Biden’s Supreme Court Nominee Defended Convicted Predator

( Remember how the Democrats tried to destroy Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s life during his confirmation hearings, peddling theories and making accusations about him allegedly being the kind of man who sexually abuses (or even rapes!) women?

Well, it looks as though they might be getting a taste of their own medicine during the upcoming confirmation hearings for President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson…only this time, it would be justified.

Reports suggest that Jackson admitted on a questionnaire submitted to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee that she authored a paper in which she argued against the “excessiveness” of punishments for sex offenders. She claimed in the paper that strong punishments for sex offenders have become “unfair and unnecessarily burdensome.”

Do the Democrats care about getting justice for women who are sexually abused, or not?

The paper was titled “Prevention Versus Punishment: Toward a Principled Distinction in the Restraint of Released Sex Offenders.” It was published by the Harvard Law Review in 1996, but her authorship of the paper wasn’t revealed until she was asked by the Senate to provide a list of all writings she had made. It then came up during the process of her being chosen for nomination.

It means that President Joe Biden should have been made aware of this, and yet went ahead and nominated her anyway.

Then again, it’s no surprise, given that Biden specifically said he intends to choose a Black female to be his first Supreme Court pick. That meant the talent pool he could choose from was substantially lower than normal.

In the controversial paper, Jackson claims that courts are unable to differentiate between “punitive” and “preventative” punishments for sex offenders, and slams the punishment of sex offenders as being “excessive.”

“Even in the face of understandable public outrage over repeat sexual predators, a principled prevention/punishment analysis evaluates the effect of the challenged legislation in a manner that reinforces constitutional safeguards against unfair and unnecessarily burdensome legislative action,” she wrote.

Is this the kind of advocacy we expect from somebody who is about to sit on the bench for the highest court in the land? Really?