This sounds like someone to support for the Supreme Court.
Hawley is as rabid a jackal as they come in terms of conservative prude idealism. A pro-life, anti-free-speech, anti-free-expression, anti-voting-rights, and an election truther, and his claims against Judge Jackson are without merit, especially with regard to having a ‘soft spot’ for child predators.
I’m still unsure where I stand on Biden’s SCOTUS nominees, and I have no doubt that the move to replace Justice Breyer will be one fraught with combat.
One thing about Ketanji Jackson position on the matter is somewhat troubling to me:
From the article quote : 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.”
Is this not entirely besides the point? Is being a pedophile the real crime here with everything else being a mere diagnostic tool for that designation?
Pedophilia is not a crime. Child sexual abuse is a crime. Obtaining and possessing child pornography is a crime, but it does not equate to actually abusing a child. There are levels of crime and someone looking at pictures should not be punished more than the people creating the pictures by abusing children.
There are people that say the act of looking at a CP picture abuses the child, but that is subject to debate. How would the victim know someone is looking at their picture? Knowing it is in circulation can trouble to victim, but that is not the fault of the person looking. It is the fault of the people who made it.
Unless you’re a member of law enforcement, because magic, or something.
At the end of the day it either does or doesn’t. None of this “terms and conditions apply, for more details, visit the website” BS.
We know this. The relevant question is “does she?”.