, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who cannot cobble together a definition of “woman,” or “man” for that matter?  Who, from young childhood up does not know the differences between male and female, and can’t express those differences in some reasonably coherent way?  Who, even ignorant of science, can’t describe the observable physical, behavioral characteristics of women as compared to men?

Biden nominee for the Supreme Court Ketanji Brown Jackson, for one, cannot.

In Trans Fraud: Screaming Enough! I observed:

Trans cheerleaders are like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who, speaking of obscenity, said: ‘I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.’  Trans cracktivists cannot define ‘woman,’ but they know one when they see one, particularly if they aren’t actually female.  Thus do we have ‘chestfeeders,’ ‘bleeders’ and ‘birthing persons.’  Thus are we expected to accept the lunacy that men—and whatever other genders trans cheerleaders dream up—can become pregnant and bear children.  They know perfectly well what women are, but biological reality has no room for people who ‘identify’ as women, so women become indefinable except as those who ‘identify’ as women, regardless of their male appendages, DNA and innate physiology.  To do otherwise exposes the trans narrative as the evil lie it is.

As I’m sure you know, gentle readers, the hearings on the nomination of Brown Jackson are underway, and are quite unlike the hearings of Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.  Republicans are politely acting questions directly related to Brown Jackson’s judicial philosophies and about the training, experience and rulings of her legal career, despite D/S/Cs hiding truckloads of relevant documents.  Even though Brown Jackson is supposedly one of America’s greatest legal minds, her LSAT score is likewise hidden.

Despite her imminent coronation widely lauded as “historic,” because she is black and female, not everyone is impressed, nor are they quite ready to crown her.  Kyle Smith at National Review is one such:

I haven’t been paying much attention to the confirmation hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, and I suspect the American public isn’t either. In these kinds of low-salience cases, I’d guess that only one moment is really going to matter in the popular perception, and Republicans have created it. The Democrat-allied media are underplaying or ignoring this exchange, but it was absolutely devastating. In essence, the Republicans were poking around, somewhat ineptly, trying to make the judge say something that would sound extreme, shocking, bizarre, nonsensical, alarming, and ultra-woke to the average American, and Senator Blackburn finally succeeded.

Blackburn: ‘Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?’

Jackson: ‘Can I provide a definition? No, I can’t.’

Blackburn: ‘You can’t?’

Jackson: ‘Not in this context.’ [Starts to chuckle, as though the question is absurd.] ‘I’m not a biologist.’

‘You mean the meaning of the word ‘woman’ is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?’

‘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, so I’m not—‘

‘Well the fact that you can’t give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about. Just last week, an entire generation of young girls watched as our taxpayer-funded institutions permitted a biological man to compete, and beat, a biological woman in the NCAA swimming championships. What message do you think this sends to girls who aspire to win in sports at the highest levels?’

‘Senator, I’m not sure what message that sends. If you’re asking me about the legal issues related to it, um those are topics that are being hotly discussed, as you say, and could come to the Court, so . . .’

Bad answer. Bad, bad answer. Jackson is essentially saying it’s above her philosophical pay grade to make a distinction that is bound to come up before the Court and has many, many ramifications in law.

Bad answer indeed.  Apparently Americans may have no legitimate expectation Supreme Court justices have the most minimal common sense or basic knowledge about human beings and their physical, emotional and psychological natures. Were I Senator Blackburn, I would have followed up thus:

Blackburn: ‘Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?’

Jackson: ‘Can I provide a definition? No, I can’t.’

Blackburn: ‘You can’t?’

Jackson: ‘Not in this context.’ [Starts to chuckle, as though the question is absurd.] ‘I’m not a biologist.’

Blackburn: ‘Are you a woman?’

Jackson: ‘Sputter, sputter…’

Blackburn: ‘Isn’t it true President Biden’s primary criteria for appointing you is that you are black and female?’

 Jackson: ‘Sputter, sputter…’

Blackburn: ‘Isn’t it true if you were not a woman, you would not be sitting there today?’

Jackson: ‘Sputter, sputter…’

Blackburn: “So President Biden knows what a woman is, yet you, a Harvard educated lawyer and judge, do not?’

Jackson: ‘Sputter, sputter….

Blackburn: ‘Despite being a woman, you really have no idea what a woman is?’

Jackson: ‘Sputter, sputter, sputter…’

Jackson’s feigned ignorance has a purpose.  Her nonsensical blathering about having to hear both side’s version of a definition in a case is just that: nonsense.  Definitions are certainly important in the law.  If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot read a law and know what is and is not proscribed, that law is unconstitutional, void for vagueness.  That, however, is not what we’re talking about.  There is no excuse, nor any precedent in law, for feigning ignorance about basic concepts of reality, such as male and female, heat and cold or night and day.  But that kind of ignorance allows all manner of mischief, such as depriving, by law, the right of parents to know when school officials  encourage their children to “transition,” or to mandate such outrages in the schools.  It guarantees not equal rights, but special rights, rights that infringe on the legitimate rights of Americans, for temporarily favored victim groups/tribes.

