The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Says She Intends to Recuse from Harvard Admissions Case if Confirmed
While some legal ethics experts suggest recusal would not be necessary, the SCOTUS nominee suggested she thinks otherwise.
There has been some question as to whether Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson should recuse from Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College if confirmed to the Supreme Court. The case challenges Harvard University's use of race in admissions and will be heard by the Supreme Court next fall. I discussed the issue in a post earlier this month.
Earlier today, Judge Jackson told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she planned to recuse from the case if confirmed. When asked specifically whether she would recuse by Senator Ted Cruz, the nominee responded "That is my plan Senator."
As I noted in my prior post, Jackson's recusal may not affect the outcome of the case. Because Harvard prevailed below, the petitioners need five votes to prevail, and few expect a Justice Jackson would be inclined in their favor. Whether Jackson recuses or not, Harvard will need to attract the votes of at least two of the Court's six conservative justices to prevail.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Am I misremembering history, or has she provided more real answers than any recent confirmation hearings? Not that actual answers will change any Senators' minds, but it seems so .... strange.
Real answers like....
1. Can you define what a woman is?
Answer: No, I cannot.
Jumping right into the ultimate question made for a dramatic soundbite, but I think it could have been even more fun with a bit more gentle lead-in. Something like: "Do you meet President Biden's criteria of a black woman? How do you know?"
The sad thing is, there were ways to answer that question intelligently and fairly on either side, but the utter avoidance was pretty sad looking and said a lot more about her than anything else could have.
It’s called intellectual humility. You should try it sometime.
Once again. If she honestly can't define what a woman is, given that the SCOTUS deals with a number of cases regarding women's rights....then she shouldn't be on the SCOTUS. Full stop.
Do you mean the legal definition, or the biological definition, which may not be the same? As a judge, her sole concern would be the legal definition, which isn't exactly settled. So, as usual, you're giving us a simplistic answer to a question that is slightly more complex.
And, since it is the legal question that's at issue, no judge worth her salt is going to give an answer without reviewing the arguments on all sides.
Either...both...anything.
As I mentioned, there were multiple ways to answer the question. You could answer it from a biological perspective, as Jackson alluded to by saying "She's not a biologist". From a gender perspective, you could answer it as how someone defines themself.
Since this is a judicial hearing, and as you pointed out that the "Legal" definition is potentially in flux, knowing the judge's initial views there...since she may be responsible for ultimately defining it...is an important question, and knowing any of her logic there is of importance.
All of this could have been answered
But if, as LTG suggests, if she just honestly "doesn't know, she's not a biologist"...that's a major problem, and she shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.
There's legal arguments on both sides on what the definition of a woman is?
You people are insane. Literally insane.
The definition of a "woman" has actually had a long history of being debated where the exact line was. The definition of a woman being an adult human female.
Classically the question of when a human female became an "adult" however has been one of culture. Is it 21 years of age? 18 years of age? 16? When they have their first period?
Something to consider for you.
Oh, leave them alone with their imagined gotcha, Krychek.
At this point it's clear Graham wants in on the contest to see who the biggest asshole on the committee is, though to me it looks like Cruz is making a strong stretch run and will be hard to catch.
"legal definition"? What BS. If we are there it shows a lack of reason. We have four forces in physics..take Gravity, well there is a physical definition but not a legal one? Totally absurd .
SCOTUS has ruled that men are women and women are men. so there is no longer a need to define either. So it follows that there cannot be "woman's rights", there are just rights, and only those declared by SCOUTS, no constitution needed.
I was going to ask you to define it, and then respond but I decided to save time and just lay out how this plays out.
I assume your definition is XX chromosome, full stop.
I would then point out that even before getting into trans issues that there are chromosomal abnormalities like Turner syndrome or Klinefelter syndrome (XXY)
And then point out that intersex children are born with two sets of gonads. And sex selection at birth is occasionally “wrong.”
You’ll sputter and say “That’s different! Because reasons!” Even though it completely calls into question your strict XX definition and eliminates your binary.
Then I’d point out that the medical community has widely accepted trangenderism. You’ll dismiss that as Leftist wokeism that denies REAL science even though you are neither a biologist, psychologist, or medical doctor.
I’d also point out that that other cultures in human history have had more complex beliefs about gender such as the bacha posh phenomenon in Afghanistan or Hijra in the Indian subcontinent. You’ll dismiss that as part of some primitive culture that doesn’t understand reality, using potentially racist language.
Do I have it right?
Nope. You don't have it right at all. See the 5:02 PM post.
I did, you didn’t say anything. Guess you’re not qualified for SCOTUS either. That being the case, maybe you can drop the pathetic: SHE’S UNQUALIFIED routine to make yourself feel better about your obvious mediocrity.
I said quite a lot bit actually. And it all preceded your long screed about what I would say.
The frank truth is, you're utterly wrong about what I would've said, and the time stamps demonstrate it.
“ As I mentioned, there were multiple ways to answer the question. You could answer it from a biological perspective, as Jackson alluded to by saying "She's not a biologist". From a gender perspective, you could answer it as how someone defines themself.
