Supreme Court Justice nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson caused quite the uproar this week when she was unable to define “woman.” When pressed for an answer by Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn, Jackson said she couldn’t do so and replied, “I’m not a biologist.”
One does not have to be a biologist or a Supreme Court Justice nominee to know what a woman is. The definition of a woman is the same as it has been for thousands of years. Jackson only refused to answer because she did not want to upset the woke mob of transgender rights supporters within the Democratic Party.
Jackson’s answer to such a mundane question should raise red flags. If a judge cannot define what a woman is, she is not qualified to be a justice on the Supreme Court. Moreover, she probably shouldn’t have been able to be a judge in the first place. Furthermore, given Jackson’s weak response, it is safe to say that former Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is rolling over in her grave, given all that she accomplished for women in her lifetime. Ginsburg’s story was told in the 2018 biopic, On the Basis of Sex.
Consider some of the landmark cases Ginsburg worked on to advance women’s equality in the country. In United States v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for state schools, funded by taxpayer money, to prohibit women from attending. Ginsburg wrote the groundbreaking majority opinion.
“There is no reason to believe that the admission of women capable of all the activities required of (Virginia Military Institute) cadets would destroy the institute rather than enhance its capacity to serve the ‘more perfect union,’” she wrote.
In 1974, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s work paved the way for the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974. It was a significant development for women’s financial autonomy, and it allowed women to be able to apply for mortgages without a male co-signer. Additionally, it permitted women to access bank accounts and credit cards.
“Women belong in all places where decisions are being made,” Ginsburg famously said. Yet, such a statement would be irrelevant given Jackson’s inability to define a woman. After all, how could women belong in specific places if no one is sure what constitutes being a woman? Also, it is safe to presume since women are unable to be defined, then the importance of having women on the Supreme Court is also moot, right?
But having women on the Supreme Court is important. At least, that is what Jackson told Sen. Dianne Feinstein during her confirmation hearing. On the same day Jackson could not define what a woman was, she also stressed the importance of having women as judges.
“So having meaningful numbers of women and people of color, I think matters,” Jackson said. Yet, given Jackson’s inability to define what a woman is, how would she know? It is an illogical statement since she cannot define women.
Jackson should study the lifetime achievements of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Maybe then she would be able to answer such difficult questions as “what is a woman?” Because had Ginsburg refused to define what a woman was, it could be legitimately argued that Ketanji Brown Jackson wouldn’t be a nominee for the Supreme Court. Because, on the basis of wokeism, women lose their identities in society.
