He's a great example of a shitbag that people use as an excuse to shit on attorneys, especially certain kinds, so of course here he is the one doing the shitting.
“I am questioning your discretion and your judgment… that’s exactly what I’m doing,” Hawley said. “I’m questioning how you used your discretion in these cases.” Hawley repeatedly said he was trying to understand how she made her decision and some of her comments in explaining it. Jackson said she did not remember all of the details of the case, but did call it “unusual.”
Jackson said she takes a number of factors into consideration when considering a sentence, including the federal guidelines, requests from prosecution and the defense, the background of the person who is convicted, probation recommendations, the circumstances of the offense and the stories of victims. She said her sentencing practices are in line with other judges across the country.
“You are questioning whether or not I take them seriously, or whether I have some reason to handle them in a different way than my peers or in a different way than other cases and I assure you that I do not,” Jackson said. “If you were to look at the greater body of, not only my more than 100 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.”
Did he learn that at Yale Law? I'd have thought that like other schools, they gave the initial instruction/training on how to go about lawyering by teaching people that if they're going to criticize judicial decisionmaking with any credibility,
they have to actually study all relevant available factors. I'd also have thought they teach students to work out how to determine whether the relevance of one decision to another and its amount.
I would have expected a Yale lawyer to know that if you're going to credibly question a judge's sentencing decisions in the child porn cases, you have to study the sentencing decisions of all similarly situated defendants, then take a gander at ones that aren't so you have a sense of the degree to which cases unlike the ones you want to talk about diverge.
But then, he's a Trumpist. That erases all sense, including one of decency.
Of course he is going to piss all over nigh-sacred constitutional protections for those the government seeks to deprive of life, liberty, or property.
Of course he's going to shit over someone for doing a job that is absolutely essential to even a semi-just justice system.
Of course he's going to do it so ****ing dishonestly.
What a little shitbag. To think he talked about how
other people aren't 'manly.'