(*Important PS added)
... in that it gives very detailed instructions regarding the rights of both suspected and convicted criminals, of a sexual nature or not, including their right to due process of law vs. vigilante justice, a fair trial, and avoidance of cruel and unusual punishment (8th amendment).
All judges must abide, first and foremost, to these explicit laws found in our U.S. constitution to protect the rights of criminals, as well as protect the rights of their victims - whether they like it or not, agree with it or not, or think the offender deserves it or not.
And if we don't like it, then we take it up with our current SCOTUS regarding our constitution and/or our federal or state congress to write new laws - not KBJ, or any federal judge - because they don't make the laws, they just interpret and follow them.
Because despite what Republican press and pundits have twisted (who likely didn't read the entire lengthy paper, didn't understand it, or intentionally cherry-picked it), KBJ actually agrees with us - in both her Harvard Law Review paper/article and her statements during her SCOTUS hearings.
In fact, she's repeatedly complained about the need for a reassessment and update of both the language and guideline laws regarding sentencing of sex-crime criminals to be more specific, especially in an internet age.
(More on this added in a P.S. to my original post on this subject.)
AND - she's not the only one.
Federal judges - on BOTH sides of the political fence - have repeatedly complained about this and requested this reassessment.
PS - I'd just like to add a bit from a personal disgust perspective here, and I'll make this brief, and then we'll move on.
So I began writing my original KJB post on Thursday evening and posted it before we took Brookie into the vet yesterday morning, right?
After I wrote it, I read several press and pundit "articles" and posts on the subject yesterday, to find out just how many were passing along Hawley's debunked claims and false accusations about KBJ.
It was the usual suspects, both local and national.
Even one pundit from the UK - but as usual, he didn't post on the subject at all until after I did - but of course, from the other political perspective, spreading the lies ;)
Even worse, in my opinion, is that I happen to know for a fact that one of those age 60+ political bloggers himself secretly got into legal trouble for posting pictures of underage girls on his blog, with the girls' parents, as they were posted without the girls or their parents' permission.
However - he lied to his unknowing readers that these lawsuits were filed by "feminists" who were "attacking" him because they didn't like his "ogling women."
Erm - they weren't "women" - they were underage girls - and the lawsuits weren't filed by "feminists" - they were filed by the parents of the underage girls whose photos he snatched off of their social media pages without permission.
Unfortunately, though tied up legally for years, he was ultimately able to slither out of it - as a result of same legal protections for criminals he's currently putting on a show to condemn - as well as due to the lack of legal precedent when it comes to internet law :/
I don't think so.
Otherwise, let's not pay him, and his "freedom of speech" any more attention, and though he may have temporarily escaped justice due to the same legal protections for pedophiles he's now condemning - he's actually only compounding his sins before the same Christ we both claim to serve ;)