Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
Supreme Court nominee Kentanji Brown Jackson struggled to answer some of the questions facing her on Day 2 of her confirmation hearings leading some to call for her disqualification, including how to define a woman and when equal protection of a human being’s legal rights kicks in.
Most notable among the questions came late in Tuesday evening from Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn. Blackburn asked Jackson about a quote from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and whether Jackson believed there are differences in men and women, a question the nominee sidestepped.
Blackburn then asked, “And can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman?’”
Jackson responded, “No, I can’t.”
Blackburn retorted, “You can’t?”
“Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson replied.
“So, you believe the meaning of the word ’woman’ is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” the Senator asked.
“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,” Jackson said.
“The fact that you can’t give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about,” Blackburn responded, before going on to state that the transgender movement is hurting real biological women, including the recent win by biological male Lia Thomas over women competitors in the recent NCAA swimming championships.
The exchange and Jackson’s unwillingness to state a simple truth about biological reality had some calling for Jackson to be disqualified from consideration for the Court.
Mollie Hemingway, editor of The Federalist tweeted, “If you lack both the common sense and the education to understand what being a woman is — or you’re too terrified of your political allies to admit you do know — perhaps you should not have a job that affects other people in any substantial way.”
Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, tweeted, “This exchange is disqualifying. To say nothing of how frightening the future of #SCOTUS decisions may be. The nominee is no moderate.”
This wasn’t the only question that concerned conservatives. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., asked Jackson when life begins, to which she responded, “I don’t know.” She added, “I have personal religious and otherwise beliefs that have nothing to do with the law in terms of when life begins.” She answered a follow-up clarification that she has a religious view that she sets aside when deciding cases.
Kennedy then asked Jackson, “When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?”
“Well Senator, I believe that the Supreme Court — actually…I actually don’t know the answer to that question, I’m sorry,” Jackson responded.
Daily Wire Editor Ben Shapiro tweeted, “So she has no opinion on what a woman is or when life begins, yet she wants a slot on the highest court in the land, where those definitions will determine the rights held by both the unborn and women. Makes sense.”
Supreme Court nominees notoriously refuse to answer questions by claiming it would be inappropriate to do so, making some of this understandable. Yet not being able to answer such fundamental questions that are rooted in objective truth is disturbing, particularly because the Democrats’ position on this hearing is that Jackson should be confirmed because she would be the first black woman appointed, a fact that Jackson herself stated was important for giving role models to black girls.
Why is it historic to name a woman to the Court if we don’t know what a woman is?
With transgender controversies on the rise and sure to reach the Court, America needs a justice who isn’t afraid to define what a woman is and actually recognizes the biological differences between men and women.
And no matter what the outcome of the Dobbs case and the future of Roe v. Wade, abortion cases will continue to be heard by the Court so America needs a justice who understands what human life entails and the extent of equal protection for that life.
Jackson has a tough job this week and that should be understood, but her answers to these questions raise concerns about whether she has been so indoctrinated by progressive ideologies that she has somehow been stripped of a basic understanding of natural law and objective truth. Supreme Court justices cannot be puppets of faddish thinking and radical ideologies. They need to be able to think for themselves and base their decisions on the Constitution and common sense.
Let’s hope that these exchanges — and the sharp controversy they’ve ignited — will help Judge Jackson realize that, should she be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, her devotion needs to be first and foremost to the law, and not to her progressive and woke backers.
