Supreme Court Nominee Squirms Under Scrutiny

Amid all the overseas furor, it would certainly be understandable to overlook some rather interesting developments occurring with Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, starting with the fact that the mainstream media has been vastly more respectful to Ketanji Brown Jackson than it was to Amy Coney Barrett.

Then again, perhaps it is because Jackson is apparently a fierce advocate of the ultra-left woke “cause,” to the extent that she not only refuses to comment on when life begins, but she also refuses to define the word “woman.”

Senator John Kennedy pressed Jackson about her beliefs regarding inception, notably when he questioned, “when does life begin, in your opinion?”

Jackson provided a less than inspiring reply, remarking, “Senator, I don’t know.”

“I have personal, religious and otherwise beliefs that have nothing to do with the law in terms of when life begins,” Jackson continued, without further elaboration.

Unlike Barrett, Jackson doesn’t have to suffer through a public trial over her beliefs, whatever they may happen to be.

One thing is for sure: Her beliefs are clearly far more to the left than those of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which was rather evident in the line of questioning from Senator Marsha Blackburn.

“Supposed inherent differences are no longer accepted as a ground for race or national origin classifications,” Blackburn questioned Jackson, using quotes from Ginsburg for emphasis, “physical differences, between men and women, however, are enduring. The two sexes are not fungible. A community made up exclusively of one sex is different from a community composed of both.”

In other words, Ginsburg drew a clear distinction between men and women, a distinction Democrats are desperate to obliterate for notorious reasons unknown.

“Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?” Blackburn asked Jackson.

“Um, senator, respectfully I am not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it’s hard for me to comment,” Jackson replied.

Wow. Where to begin, starting with “um?”

Not to mention the fact Jackson is apparently “not familiar” with particular cases. That’s just great to know. Way to prep for a Senate grilling.

Then again, if Jackson is guaranteed to be swept in regardless, why should she have to prepare?

For that matter, why should she even have to define the term “woman,” which is apparently just too controversial for Biden’s latest choice?

“Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman?’” Blackburn pressed.

“No, I can’t,” Jackson replied, “not in this context – I’m not a biologist.”

Great. That’s wonderful. Jackson isn’t a “biologist.” She’s clearly not someone terriby transparent either.

Blackburn finally cuts to the heart of the matter, inquiring, “do you believe the meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?”

Jackson continued to answer in bland generalities, effectively saying nothing.

“Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there’s a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide.”

Decide … how, exactly? Whichever way political opinions happen to sway?

Needless to say, Jackson’s dodging has incurred significant criticism online, with media personality Piers Morgan ripping her refusal to define the term “woman.”

“Ridiculous … I’m not a brain surgeon but I know what a brain is,” Morgan exclaimed, “this is where ‘progressive’ thinking leads – to a terror of stating basic unarguable facts lest it offend the woke brigade.”

Just what the United States needs on its Supreme Court.

Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief at The Federalist, also highlights an even darker reality underscoring the far left’s refusal to define women.

“The new leftist orthodoxy is that ‘woman’ can’t be defined scientifically or logically and that if you do so define it, you must be canceled and destroyed. Healthy,” Hemingway remarked sarcastically.

And, if the term “woman” cannot be defined, how can women’s rights be defined, as observed by other reasonably sane conservatives? Or reasonably sane people, period.

“The ideological extremism behind this professed ignorance, ironically, will likely lead to the upending of legal and constitutional prohibitions against sex discrimination,” Hemingway continued, “if one can’t define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton queried.

Perhaps that is the Democrats’ entire point … to not protect women.

Author: Jane Jones