When Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) asked Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to define the word “woman,” during Jackson’s U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she got the response “I can’t.”
When Blackburn responded with an incredulous “You can’t?” Jackson replied: “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.”
It takes a biologist to define “woman”? Does Jackson think we’re morons?
In a way, yes. Or she doesn’t care.
Jackson very well knows what a woman is. The nominee has known this all her life, as we all have. But these days, in her part of the political world, she’s not supposed to.
So she lied.
She simply parsed her words in order not to offend a constituency that has become imbued with “transgenderitis.” By that I mean a group taking what we all know—that a small percentage of people suffer from gender dysphoria to a degree that they seek to change sexes—and extending it into absurd public policy for reasons of power and control and, ultimately, money, not to mention a completely distorted and harmful view of gender itself. (In this case, see swimmer Lia Thomas.)
Those with that form of dysphoria, as do all with serious problems, deserve our sympathy and support, but no more so than everyone else with difficulties.
Nevertheless, they’ve been singled out for now and are being manipulated and exploited by the left, just as many minorities before them have been.
The transgendered are the favored class du jour. Tomorrow—I’m sorry to tell them—it will be someone else.
Meanwhile, however, considerable damage is being done. As Blackburn alluded to, children as young as 5 are being instructed in “gender choice,” notably at a school with which Jackson is associated.
This is, in essence, a form of child abuse masquerading as “progress.”
The ensuing suicide rates for this instruction (actually propaganda), is something these people will have to live with. My guess is they won’t even notice.
But speaking of progressive language distortion and what it yields (see also Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia”), Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) further asked Jackson when she thought life begins.
Jackson again demurred, as if the plain English question were incomprehensible or above the pay grade of an aspiring associate of the Supreme Court. Perhaps Kennedy should have been more specific and queried her on whether she thinks life begins at the moment of conception, that is, the uniting of sperm and egg to form unique DNA that never heretofore existed?
It would have been interesting to see how she would have parsed that.
Jackson has been paraded before us proudly as the first black woman to go on the court. She’s certainly not the first black person. Thurgood Marshall on the left and Clarence Thomas on the right were there long before her.
Both of these men had estimable legal reputations. Also arriving with a distinguished reputation was the first woman on the court, Sandra Day O’Connor.
I have to confess I never heard of Jackson before her nomination. I suspect I am in the majority in this regard. Her major qualifications seem to be race and sex, something you could call racist and sexist, when looking at it with a modicum of objectivity. It’s identity politics all over again.
But that shouldn’t be a surprise. As I’ve noted, linguistic manipulation is a hallmark of the left. There’s nothing progressive in any literal sense about the word “progressive” itself. It represents an ideology at least as old as Marx, and one that multiple times has proven deadly, figuratively and literally.
The word “progressive,” under its political use, should really be translated for what it is: “reactionary.”
Jackson will undoubtedly go on the court. That’s the way of the present world. But we owe a debt of gratitude to Blackburn for making it especially clear who Jackson is and the ever-changing basis on which she will be making her decisions.
