As the confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson draw to a close this week, there have been more than a few fiery exchanges between Biden's nominee and Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But in some of the less-watched, quieter moments late in the evening as the hearings dragged on, Judge Jackson made some of her most confounding and troublesome remarks.
In one such situation, Judge Jackson told Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana that she didn't know when a life begins. Nor could she say at which point the Constitution's protections on Americans' God-given rights attach themselves to a person.
"When does life begin, in your opinion?" Senator Kennedy asked Judge Jackson.
"Senator... um... I don't... know," Judge Jackson responded.
"Do you have a belief?" Kennedy pressed.
Recommended
"I have, um, personal religious and otherwise beliefs that have nothing to do with the law in terms of when life begins," Jackson said.
"Do you have a personal belief, though, about when life begins?" Kennedy asked.
"I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases," an evasive Jackson replied.
Senator Kennedy kept pushing: "When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?"
"Well, senator, um... I believe that the Supreme Court... um... actually I, I actually don't know the answer to that question — I'm sorry — I don't," Judge Jackson conceded.
It was a troubling admission but somewhat unsurprising from a liberal judge nominated by a president whose administration has been hijacked by radical leftists. If she defined a specific point at which she believes an unborn baby becomes a life or when the rights enshrined in the Constitution apply to said new life, she'd be stuck in a corner. The only conclusion would then be that an abortion after whatever arbitrary time KBJ cited would 1) take a life and 2) deprive that life of their rights as an American. So she played the know-nothing card.
Also on Tuesday, Judge Jackson faced a line of inquiry from Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee that dug into questions about her ideology and thinking surrounding gender — a pressing topic in recent news cycles that've seen biological males set records and win champion status against women in collegiate athletics and caused a divide even among Republican governors. But when asked by Senator Blackburn to define "woman," Judge Jackson came up empty.
"Can I provide a definition?" Judge Jackson replied.
"Mhmm, yeah," Blackburn confirmed.
"I can't," Jackson said.
"You can't?" Blackburn questioned.
"Mmm, not in this context — I'm not a biologist," Judge Jackson said as an excuse.
Another know-nothing answer from the individual chosen by Biden based primarily on two criteria: being black and being a woman. But Biden's pick can't even define half of the identity that Biden pledged he'd nominate to the Supreme Court and which she embodies.
Senator Blackburn remarked that her question was "a simple" one "that requires a simple answer," and added that "it's a major red flag that a Supreme Court nominee backed by the far left refuses to define the word 'woman.'" Indeed it is, but — like her cagey avoidance of answering Senator Kennedy's questions about life — still unsurprising.
The lack of surprise from Judge Jackson's hearings, other than perhaps the revelation that the White House obtained non-public information about the SCOTUS nominee's sentencing decisions and then leaked that info to sympathetic media outlets and Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, doesn't make Judge Jackson's impending confirmation to the highest court in America any less troubling.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly taken up cases that deal with abortion and found itself determining what rights are guaranteed — and tragically more often denied — to the unborn. A Justice Jackson would be considering and opining on those cases following a stated ignorance of when life begins or when constitutional protections attach themselves to a life. How can she judge a law's constitutionality if she doesn't know when the Constitution applies or rule on life if she doesn't know when it begins?
Justices on the Supreme Court have repeatedly taken up cases dealing with the rights of women too. From Phillips v. Martin Marietta to Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur and Newport News Shipbuilding Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC — whatever one may think of the Court's decisions — the rights of women were up for consideration. How would a Justice Jackson have been able to consider them if she can't define what a "woman" is?
These two lines of questioning and Judge Jackson's unimpressive responses don't even touch on the other significant issues that have been raised in her confirmation hearings or covered by Townhall. But her decision to avoid incriminating statements by choosing the still-incriminating option of claiming a lack of knowledge — both of what a "woman" is and when a life begins or has constitutional rights attached — raises serious questions about her ability to consider cases that come before the Court.
More likely than not, her stated ignorance on the issues is meant to conceal a reality that her opinions once on the Supreme Court will mirror Planned Parenthood's denial of rights for any life that's deemed unwanted or inconvenient and the radical leftist gender activists who seek to erase any differences between men, women, and whatever non-binary option the left has created in between.
