Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh likes beer. Supreme court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson can’t or won’t define what a woman is.
If you have been watching the Senate hearings for the Biden-nominated judge to be confirmed to the highest court, you may have noticed several things. Biden fulfilled his campaign promise, Brown Jackson has not lost her cool and, as usual, this is a political debacle.
In 1991, when then-Sen. Biden was the chairman for the Clarence Thomas hearings, he badgered the judge to the point of frustration. The issues of abortion, gun control and the law went out the window and the big takeaway was a pubic hair and a Coke can.
When Justice Kanvanaugh went through his hearings he was waylaid over many unrelated issues, but confessed to the world that he liked beer. That meant he had my vote. He was of legal age and under the purview of the law he enjoyed a few cold ones — to his own admission, sometimes too many.
During the most recent badgering of a nominee, the Democrats are gushing in praise over the accomplishments of Brown Jackson and rightfully so. She has a great legal mind.
On the other hand the Republicans are actually bringing up issues as they relate to decisions the candidate made. In particular, one decision during Brown Jackson’s tenure on the bench, was she gave a guy who had child pornography photos on his computer a three-month sentence. She was badgered about the sentence and was asked if she regrets her decision.
Her response was calm and honest. She claimed that she made decisions that gave her the latitude under the laws set by Congress and the Constitution. I didn’t like her answer and believe the guy should have been sentenced to more time, but she was honest and stood her ground. She and I respectfully agreed to disagree.
Then came the part when Jackson was asked by Sen. Blackburn (R-Tenn) if she agreed with Justice Ginsburg’s assessment, that there are physical differences between men and women. Brown Jackson said she was unfamiliar with that statement. Blackburn then asked if Jackson can define what a woman is. Jackson said she could not and that she is not a biologist.
Pressed further by Blackburn, Jackson said that she addresses disputes and looks at the law and makes decisions.
I didn’t understand the question until it hit me. The Constitution is wrong. While all men may be created equal, some men are identifying as women and vice-versa so apparently we are not all equal in that respect. Case in point is the recent NCAA winner of a swimming event. A person who was born male won the woman’s event and is now the national champion. Eventually cases like this will be in front of the Supreme Court and if this nominee has no opinion or cant make the differentiation between a man and a woman, how can she be trusted to make a ruling?
This gender issue will be a dispute where at this time there is no law and no guideline for a ruling. But it will have to be addressed. If not, and I’m spit balling here, what’s to prevent Coach Cal from allowing his players to identify as women? Can he and his newly-misidentified gender players compete in the woman’s tournament in hopes for a national championship?
Its ridiculous, I know. But we are heading in that direction and a decision needs to be made. Whatever the decision is, we all have to live with that. But not being able to identify what a woman is, is dangerous and says a vitally important decision may not be entrusted to the nominee.
Thanks for reading the Floyd Chronicle and Times.