One of America’s most brilliant legal minds…

Jackson has demonstrated, in that single exchange, she is incapable of dispassionately deciding cases on the Constitution and the law.  She is a D/S/C woke cracktivist, and uses her position as a judge to impose that woke orthodoxy on society. Perhaps future Justice Jackson will one day decide she can’t define “alive” or “dead,” thereby eliminating any need for homicide laws and the death penalty.

Why would she refuse to define “woman,” though she is one?  Because that goes to the heart of the false doctrine of the unholy church of trans.  If there are concrete, immutable definitions of “female” and “male,” it doesn’t matter what one “identifies” as.  One is either male or female and there are no other sexes, which means those “identifying as something they are not will not compel judges to find all manner of “rights” hiding in the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution they despise.  Likewise, it doesn’t matter whether one cuts off their breasts, penises and testicles, and undergoes all manner of painful, expensive surgeries to outwardly resemble the opposite sex.  One’s DNA, which defines everything about them, is either male or female.

Of course there are genetic anomalies that blur the clear lines, but that’s what they are: anomalies, not whims, not what one “identifies” as.  Particularly in deciding cases, law, reflective of reality, matters, not one’s feelings, not what one “identifies as.”  People like Brown Jackson would clearly decide on the basis of feelings, not to uphold the Constitution and the law, but to uphold D/S/Cs policies and preferences.

Brown Jackson is quite sure she will be confirmed.  There will surely be enough Republican useful idiots to confirm her.  She knows she can lie about anything she wants in these hearings and still become a Supreme Court justice for life.  But she is a social justice warrior, which these days means being a trans cracktivist.  That is so much a part of her psyche, she cannot even pretend to be sane, though she knows she doesn’t have to, because D/S/Cs are of the same mind.

Perhaps one day, people like her will be in the majority on the Supreme Court, and she’ll be able to write her own definitions about what it means to be female.  Note that I’ve written: “in the majority.”  Brown Jackson is one who will make the Supreme Court “look like America.”  She will represent her constituency–black women—even though she is willing to be awfully flexible about what a woman is.

In this we see the future dissolution of our Republic.  Can a Supreme Court justice unable to define “woman” be expected to have any respect for a term as nebulous as “Constitution?”

There are more than enough reasons to oppose Brown Jackson, including her bizarrely lenient sentencing of multiple pedophiles, and the frequent overturning of her decisions by one of the most leftist appeals courts in the nation, but take heart fellow Normal Americans.  We already have a “wise Latina” on the court.  We’ll soon have a black something or other too.

UPDATE, 03-23-22, 1910 MT:  Another day of questioning, another day of dodging, via Breitbart:   

‘Yesterday, under questioning from Senator Blackburn you told her that you cannot define what a woman is — that you are not a biologist, which I think, you are the only Supreme Court nominee in history who has been unable to answer the question — what is a woman.’ Cruz prefaced.

‘Under the modern, leftist sensibilities, if I decide right now that I am a woman, then, apparently, I am a woman, does that mean I would have article three standing to challenge a gender-based restriction?’ Cruz asked.

Jackson refused to answer the question. ‘Those kinds of issues are working their way through the courts, and I am not able to comment on them,’ she claimed.

‘If I can change my gender and be a woman and an hour later I decide I am not a woman anymore, I guess I would lose article three standing,’ Cruz stated. ‘Does that same principle apply to other protected characteristics?’ Cruz asked. ‘For example, I’m a Hispanic man. Could I decide I was an Asian man? Do I have the ability to be an Asian man and challenge Harvard’s discrimination because I made that decision?’ Cruz asked in reference to a case before the Supreme Court.

Jackson refused to answer again. ‘You are asking me about hypotheticals,’ she complained before giving a broad answer that did not answer the question.

Cruz is entirely correct.  If we can change immutable characteristics simply by changing how we feel, by how we identify, why can’t we change race?  Why can’t we change our age at will?  And why can’t we change them back, or to something else entirely different, when we feel like it?  One could change one’s gender or race, win an enormous discrimination settlement and change the law for every American, and immediately change back.  The same is true of age discrimination.

Obviously if would be insane to allow that, because that would reject reality; it would mean law has no constant meaning or application.  It’s an entirely political construction for the benefit of temporarily favored tribes.  It would destroy the rule of law, and with it, our constitutional republic.  Because Brown Jackson doesn’t live in the world of reality, she had no answers.