Marc Abear: Biden made wrong pick in Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

To The Daily Sun,

The president made a racist and sexist pick with his nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. That’s a fact. Listen to what he said his criteria for selection were. Why would anyone accept a nomination as paternalistic, patronizing as this? Where’s the honor? Where is the seriousness of consideration? This is a travesty. Equally as bad is Joe Biden's selection.

The confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson are drawing to a close. There have been more than a few troublesome exchanges. The nominee and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are not exchanging information.

The public appearance is troubling. The Republicans on the committee are not using their opportunity well. Judge Jackson is clearly not qualified to be a judge let alone to sit on SCOTUS. To shrug and accept defeat, meaning to place her on the court without a fight is reprehensible.

In some of the less watched moments Judge Jackson made some of her most confounding and troublesome remarks. Let’s look at just one. During Jackson's first full day of Senate confirmation hearings she was attempting to be too clever and politically correct. She was asked to define "woman."

The simple task most preschoolers can accomplish turned into an exercise of intellectual stupidity. The response can only be attained at Harvard. Scratching her head Judge Brown said, with a straight face, "No. I can't...I'm not a biologist."

Jackson had to left-splain it takes a trained scientist to handle such an impossible task. In doing so Jackson exposes the contradiction in the transgender lie: Gender is a social construct. The transgenderists would have us all believe one's biology has little if nothing to do with the distinction between men and women. It is a position widely espoused. It is also ignorant in the extreme.

This highly educated, sophisticated person is on the verge of a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS. And she needs a biologist to define what makes a woman? Does it logically follow that this is a matter of biology? What does it tell us about her judgment? What does it tell us about her ideology? What does the exchange tell us about her ability to be honest?

A person born with two X chromosomes, with internal organs like ovaries and a uterus, and capable of conceiving, giving birth to offspring, is a female and by adulthood will be a woman. It’s not that hard. It is widely understood.

Is it possible at some point the court will have to make a determination about Title IX protections for women's sports? If women's sports are for women, isn’t there a carve out, a protection for the participation of women? Doesn’t that mean the definition of "woman" will be necessary?

Lia Thomas, biologically, is not a woman. Judge Jackson just confirmed that biology is integral to the definition of "woman." Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete in women's sports. So why was this an important exchange?

Marc Abear

Meredith