SCOTUS nominee evasive but telling

Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is taking heat from Republicans for going soft on child pornographers and refusing to define the word “woman.” Her answers to some of these questions are very straightforward as if they were coached: “I’m not a biologist,” she replied to a question about whether the “viability standard” established in Roe v Wade is arbitrary. Asked to define the word “woman,” she responded, “I’m not a biologist.” In response to a question about whether schools should teach children that they can choose their gender, Jackson answered, “Senator, I’m not making comments about what schools can teach.” All answers are evasive, but telling.

Throughout the Senate hearings on her confirmation to the Supreme Court, Jackson has answered questions claiming she doesn’t know the answer. For example, she said that she doesn’t agree that American society is irredeemably racist, but noted that she has not studied Critical Race Theory. These issues that involve children, and are likely to make their way to the Supreme Court, such as teaching Critical Race Theory and homosexuality and transgenderism to young children in government schools ought to be topics a SCOTUS nominee can discuss in depth. Jackson answered them as if she was unfamiliar with the issue. She tried repeatedly to separate her stated political beliefs from her duties as a judge.

On the question of precedent (stare decisis), Jackson said that she would determine on an individual basis whether the law should be overturned, except in the case of abortion, which she said she would rely on the precedent already established by SCOTUS. When asked if it was her understanding that under the current SCOTUS precedent that a woman had the right to abort a child up to and including the time of delivery, she replied, she’s “not aware of the court having made a pronouncement about whether or not regulation can extend all the way up until birth. I’m just not aware of that.” Asked if she believed in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion that there are physical differences between men and women, she said, “Respectfully, I am not familiar with that particular quote and case, so it is hard for me to comment.”

A Supreme Court nominee is refusing to give direct answers to pertinent questions about issues of the day. It doesn’t meet the “straight face” test that she cannot provide answers. We can see clearly from past speeches, writings and opinions that Jackson personally supports the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-transgender, pro-Critical Race Theory agenda of the extreme left. But she won’t admit to them under testimony. At face value, why would anyone accept someone to the highest court of the land that can’t define the word “woman,” won’t admit that there are physical differences between the sexes, and has no opinion on critical race theory (although she has supported it publicly)? Jeremiah 8:8 says, “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the Law of the LORD is with us,’ when in fact the lying pen of the scribes has produced a deception?” Indeed.

Posted in

Bill Wilson