Judge Nominated To Supreme Court On The Basis Of Her Sex Can’t Define ‘Woman’

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Joe Biden in large part because of her sex, said she couldn’t define what a woman is on Tuesday during her confirmation hearings.

Jackson was chosen to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer in fulfillment of Biden’s identity politics pledge to install a black woman on the Supreme Court. Despite those reasons for her nomination, Jackson stumbled through giving a definition of “woman” when Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked the straightforward question.

“Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” Blackburn asked during the hearing.

“No, I can’t,” Jackson said after confirming the question.

The progressive judge claimed she was unable to provide a definition because “I’m not a biologist.”

“The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” Blackburn pressed.

“Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there’s a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law and I decide,” Jackson said.

As Blackburn noted in her response, the fact that Jackson couldn’t give “a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about.”

It also underscores the dangers of adding a radical progressive activist to the highest court in the land. Jackson apparently can’t define what makes a woman a woman or a man a man, but somehow she’s supposed to be trusted to faithfully interpret the Constitution and adjudicate Americans’ rights from a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

Already, a majority of the Supreme Court has shown an unwillingness to side with the science on sex and its definition. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the court’s liberal, justices joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, rewrote Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to state that the prohibition of employment discrimination based on “sex” includes “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Gorsuch authored the opinion, which argued that “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

The ruling, which was heralded as a victory for “equality,” not only degraded Americans’ natural rights but opened up the doors for the court to continue expanding key and concrete definitions as it pleases.

“There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. “…A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.”

The last thing Americans need is their judicial line of defense to be even more corrupted by someone who refuses to acknowledge what a woman is. Democrats, the corrupt corporate media, and even some of the GOP establishment are fighting tooth and nail and even lying to push for Jackson’s confirmation, but the nominee’s lenience on child porn offenders, ties to and endorsements from the abortion industry, and inability to answer the simplest of questions should disqualify her from assuming the bench.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordangdavidson.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases