You may know the new Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as the judge who ruled against Trump asserting executive privilege in the January 6th case, or as the judge who put a stop to the rapid deportation plan, and that may have soured you immediately; but taking a closer look at her career; there is reason to think she may not be an entirely bad apple, despite being an avowed liberal justice.
Allow me to explain:
Depending on how closely you look, on matters of national security, you may very much enjoy her history of rulings. For instance: in the landmark case of "Muckrock, LLC v C.I.A." she ruled that the CIA unlawfully adopted a policy of denial for any FOIA request for email records that didnt contain sender, recipients, time stamps, or subjects. In this case she found that the CIAs failure to produce the requested documents amounted to injury-in-fact and standing to bring charges. She also found their overall policy was in violation of FOIA regulation, forcing the CIA to adhere to the language of the codified law.
In other cases, for various reasons, she has routinely sought an excess of information from the government when ruling in its favor, preferring to request evidence in camera to support assertions. In another landmark case, "Cause of Action Institute v. Internal Revenue Service" she ruled that the IRS could not claim exemptions from the FOIA act or that the courts did not have authority over the IRS to enforce the FOIA act itself.
These two decisions alone, were incredibly empowering for you as a people. One of them, ensured that the CIA had to comply with your requests for email records, regardless of whether you know a sender name etc. The other decision forced the IRS and other agencies to comply with your FOIA requests, even when the records are not specifically government records, but are accessible to them.
Why does this matter? Because in a game of constant, forced division we habitually boil people down to very minute facts we can judge them on. We try and simplify them. But when you are looking at a supreme court justice, it is important to study their entire career. Hers is a very mixed bag, but not a dead end.
I would add that the attacks on her during confirmation were very myopic and involved an emotional issue, namely being soft on pedos. And none of the accusations were that she managed to let a pedophile walk free, iirc, but merely that they (pedos) received sentences that were below the recommended federal sentencing guidelines. Not having been privy to the finer details of the cases in question, perhaps we don't know why the specific cases may or may not have warranted it. For the sake of being open to all possibilities, I'm willing to entertain OP's theory.
And I would suggest that this was very much calculated (by the White Hats). The wanted the Right worked up to a certain level that it would automatically give a sense of false security to the Left and overlook any other relevant history!
Exactly, how do we know those pedos did not roll over on bigger pedos which led to lighter sentancing?
One giant military operation. Timing is everything.
Yep. Unlikely that she would reply in the confirmation hearings- "oh I gave him a lighter sentence because he ratted out some big names." Not that I have an opinion, really, just staying open to all possibilities.
That would likely be sensitve/classified considering the operation, so it definitely seems as plausible as a pedo protector!