Unlike what you read in MSM, Senator Marsha Blackburn’s questioning of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on the definition of what is a woman, was not a gotcha question coming out of left field. Rather, it followed in logical order the senator’s earlier questioning, explains Jennifer C. Braceras in Independent Women’s Forum.
Judge Jackson said that she cannot define the word “woman” because she is “not a biologist.” Why is this disturbing? Because it highlights that Judge Jackson would not commit to this previously uncontroversial notion: “In the law, the written word is supposed to mean what it says,” Ms. Braceras reminds readers.
The Perils of Living Constitutionalism
It (Blackburn’s questioning) was a follow-up to another question about the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s statement, in U.S. v. Virginia, that men and women are not “fungible” and that physical differences between the sexes “are enduring.”
Jackson refused to say whether she agreed with Justice Ginsburg on this elementary point. So, Blackburn probed further: “Can you define ‘woman’?”
Which begs the question: If a judge cannot say what words are commonly understood to mean, how is she to do her job? By reference to modern notions of social justice?
If you’re willing to fight for Main Street America, click here to sign up for the Richardcyoung.com free weekly email.