| An unusual topic (at least, for a Supreme Court confirmation) has dominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's hearings: her record sentencing child-porn offenders. Republicans have made this their predominant line of questioning, alleging that Jackson was too lenient. Was she? And why are Republicans making this an issue? The facts  Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on Wednesday, her third day of confirmation hearings. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post) | There is no evidence Jackson has sentenced child-porn offenders any differently than other judges. The Washington Post's Fact Checker Glenn Kessler looked at her record in detail. For one thing, it's extremely common for judges to give sentences for child-porn offenders that are below official recommendations — and a majority of judges say mandatory minimums for those receiving messages are too high. Out of seven cases cited by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), in just two cases did Jackson render a sentence that was below the probation office's recommendation. Here's how Jackson explained those more lenient sentences: She said she took into account how these people would also be subject to years of restricted computer use, or unable to be around children, and the fact that there's a difference between receiving a text with an image, and producing and distributing it. "If you were to look at the greater body of not only my more than one hundred sentences, but also the sentences of other judges in my district and nationwide, you would see a very similar exercise of attempting to do what it is that judges do, attempting to take into account all of the relevant factors and do justice individually in each case," she told Hawley. Could Republicans' attack backfire? Jackson has been a judge for nearly a decade; she's got a lengthy record and has made decisions on a variety of cases that Republicans could take issue with, without having to muddy the facts. But they're hyper-focused on this child-porn sentencing allegation even where their allegations don't hold water. This also has a tinge of character assassination. If Jackson gives lesser sentences to child-porn offenders than the norm, then are Republicans implying she's sympathetic to them? Republicans had promised not to go after Jackson's character in the way Democrats treated their most recent nominees. (Here's the backstory to Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.) So where did this come from? The White House called it a "smear" pulled from the extremist ideology QAnon, and that's definitely a possibility. The extremist movement alleges a lot of things, but mainly that Democratic elite are running a pedophilia ring. QAnon got a lot of attention from the right in the Trump era and during the pandemic. Supporters of it got elected to Congress in 2020, and former president Donald Trump gave lots of winks and nods to it. "People believe because they feel powerless, uncertain, or they feel like they lost some control," researcher Joanne Miller told me in 2020. In 2022, The Post's David Weigel points out, Republican politicians have started to use the language of child pornography as they push for more restrictions on teachings and literature in schools that deal with race and/or sexually explicit and LGBTQ material. Some of these conservatives argue that liberals are "grooming" children for their own left-wing purposes. So, fighting against sexual impropriety in schools is particularly popular with the Republican base right now. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are well aware of that. And the tie they could find to Jackson is her record on sentencing child pornography offenders, even though there's no evidence she did anything outside the judicial mainstream. What's up with Mark Meadows and voter fraud?  President Donald Trump with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in 2020. (Al Drago for The Washington Post) | Who Meadows is: Mark Meadows was former president Donald Trump's chief of staff at the end of his presidency. After the 2020 election, Meadows was one of the loudest voices claiming — without evidence — that Trump lost because of widespread voter fraud. Why he's in the news: He may have committed voter fraud in the 2020 election. The New Yorker reported earlier this month that Meadows (and his wife, Debra) registered to vote at an address where they reportedly never lived — and where Meadows may have never even set foot. The address listed on the couple's voter registration forms was for a mobile home in North Carolina, but the Meadows had recently sold their actual home in North Carolina and were living in Virginia, my colleague Glenn Kessler explains. Now, North Carolina investigators are looking into whether Meadows committed voter fraud. The latest revelation is that Debra signed some voting forms in 2020 using the mobile home's address, though officials haven't said whether they're investigating her, too. What could this mean for Meadows? It'll depend on what the investigation finds, but it's a Class I felony to provide false information on a voter registration form in North Carolina, carrying a sentence of three months to a year in prison. Glenn notes that a Republican member of Congress from Kansas was charged with three felonies for listing a UPS store as his residence on a state voter registration form. He struck a deal to avoid prosecution and jail time. | 
Email 
0 Comments:
Post a Comment