Joe Biden is no moderate.
From Executive branch appointees to his Supreme Court nominee, he’s hell-bent on having wild-eyed radicals stacked even deeper in the federal government.
But Biden’s SCOTUS nominee just uttered four words that could spell doom for Republicans.
Many conservatives warned for years that far-left college campus crazies were a serious problem.
Their warnings were countered by people who said that the left-wing radicalism was confined to the universities, or that the leftists would grow out of it once they entered the “real world.”
Instead the radicals are turning up all over the real world and turning it into Clown World.
It’s gotten so bad that apparently, a United States Supreme Court nominee can say with a straight face in the U.S. Senate that she can’t differentiate between genders – that it’s something that has to be left to scientists.
Ketanji Brown Jackson has clearly bought into the unhinged theories about gender. Either that or she just wants on the highest court in the land so badly she is willing to say whatever it takes.
And with her apologist views on pedophilia evidently running so deep, that’s even more scary.
Whatever the case Jackson stated, “I’m not a biologist” when Senator Marsha Blackburn asked her to define the word woman.
Senator Blackburn: "Can you provide a definition for the word woman?"
Judge Jackson: "No. I can't…I'm not a biologist." pic.twitter.com/TRlqUeDGs6
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 23, 2022
Jackson’s answer was truly shocking.
But it’s bringing to light some ugly truths that must be faced within the broader Right and the Republican Party.
National Review wrote that “Ketanji Brown Jackson says she ‘not a biologist,’ admitting that the definition of ‘woman’ is physiological and not psychological, to avoid offending progressives. She, of course, knows well what a woman is. The fact that such a silly question can’t be directly answered reflects the insanity of the political moment.”
They’re not wrong on “the insanity of the political moment.” But it’s hardly a “silly” question.
Ironically, National Review—the once-respected publication founded by the late William F. Buckley Jr. but has been reliably squishy, particularly in the Trump era—wrote a ridiculous piece admonishing Republicans who questioned Jackson’s record on prison sentences for child pornography sex offenders.
Senate Democrats even praised and cited the National Review piece, in which Andrew McCarthy wrote “the claim by Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) that Judge Jackson is appallingly soft on child-pornography offenders. The allegation appears meritless to the point of demagoguery…when we talk about consumers [of CHILD PORN], we are not talking about people engaged in the atrocious conduct that produced the images.”
Take that as proof that National Review and McCarthy have little understanding of supply and demand economics.
That is if they’re not essentially endorsing Jackson’s argument that sentencing guidelines for possession of child pornography are antiquated because it’s easier to collect child porn today due to the internet, for some much darker reason.
Quite frankly, it’s an appalling argument, but even so, it does not invalidate Hawley’s line of inquiry, especially after the show trial known as the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.
The bottom line is that Jackson is a radical.
The far-left organization Demand Justice endorsed Jackson and scuttled more moderate candidates that were on Biden’s shortlist.
And at the very least being able to provide a definition of the word “woman” should be a prerequisite for a judge.
But you never know what will happen with RINOs like Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, and Susan Collins in the U.S. Senate.
Political Animal News will keep you up-to-date on any new developments in this ongoing story.