How do we know Jackson will be our 1st black woman justice?

On April 7, the U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) when he retires this summer. In doing so, President Joe Biden has allegedly kept at least one of the campaign pledges he made to Americans in promising to nominate the first black woman to serve on SCOTUS. The word “allegedly” applies above due to a major problem of Jackson’s own creation. While we do know Jackson is black, as Biden promised, how do we know she is a woman based on her earlier testimony?

One of the most noteworthy moments of Jackson’s confirmation hearings was her response to the query by Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., “Can you provide a definition for the word woman?” For those having heard the Helen Reddy song of long ago, “I am Woman,” there is little doubt Reddy knew the answer. And, there is little doubt the vast majority of Americans also knew the answer. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Jackson – who will prove perhaps to be the most liberal-minded member to sit on the highest judicial bench in the land – responded, “I can’t,” adding, “I am not a biologist.”

It was an interesting answer since Supreme Court justices recognize they are not supposed to inject politics into their decision making. However, it is clear from Jackson’s response to Blackburn’s question, rather than choosing to provide a simple definition, she opted to inject gender politics into the hearings. It caused Blackburn to comment: “The fact that you cannot 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.”

From the beginning of time, determining what a woman is has not been a complex science. Adam, of Adam and Eve fame, obviously would have had no issue defining what a woman is. It was a necessary step in the evolution of homo sapiens. Yet early into the 21st century, gender politics has sufficiently fuzzed up the issue to the point where providing a definition of what a woman is – at least for the liberal-minded – has become as complicated as trying to place a square peg into a round hole.

After Jackson’s failure to define what a woman is, Fox News Digital contacted various federal agencies hoping they could clarify the issue since their websites reference woman-related topics such as “women’s health.” Apparently, guidance was quickly circulated that these federal agencies were to apply a similar level of naivete about the word as Biden’s Department of Justice, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Federal Bureau of Prisons all proved unable to define what a woman is. This was despite website boasts by certain federal agencies that some initiatives they were undertaking sought to assist women.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), which discusses “women’s rights” and describes itself as “the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation,” referred Fox to its website section on “sex and gender.” That section details that “‘Sex’ refers to biological differences between females and males, including chromosomes, sex organs, and endogenous hormonal profiles,” while “‘Gender’ refers to socially constructed and enacted roles and behaviors which occur in a historical and cultural context and vary across societies and over time.” It goes on to say, “All individuals act in many ways that fulfill the gender expectations of their society. With continuous interaction between sex and gender, health is determined by both biology and the expression of gender.” Clear on that?

While the words “woman” or “women” often appear in NIH’s literature, none of it provides a description of their meaning regarding sex and gender. When queried for a response, NIH ended the conversation, claiming it had nothing further to add.

Apparently, Fox did not check with the Oval Office for a definition of woman. Perhaps Biden would have explained the somewhat unique “sniff” test he has developed to help him identify women and, therefore, could better describe them.

Rep. Madison Cawthorne, R-N.C., stood up before the House and chastised liberals for their radical brainwashing of kids with their ridiculous failure to define what a woman as the alleged party of science chose instead to launch a “war against biology.” In claiming gender is something with which you identify rather than with which you are born, liberals seek to complicate that which is simply determined by nature at birth.

Obviously, Jackson has a purpose in taking the position she cannot define what a woman is. A half century ago, Title IX of the Higher Education Act took effect, expressly banning sex-based discrimination in any school or other education program receiving federal funding. As there were all-male sports existing, it sought to establish separate but equal sporting opportunities for female athletes. Title IX successfully did this until transgenderism entered the arena, negatively impacting on women’s sports by allowing biological males, in touch with their feminine side, to compete against biological females, despite the former’s physical advantages. This will undoubtedly bring a test case to SCOTUS in the not too distant future in which biological women argue Title IX’s intent is being violated. One can rest assured Jackson’s decision will support transgenders in such a case.

Additionally, Jackson’s track record for judicial decisions is not very inspiring. Multiple decisions have been overturned by fellow liberals on higher courts for reasons of judicial overreach. Hopefully, her SCOTUS colleagues will call her out should she continue this trend.

In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart, trying to explain the Court’s ruling that “obscene” speech is “unprotected,” could not offer a definition of what “hard-core” pornography – i.e., obscenity – is. He added, “but I know it when I see it.” While one can fully understand Stewart’s inability to provide a definition of obscenity, 21st century liberals cannot even make a similar claim they will know a woman when they see her, claiming we need to await a subject’s pronouncement of same. Perhaps, then, Jackson needs to affirm for us that she is, in fact, a woman so we know the title of the first black female SCOTUS member is appropriate.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts