Posted on March 23, 2022
Joe Biden promised that in picking a nominee to fill the upcoming opening on the Supreme Court, he would not consider any white or Hispanic or Asian people and not consider any men at all. He promised to consider only black women.
Only about 2% of American lawyers fall into that demographic. In overtly discriminating against the other 98%, Biden committed an obvious violation of the Civil Rights Act, but I rather doubt Biden’s Department of Labor will file suit.
True to his promise, Biden found a black woman lawyer to nominate. Her name is Ketanji Brown Jackson.
It was Biden who touted his nominee as “a black woman” even before he chose her, and so I suppose we should honor that designation. Henceforth, she is “Black Woman Brown Jackson.”
This week the Senate is holding confirmation hearings on her. Democrats in the hearing are displaying the kind of civility for nominees that Republicans ordinarily do, and so are Republicans. Everyone is kissy face. Because this is a Dem nominee, nobody is displaying the kind of smackdown incivility that Dems do when the nominee is a Republican. Don’t expect entertaining questions like, “Have you stopped being a serial rapist?”
The Republicans did have the temerity to ask Black Woman Brown Jackson about the current legal topic of transgenderism. That’s the deal where people decide that nature made a mistake by matching their phenotype with their genotype. These people believe they should have a penis even though they have female chromosomes or they should not have a penis even though they have male chromosomes.
I’m oversimplifying. These people think the gender choices are far more than male and female, but you get the idea. They think a person’s gender is determined not by the genes that dictate their genitals among other things, but by a choice made in their minds.
In general, this asserted angst over what’s between a person’s ears and what’s between their legs is not a spectacle that interests me. I don’t care if a man wants to pretend to be a woman, or vice versa, and I don’t care if they want to mutilate their naughty bits. I’m even willing to play along with their choice of pronouns, which seems silly but harmless.
But I draw the line on them injuring other people. For example, a mediocre male swimmer with male testosterone levels and a penis is leaving women in his(er) wake in college swimming pools and is sharing their locker room. (S)He apparently gets his(er) jollies this way – fine – but (s)he’s denying women the recognition and awards they earned through a lifetime of work, dedication and achievement.
In the case of children confused about sexuality, as many children are at one time or another, they get “help” in making this purported choice of gender from school counselors who make a living by persuading them that they know better than nature. That persuasion often takes place in secret from the child’s parents. And then the children get their genitals whacked.
Back to Black Woman Brown Jackson. She was asked in the Senate confirmation hearing a straightforward question, or so you might think if you’re as unsophisticated about such things as I am. It went like this:
Senator: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”
Black Woman Brown Jackson: “Can I provide a definition? No, I can’t.”
Senator: “You can’t?”
Black Woman Brown Jackson: “Not in this context, I’m not a biologist.”
Huh. It takes a village to raise a child and now it takes a biologist to define “woman.” Black Woman Brown Jackson is 51 years old and a graduate of Harvard Law School but still doesn’t know what a woman is – something I knew by the time I was 25 (though admittedly not very well) – even though the status of “woman” was an explicit condition to her nomination.
The Republicans might consider the following line of questions at tomorrow’s hearing:
Republican Senator: “Forgive me if this question seems impertinent, but please bear with me. To me, you look like a woman, and President Biden said you’re a woman. Are you?”
Black Woman Brown Johnson: “Yes, I am.”
Republican Senator: “Given that you said yesterday that you cannot define the word ‘woman’ what is it that makes you think you are one?”
That line of questioning will not take place, because logical but awkward questions to Dem nominees are deemed by the woke establishment – which is to say almost all of the establishment – to be hateful or racist or something or another that’s bad.
In any event, I suspect that Black Woman Brown Jackson will decide on a definition of “woman” within seconds after she is confirmed by the Senate and will stick to that definition for her 30 or more years on the Supreme Court. We won’t like her definition, nor will any real biologist.
But the lying leftist wokerati will. This is the same group that says Justice Clarence Thomas is not really black, because he’s a conservative.To the left, what matters is ideology and power, not logic, honesty or truth.
the Aspen beat 
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” Voltaire
Enough said.
What a fabulous quote. Thank you.
Here’s another observation, with which Voltaire would agree, compliments of the late P. J. O’Rourke:
“Every government is a parliament of whores. The problem is, in a democracy the whores are us.”
And here’s what Rene Descartes really meant:
“I THINK whatever I want to think, THEREFORE I AM whatever I want to be.”
That’s pretty good, Chad.
Thanks. I’ll just add that Descartes’ dictum was uttered not simply as evidence of the reality of a person’s existence, but as proof of God’s existence, his thinking being that a “respectable” Creator surely wouldn’t be pranking, or punking, us by playing tricks on our minds, as though we were really little more than fragments in some Big Dream and therefore didn’t actually “exist.”
But since Wokies largely reject the notion of God, they appear also to reject any objective standard that might confirm or define their own existence, especially if it limits their power over others. The more tricks they play on their own minds, the better, it would seem, as long as it enhances their power — such as “Lia” Thomas’s power to whip the competition’s asses in a swimming pool. And since the quest for power lies at the center of it all, the theological notion of Satan starts to loom large. Are not these people offering a living proof of Satan’s existence? Just sayin’ . . . .
The Satan and ha-Satan do very much exist as does the God of Sinai, Yeshua and 1776; beings created to test humanity’s ability to reason by appealing to the individual yetzer hara…the human inclination to do evil. The empirical evidence of existence is both a final test of reason and offer of peace with terms; most fail to recognize simply because few take existence seriously and if asked how would God communicate a message what form would it take?
HaShem anticipated this very moment in time which does not reflect well on humanity; He Who Is fused the only two human certainties, mathematics and history, with disparaged Judaic scripture to write a message across the tablet of time,,,the Convergence Matrix requiring mathematical keys hidden in history and Judaic scripture. If one wants read a summary, go to GSGo and search for ‘Yeshua’s Sword Rising’, but be advised there will be discomfort for most.
If I identify as a black female lawyer, can I be considered for a position on the Supreme Court? I can’t provide a definition for the word “Justice”. Does that help?
BTW, there is no requirement that Supreme Court Justices have a law degree. No such thing existed when the country was founded, and at that time, lawyers were regarded as shysters by profession
The US Constitution is such a simple, uncomplicated document that any literate person should be able to easily understand and interpret it. The problem is that novel interpretations are needed to bypass its tenets to satisfy the demands of various interests. Although there is a process for amending the Constitution, it is so onerous and dangerous that there is seldom any real zeal for doing so. Thus Supreme Court justices must be selected for their opinions, not their literacy.
As far as I can tell, the Left has gone crazy. Future generations will look back on all of this and decide that Democrats were out of their minds. 2+2= whatever they say it is. And there are 50 or so genders? Just bonkers.
How can anyone define “woman” when anyone can decide what the definition is?
Joe:
Obvious. Thank you.
If Black Woman Jackson Brown can’t define the word woman, then how does she know if she is a woman. And given that Dementia Joe said that his criteria is a Black Woman, how does she and we know that she meets that criteria? I wonder if she can define the word black. And if she can’t, is she really black?
Speaking Affirmative-Action-wise, the wokerati are making the key terms so “fluid” as to be meaningless. How can I extend a preference to a woman if I have to take a person’s word for it that that’s what he/she/it actually is?
I just wish I could have argued to my draft board in 1965 that I wasn’t a “man” because I didn’t feel like one.
You say exactly what I’m thinking only you say it so much better. Thank you.
Imagined discourse during future Supreme Court deliberations:
Alito: I believe that the concurrence, in part by Justice Brandeis in Taylor v. State Board of Asessors, albeit largely dicta, is nevertheless a pertinent precedent, upon which to premise our holding instanter.
Sotomayor: Ay! Caramba!
Kagan: What she said!
Jackson: Yo muthafuckin’ shit don’t mean nothin’, crakka muthafucka!
You dissin’ diversity, yo?
Leftists say that “race” is immutable but “sex” is a matter of opinion.
So what if she’s not a biologist? In Woke World biology has about as much status as theology. If a pro-choicer can tell a pro-lifer, “Keep your Bible out of my uterus,” why can’t a tranny tell a biologist, “Keep your stale and stifling taxonomies away from my burgeoning Identity”?
Remember : the wise Latina woman that would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male. ~ Sotomayor.
Is the democrat a racist ? Or a sexist? or both ?
Of course she knows what a woman is. The fact that she refused to answer demonstrates why she is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court: She will acquiesce to the mob on anything controversial. The whole point for the existence of the Supreme Court is being a backstop to the excesses of democracy.
There was little risk in answering that question honestly. Yes, it would have annoyed the woke left. But it would have deprived the Republicans of a wedge issue on her, and it’s not like the Senate Democrats would have voted her down over this. Instead she chickened out in the face of the woke mob. THIS is what should disqualify her from the SCOTUS.
What is a Woman: Is it someone that is not a man, or anyone that states they are a woman?
Is it determined by Biology or Ideology?
Here’s another telling and breaking bit of news … who knew that Joe Biden was also both an ethnologist AND a biologist?!?
Biden declared that he would nominate a “black woman” … so by nominating K.B. Jackson to SCOTUS he is also apparently demonstrating his bona fides to the world as an expert social scientist as well as an expert biologist! His expertise in these two field enabled him to select a candidate who is both black, i.e., of the negroid race, and a woman, i.e., a genetic XX human.
He really should add the “Doctor” to his title, like his wife does to hers … and we should all assume that he prominently displays these sheepskins alongside his plagiarized tainted Juris Doctorate from his law school!
Ketanji Brown Jackson is more of a reflection of Biden’s demented and warped mind than anything else. She is the culmination of his 50 years of political hackery and double-dealing that has always been the core of Joe Biden. KBJ is the cherry on top of Joe Biden’s 50 year crap sundae dessert.
Do you suppose … the presumed Justice Brown Jackson will be offended when she has been assigned the traditional duties that go to the new junior Justice? These are duties like sitting on the cafeteria committee, opening the inner sanctum’s door for other Justices, and taking the notes while keeping quiet. If the Justices are deliberating on a particularly intractable case and they want coffee and donuts, guess who gets to go out and get them? The junior Justice.
At least when Kavanaugh was briefly the junior Justice, there was a possibility that he might go out for a beer run instead of coffee and donuts.
Prediction … KBJ will cry racism and misogyny at being burdened will the junior Justice duties. Also … let’s just see how fast she can figure out the definition of a woman the next time a Title IX case comes before SCOTUS.
LET’S GO BRANDON!
See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/what-does-the-junior-supreme-court-justice-do-kagan-tells-gorsuch-it-starts-in-the-kitchen/2017/04/09/9297ef4c-1bbd-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html
Another parting shot at Ketanji Brown Jackson that just occurred to me … a hypothetical that perhaps illustrates absurdity by being absurd.
A highly prominent and skilled biologist is awarded the Nobel Prize for Sciences.
After celebrating heavily at a local tavern the biologist gets into his car and proceeds to drive home, albeit while swerving and moving as fast as Ted Kennedy driving off a bridge.
A police patrol car pulls over the biologist and obviously arrests him for DUI.
The next day at court, the hungover biologist faces Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, in which she inquires of the defendant … “Sir don’t you know that driving under the influence is against the law?”
To which he replies … “I’m not a lawyer.”
Rimshot … bada bing!
I keep thinking we have reached peak stupid, but no…
Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION – THE SAMIZDAT HERALD.
Just another great piece and a very important one, Glenn, thanks.
This piece of Biden’s junk team Black Woman Brown Johnson must be rejected, and with vehemence. Woe to the republic if not.
Help me because I am not a lawyer. Does not this response… “Black Woman Brown Jackson: “Not in this context, I’m not a biologist.”…mean that, for her, the definition of a woman is based on biology not “what I think/declare/identify” as? And if so, is that not counter to the definition of a woman espoused by her leftist base?