This was after the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that the detainees could file lawsuits challenging their indefinite detention.Įven those who were charged had those charges dropped, and all were eventually released. Jackson was working in the federal public defender’s office in the District of Columbia when she was assigned four Guantanamo Bay detainees, later continuing some of her work with them in private practice. That’s why public defender’s offices exist – to represent suspects who cannot afford a lawyer or who have cases that lawyers for hire don’t want to take. Second, defending people accused of a crime is exactly what defense lawyers are supposed to do. The RNC ignored the presumption of innocence that is at the heart of the legal system. THE FACTS: That’s misleading on several fronts.įirst, she did not defend convicted terrorists but rather suspects. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: “Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record also includes defending terrorists.” - tweet from RNC Research on Feb. In 2020, in denying compassionate release on medical grounds to a convicted sex offender serving almost six years in prison, Judge Jackson asserted: “The possession and distribution of child pornography is an extremely serious crime because it involves trading depictions of the actual sexual assault of children, and the abuse that these child victims endure will remain available on the internet forever.” And many judges do see a distinction between those who produce child pornography and those who receive it. “They’re very sophisticated technologically, but they aren’t necessarily that interested in the child pornography piece of it?”įrom those questions, Hawley extrapolated that Jackson had drawn conclusions, when she hadn’t.īut several behavioral science researchers testified at that hearing that there may be nonsexual motivations among a portion of child-sex criminals.
“So I’m wondering whether you could say that there is a - that there could be a - less-serious child pornography offender who is engaging in the type of conduct in the group experience level?” she asked the expert witness. Being surprised by an assertion and wanting to know more are not the same as endorsing it. She told the hearing she was surprised at a Justice Department expert’s testimony that, as she put it, some child-sex offenders may actually “not be pedophiles” but perhaps “loners” looking for like-minded company in child pornography circles. NOT REAL NEWS: A look at what didn't happen this week ’A ‘less-serious’ child porn offender?” - tweet Wednesday. JOSH HAWLEY OF MISSOURI: “Judge Jackson has opined there may be a type of ‘less-serious child pornography offender.’. Their assertions on this front don’t stand up to scrutiny: They are treating questions from her judge’s life over the years as statements of opinion to portray her as an outlier not deserving of a seat on the high court.
That difference will be on display as Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson fields loaded questions from Republicans and Democrats, the former mostly opposing her nomination, the latter favoring it.īut the distinction between political and judicial inquiry has already been lost as Republicans in the days before her hearings selectively cited her record to try to make a case against her. In the court of law, judges ask questions to get answers. WASHINGTON (AP) - In the court of public opinion - like the Supreme Court nomination hearings coming this week - politicians ask questions of witnesses to score points for their side.