Nominee for the Supreme Court of the USA can't define what a woman is

[GoodnessTruthBeauty]

For anyone that said the fights over Gender Ideology were a storm in a teacup and no big deal, we now have a female judge nominated for the most powerful national Court in the world who refuses to define what a woman is.
m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/22/ketanji-brown-jackson-says-she-cant-provide-defini/

Honestly, it's just beyond pathetic. An accomplished woman, a skilled and talented woman applying for an intensely serious job, playing this dumb? Just shameful

I think she is wise to avoid the question.
No matter what she says it will upset half the people needed to confirm her.
Her job will be to apply the law not make it.

Definitions of words are integral to the practice of law.

Every legal contract sets out a list of definitions at the start so there can be no misinterpretation as to its terms.

A supreme court judge must know this!

What the hell is wrong with the USA these days?!?!

Her job will be to apply the law not make it.

Can't apply it unless you understand it.

I would like someone to ask is she a woman and how does she know that?

I would like someone to ask is she a woman and how does she know that?

Didn't someone try that of a Labour TWAW MP?

I seem to recall a flustered/indignant/transphobic "of course I am, just look at me" response, suggesting the point had not been understood...

This is the reality of the political left. At least the political right are exactly who they say they are.

Pretty clear lines drawn in the USA on this right now.

Either being an actual, biological woman, but losing abortion access in some states...

Or abortion access everywhere, but lose actual biological woman safe spaces everywhere.

Pretty pathetic to think that it may actually be easier to convince a republican to become pro-choice than it is to convince a democrat to become pro-woman.

I think she had no choice but to fudge it. To answer either way would have been pounced on as prejudice/bias. While I would have loved her to say 'a biological female' I can understand why she wriggled out of it in the current climate. She hasn't got the job yet!

So depressing. I'm in the US and was listening to the Senate nomination hearings in the car yesterday and she seemed so talented and intelligent with the ability to defend herself very well. She also claimed not to be an activist judge. I was surprised and wondered if this was finally someone who hadn't been handpicked by the TRAs who are clearly lobbying at very high levels of government. Nope I was wrong, that's exactly why she was chosen because challenges against sporting bodies on behalf of women are coming before the Supreme Court in the next 12 months. So depressing how the Left have abandoned women's rights.

@FreelanceFiona

I think she had no choice but to fudge it. To answer either way would have been pounced on as prejudice/bias. While I would have loved her to say 'a biological female' I can understand why she wriggled out of it in the current climate. She hasn't got the job yet!

And the inability to state a biological fact when directly asked should be an automatic disqualifier.

I didn't say I agreed with it. Just that I can understand why she said it. I'm still hoping there are high profile lefties out there who will support women.

You'd think it would be helpful to know what a woman is when they're facing the rollback of Roe vs Wade.

@FreelanceFiona

I didn't say I agreed with it. Just that I can understand why she said it. I'm still hoping there are high profile lefties out there who will support women.

The problem is, I don't think there are. The democratic party in the USA is so broken right now, but has gained so much political inertia, I don't think there is any way to stop where it is going and change course.

I mean, what we are seeing right here in this confirmation is exactly what we the democrats said was going to happen. Biden campaigned on the title IX reforms, and day one executive orders in support of TRA. Biden campaigned on a black female as primary criteria supreme court nominee. Those two things were inexorably tied together. This was no secret. Democrats elected him to do excatly what we are seeing here. This is what they voted for.

Maybe they should have asked if she could define what a man is first?

Somehow so many men just don't get where this is going, the redefinition of who we are ultimately removing the rights to biological connections such as parents and children. This is so sinister to have captured so much of the establishment within 15 yrs.

@RayonSunrise

You'd think it would be helpful to know what a woman is when they're facing the rollback of Roe vs Wade.

The worst part of all of this I think is that in the event that Roe and Casey are overturned, at least the abortion issue would be turned back over to the individual states, who would then decide for themselves. No doubt a national private network would emerge to support those in states where abortion was severely limited or banned. While nowhere near ideal, at least there would still be options.

What the democrats are pushing for in support of TRA is national level. There would be no options.

It's partly because she's in a domain mixing law and politics. Next time you hear someone going on about how our judges should not have authority because they are unelected, think back to this.

And the inability to state a biological fact when directly asked should be an automatic disqualifier.

Wasn't the previous appointed accused of rape and still got on.

Once their on the court - they can go their own way and many have in the past.

What her way is I doubt will be clear to anyone due to all the politics she's currently wading through on the way to the post though I agree it's not looking great but that's US poltics at the minute.

@nauticant

It's partly because she's in a domain mixing law and politics. Next time you hear someone going on about how our judges should not have authority because they are unelected, think back to this.

That is another thing that really bothers me, especially where we are right now...the democrats rightfully pointing out how the rebublicans manipulated the court with delaying Obamas pick, while rushing through Trumps pick...

But then they turn around and push for expanding the court to pack it, and they openly put pressure on Breyer to resign...pretty much explicitly stating that they are treating the court as a political body.

But what is the alternative? They have to play the Republican Party at its own game. Biden only has a slim margin in the Senate. Risk losing it, then losing a justice and not being to get able to get a nominee passed? That would leave the SCOTUS even more politically unbalanced than it currently is following the previous President's nominees...

@Bobbybobbins

But what is the alternative? They have to play the Republican Party at its own game. Biden only has a slim margin in the Senate. Risk losing it, then losing a justice and not being to get able to get a nominee passed? That would leave the SCOTUS even more politically unbalanced than it currently is following the previous President's nominees...

Biden could have nominated either Childs or Kruger. He already had republican support for both of them. The appointment would have been a mere formality. The thing is, the progressive wing of the party had issues with both because of their prosecutorial backgrounds. So rather than go the bipartisan direction, Biden picked the most contentious candidate on his short list to appease the fringe of his own party.

Not saying the other two candidates would have answered this question any differently, but we'll never know. But it doesn't matter what those two would have said, because the one he chose said what she said.

All that said, given the current state, anyone he nominated here was going to get appointed in the end. No democrats will break rank, and the republicans have no way to stop the appointment.

What this will do however is give yet even more ammunition to the republicans for what is set to be an absolute bloodbath midterm cycle, and a decisive Trump win in 2024.

Men have to be allowed into your safe spaces because trans women are women, but hey, you can have an abortion if they rape you. - Hardly a compelling campaign platform.

I don't think Trump will win in 2024.

She did say she couldn’t define woman because she is not a biologist. At least she know the answer is rooted in biology.

@ChimneyPot

She did say she couldn’t define woman because she is not a biologist. At least she know the answer is rooted in biology.

Yet primary school students are expected to be able to answer that question on a science test.

It is very troubling that she is unable to answer that question, especially if it is out of fear of reprisal from the very people who nominated her.

How many fingers am I hold up, Ketanji?

"Though Jackson claimed to be unable to define the word “woman,” she used it at several points while answering questions Tuesday — including when she insisted that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey “are the settled law … concerning the right to terminate a woman’s pregnancy.”"

nypost.com/2022/03/23/sen-blackburn-slams-judge-jackson-on-definition-of-woman/amp/

If you don't know what a word means should you be using it? That being said I'm glad she said woman instead of pregnant person but I'm so sick of the gotchas of people not being able to define woman.

I feel embarassed to be on the left. I always felt bad for religious people who believed in science to be lumped in with creationists and now I feel like being on the left has me lumped in with people who refuse to recognise basic biology

Some on Twitter thought "I'm not a biologist" was implying that the definition is based in biology. So it might be a more satisfactory answer than it seems at first.