Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson isn’t even on the U.S. Supreme Court yet, and she’s already being less-than-transparent before the U.S. Senate, if not even violating the constitutional process for confirmation.
During the Senate's confirmation hearings (on Tuesday) for the jurist, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked, "Can you provide a definition of the word 'woman'?"
Jackson responded, "No, I can’t." She went on to say that she couldn’t provide a definition "in this context" because "I’m not a biologist."
In this writer's opinion, this is less-than-candid.
Is it that she can actually provide a definition? Or, is it that she's simply unwilling to do so?
Saying she can’t provide a definition and doesn’t know is an attempt to avoid providing a response. She is far form ignorant, and she likely knows defining "what is a woman" destroys the crux of the left’s gender theory as a social construct, which has implications for litigation that will likely end up at the high court.
This isn’t just a policy or biology question.
This is key to uncovering Jackson’s judicial philosophy. Sex is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Title VII and IX are all about women. Legislation protecting women’s sports is being signed into law or contemplated in states across the country.
How can Judge Jackson provide a competent opinion on these issues if she "can’t" provide a definition to the word 'woman'?
How can the American people know whether or not Jackson will be faithful to the Constitution, which protects our fundamental rights, when she won’t answer questions?
That actually tells us everything we need to know about her judicial philosophy.
Jackson seems to believe she is above the Constitution and above the confirmation process.
She’s not even on the court yet, and she is willing to violate the process and be evasive to the Senate Judiciary Committee, in an effort to avoid responding.
This is also why questions by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on Critical Race Theory (CRT) matter. Jackson blew it off saying it’s a matter of policy.
But what she believes the Constitution protects in terms of parental rights in education and school choice and religious liberty absolutely matters to her role on the court.
This columnist would have liked to see Republicans push back more strongly and not let Jackson get away with what amount to non-responses.
They should have followed up by asking more pointed questions about how the Constitution protects sex, parental rights, religious liberty, and other matters of deep concern to Americans.
If Jackson is confirmed, which is likely, we already know that she will be an activist.
At this juncure of the proceedings, she's avoiding the process by refusing to answer questions.
That alone is disqualifying.
For more analysis on this, listen to Wednesday, March 23rd’s episode of the podcast: TheJennaEllisShow.com.
Jenna Ellis is a constitutional law attorney and contributor to Newsmax. She is formerly senior legal adviser and personal counsel to President Donald J. Trump. Read Jenna Ellis's Reports -- More Here.