On January 27, 2022, in a White House press conference Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer announced his retirement.
At that time President Biden said, regarding Breyer’s successor, “Our process is going to be rigorous, … I will select a nominee worthy of Justice Breyer’s legacy of excellence and decency. While I’ve been studying candidates’ backgrounds and writings, I have made no decision except one. The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. It’s long overdue, in my view. I made that commitment during the campaign for president, and I will keep that commitment.”
All the news media outlets summarized what the president said with the statement, Biden is going to nominate a “black woman.” I will summarize Biden’s remarks even further, he said he would nominate a “woman.”
Fast forward to this week’s televised Senate hearings on Biden’s nominee, Judge Ketanji Jackson. Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley questioned nominee Jackson on several cases involving child pornography where convicted offenders were given extremely reduced sentences from federal prosecutors’ recommendations. In one case, a twenty-four-month recommended sentence was reduced by Judge Jackson to three months.
However, this was not the most glaring revelation of the hearings. When Senator Marsha Blackburn asked the Harvard-educated federal Judge, “Can you provide a definition for the word woman?”, Judge Jackson replied, “Can I provide a definition? No, I can’t.”
To which Senator Blackburn asked, “You can’t?” And Judge Jackson replied, “Not in this context, I am not a biologist.” That response was a stunning sidestep to a direct question about basic biology.
I am not a biologist either, but I did take basic biology in high school and believe I have a basic understanding of what a woman is and what a man is.
So, it appears the president has nominated a woman to the United States Supreme Court who does not know what a woman is.
The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg evidently knew the difference between men and women. In the case United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), Justice Ginsburg delivered the majority opinion, “Virginia’s public institutions of higher learning include an incomparable military college, Virginia Military Institute (VMI). The Unites States maintains that the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee precludes Virginia from reserving exclusively to men the unique educational opportunities VMI affords. We agree.”
Ginsburg’s ruling was made in 1996, when the Court knew men were men and women were women.
Last week when I wrote about gender confusion, I had no prescient insight that the confusion extended to Supreme Court nominees.
As I have said before, the real Supreme Court does not convene down here. On that day when we stand before the Creator Judge He will not be confused.
“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them,” Genesis 1:27.
I am in the third week of the course entitled Grasping God’s Word at Rockbridge Theological seminary. The course outlined a basic approach to reading, interpreting, and applying the Scriptures – to grasp God’s Word. According to Scott and Duvall, the approach is as follows:
We begin by reading carefully to determine the meaning for the biblical audience. Next, we identify the river of barriers that separates us from the biblical audience. Then we derive a theological principle from the text and cross over the river on that principlizing bridge. We ask how that theological principle fits with the rest of the Bible. Finally, we apply that principle to our specific life situation.
I have made many preaching mistakes because I was not exposed to this approach earlier in my ministry. The method is practical and teachable.
I watched the Senate confirmation hearing of Judge Ketanji Jackson. I was highly impressed with her answers to the judicial questions. One of her responses that impressed me the most was her presentation on how she uses the Constitution and the current laws of Congress to adjudicate cases. It is remarkably similar to the Scott and Duvall approach.
Personally, I felt robbed (ripped off) by the line of questions by Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, even Senator Blackburn. I do not know much about Senator Blackburn, but I know that Senators Cruz and Hawley are brilliant men. They had an opportunity to ask judicial questions to challenge the thinking of this brilliant woman. We could have experienced some of the great minds debating the administration and execution of our time’s most incredible judicial system. I could have learned so much, but they chose otherwise. Pity!
Paul,
At the outset let me apologize for my dilatory response. Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley asked questions that were more political than useful, and were not the same questions they have asked Republican nominees to the Court. What they did was hypocritical in my opinion. Senator Blackburn’s question was, “What is a woman,” is more pertinent. Words are what the Constitution is made of like the Bible and any other written document. What words mean (semantics) and how we put them together to form sentences (syntax) is the way we convey meaning and information. A justice is appointed to interpret the words of the Constitution and render a ruling. What words mean are important. What Senator Blackburn should have done is give the common definition of a woman which is “a human female adult,” and asked Judge Ketanji Jackson if she agreed with that definition. When Judge Jackson refused to answer Senator Blackburn’s question by sidestepping the issue by saying she was not a biologist, she essentially said she reserves the right to define the word “woman” in any future ruling as she wishes to define it rather than accept the traditional meaning of the word. If words can mean anything we please, then laws can mean anything we please, and that will be the end of civilization as we know it.