But I don't even think it's likely you were.

          1. Harvard* sorry.

          2. She also clerked for not just white-guy Judge Breyer, but white-guy Judge Selya, and white-lady Judge Saris.

            Sure likes working with white people for someone who hates them so much, and I guess she managed to hide her real views for all those years too.

    2. Readers are urged to pay close attention to what anonymous Republican sockpuppets say about Democratic nominees--and vice versa. Anyone not a Beatles album-burning ku-klux Comstockist is, by Conservangelist dogma, unsuited for anything but deportation. Observe that no comparison is made between this nominee and Bizarro World Bush and Trump nominees.

    3. "like so many of her type (think either one of the Obamas)"

      Oh, we got the message.

      I'll take President nose-bone over Trump any day. Nobody gets affirmative action like white dudes.

    4. Thank you for coming forward.
      Stay safe.

  23. If only they could both lose.

  24. The first rule of political appointments is not to scare the masses.

  25. Sullum would be less surprised after a look at the record. The 1972 LP platform influenced the Court into enforcing individual rights for pregnant women, and inspired Canadians to even bolder steps. Since that 1973 ruling, religious fanatics have made campaigns into dogfights and infiltrated the LP platform committee alongside violent anarchists. To alienate voters, "our" 1982 platform demanded government protection of child molesting! (https://tinyurl.com/2awz27fb)

  26. I see the Republican party has coalesced upon a midterm political strategy: accuse all Democrats of being child rapists. Stay classy, fuckfaces.

    Josh Hawley had a poster of a hot shirtless man above his dorm room bed. And he's a deeply religious conservative. I'm not saying he's the most obvious closet case, I'm just saying it's sad that he's wasting his youth pretending to be straight in this day and age.

    1. He’s not accusing her of being a child rapist, he’s pointing out actual sentencing of hers for people convicted of having child pornography.

      But you’re just here to lie, so you don’t care.

    2. Remember when The Don was prez? All republicans thought about 24/7 was girl-bullying and how to shoot and jail teenagers, then use asset-forfeiture to nationalize their parents' homes. Now that BOTH kinds of voters, popular and electoral, have tossed them teeth-first onto the cobblestones, suddenly they are all about fiscal restraint and pretending that asset-forfeiture prohibitionism NE-VAH had anything to do with banking panics, crashes, depressions and Flash Crashes, the same way Biden pretends.

      1. Are you paying attention Hank? Nixon at least had the good sense not to try to win people to his cause by impugning people for being closeted Christians.

        1. Again, you may not like Nixon for being Christian and you may not like the Christian cause but not impugning people by and for the simple "fact" of being tacitly tied to his cause is at least sensible on both logical and moral grounds.

      2. “Remember when The Don was prez? All republicans thought about 24/7 was girl-bullying and how to shoot and jail teenagers, then use asset-forfeiture to nationalize their parents' homes.”

        I don’t remember that at all. Could you explain further? I’m sure it’ll be enlightening.

  27. It does seem whenever a Democratic President nominates a SC, the media fawns all over the person and when the GOP, its war and the nominee is Hitler or Bull Connors doesn't it?

    Dems tend to nominate Jews/"minorities" when was the last time they nominated say an Italian or Irish American? (In fact the gutless attacks on the Italian nominees are well remembered in the Italian community). She needs to face the music just like any GOP nominee like Scalia did (I'm old enough to recall certain liberal types who said he was a member of the mob).

    1. Pollo here is still struggling with The American Language, to say nothing of how American Ideas diverge from Mussolini's.

  28. Sen. Hawley is a superstitious bigot with ugly character and, I expect to read someday, a closeted cocksucker.

    In other words, a typical Republican misfit and worthless culture war casualty in modern, improving America.

  29. The one cited in this article that Hawley mentioned was particularly egregious. The guy had merely retweeted/reblogged the posts of others. Didn't even post it himself.

    The prosecutor only recommended 72 months, and the presentence report from the federal probation office recommended the minimum of 60 months with 15 years of supervised release (Jackson included 10 years).

    Another case Hawley complained about involved someone who ratted out more serious offenders.

    Somebody should check Hawley's hard drive, given how strongly conservatives project. The loudest voices about "family values" and the evils of gay people turn out to be gay themselves. I think Mr. Hawley is hard *for* CP rather than hard "on" CP.

  30. Josh Hawley supports policies that benefit the Catholic Church.

    Why do right-wingers have a soft spot for child abusers and superstitious nonsense?

    1. I dunno, why do leftists support child molesters?

  31. The one thing parents have to be concerned about are the way too lenient sentences given to pedophiles and this is just one of those cases:
    https://neonnettle.com/news/18594-two-african-migrants-get-slap-on-the-wrist-for-raping-child-in-utah
    At least there is one sherriff who cares about protecting your children from these predators:
    https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/disney-employees-and-former-judge-among-108-arrested-in-sex-trafficking-sting/

  32. Any time a politician starts crowing about "sex offenders," you better start looking into their backgrounds. Respecially if they are Republican. Dennis Hastert, Mark Foley, Matt Gaetz....

    Whether or not Hawley's a closet sex offender or not, he is still an insurrectionist and should be in prision with the QShaman.

    1. This comment section of very alarming too. When a bunch of people who spend all day taking about how worthless the government is and how we should get rid of most of it start shrieking hysterically at anyone who suggests maybe the state is also worthless in this area and longer sentences accomplish nothing but wasting tax dollars, increasing state power, and reducing individual liberty to save the children it is very suspicious.

      1. They didn't get to be disaffected, antisocial, government-hating cranks with sound judgment, adequate education, good temperament, and strong character.

      2. That's right. The answer to any problem is MORE GOVERNMENT!
        Unfortunately those who like lots of government do not want to see all the failures and in many cases actually makes situations much worse than they already were.
        Government is not the cure all as too many people believe.
        The only thing government does is 1: throw lots of money at the problem in hopes that some of it will stick. 2: create even more problems and grow the bureaucracy even larger.
        America now has the largest bureaucracy ever in human history.
        That government that governs least, governs best has never been more true than it is today.

  33. "soft spot"??? Well, probably not true for White Males at least.. Right? We've seen her justice record; It's all about [WE] mob 'activist' judging (i.e. Which Gang Wins!).... Never-mind the U.S. Constitution.

  34. A very meaningful event, I hope everything will go well run 3

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.