Since this is a judicial hearing, and as you pointed out that the "Legal" definition is potentially in flux, knowing the judge's initial views there...since she may be responsible for ultimately defining it...is an important question, and knowing any of her logic there is of importance.
All of this could have been answered
But if, as LTG suggests, if she just honestly "doesn't know, she's not a biologist"...that's a major problem, and she shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.”
Where in this comment did you define what a woman is. Give me a line number.
He gave at least three different senses of "woman" she could have discussed. A question like that was amazingly predictable, so it is surprising she did not have a better answer ready. Has she already forgotten how to prepare for questions from a hostile bench?
“Could have discussed”. So he didn’t actually define what a woman was despite believing this is a question with a simple answer and claiming to have done so.
"So he didn’t actually define what a woman was [....]"
Well, you could have asked him to. But you decided not to.
"I was going to ask you to define it, and then respond but I decided to save time and just lay out how this plays out."
You sure pre-owned yourself.
LTG said: "I was going to ask you to define it, and then respond but I decided to save time and just lay out how this plays out.
I assume your definition is XX chromosome, full stop."
Armchair responded with the re-direct to his 5:02pm post. A post which does not in any way, shape or form define what a woman is, according to him.
As usual Michael, you need to learn to read better.
Why do you bother with the idiot. You know that nothing you write can change the guy's mind.
Put him on mute and save a lot of wasted time.
Jason, why should AL have defined woman? You can see elsewhere that when he was finally asked, he gave an answer that was "actually impressively nuanced". LTG complained that AL didn't answer a question that LTG explicitly said he decided not to ask. Who was being unreasonable?
Humans have ten fingers. The fact that some are born with 11, or 9 and others lose one or more through out their lives does not change the definitional truth that humans are ten fingered creatures.
Wait, so people with born with 9 fingers aren't humans?
Yes the scientific definition of women and men is XX XY and the set of phenotypic characteristics that derive from these chromosomes under normal circumstances. ie the vast majority of humanity. There are some rare biological intersexuals but the vast majority of even these fall cleanly under one of the two categories in a predictable manner. IE XO XXX are females. Even in the few that don't that doesn't really help the transgender activists since transgenderism isn't defined scientifically anyway. You might as well argue that planes prove that men can fly by imagining themselves as birds.
There are very few distinctions in the world as clear and objective as men vs women. Yes you could argue its a spectrum like you could argue there is no such thing as a hammer and a screwdriver, only a spectrum between the two but such arguments are obfuscating sophistry.
Animals have evolved in two sexes..these sexes through natural selection have developed different traits both physical and mental AND different reproductive organs. This is not to say genetic abnormalities occur very very rarely to give an animal part of both reproductive sexes. This is not what the issue is..it is a defined biological human deciding mentally they don't want to be the physical sex they are. Just stop trying to mainstream this behavior.
No. The female of a mammalian species is that member that produces or has the potential to produce large, immobile gametes. The male, in contrast, products small, mobile gametes.
The chromosomal exceptions you point out still lead back to either male or female--understood as gamete production or the potential therefor.
True gonadal intersex conditions--i.e., an individual having both testicular and ovarian tissue--is extremely rare. In biology, we don't define the normal by way of the abnormal. Thus, the definition of female doesn't change because occasionally the process is royally screwed up.
For all intents and purposes, the gamete distinction is all we need. No one is banging on about some poor intersex person being discriminated against. They are banging on about men, with testes, being considered to be women.
All of this really pisses me off. I don't give much credence to the "patriarchy" until I start seeing men bullying women in order to shut women up, push women out, and push women around.
Discrimination law is swallowing the constitution. It is time to stop prioritizing someone's special characteristics over everyone else's fundamental rights.
I can't speak for others, but the definition is simple. If you have the SRY gene, you are male. If you don't, you are female. The SRY is normally carried on the Y chromosome, but in extremely rare cases it's carried on the X, resulting in an XX male.
However, XX = female, XY = male is correct well over 99.99% of the time, and the few anomalies that exist outside of that should each be determined on a case by case basis.
And it's true that at birth some children have what APPEAR to be two sets of gonads. But no one in all of human history has ever had the functioning sex organs of both a male and a female at the same time. Intersex people all have a sex, even if that sex isn't immediately apparent. There is no such thing as a third sex in human reproduction.
She could have at least used it as an opportunity for a Supreme Court call back, and said that she can’t define it but she knows one when she sees one.
Now that *would* have been funny.
It was obviously a trap question.
If she gave the progressive answer, the conservatives would be mad.
If she gave a conservative answer the progressives would be mad.
Someone would be mad at any possible answer.
She smartly refused to pay.
The "I'm not a biologist" was not smart.
Its the dumbest thing said by a nominee since "Wise Latina"
It's a trap question to ask a nominee's views on a topic, if the answer may upset people?
It was a bs question but by not thinking fast on her feet and calling it out for what it was AND explaining there are two sexes she failed. No backbone, not quick thinking, doesn't belong on the SC (and to be honest about 4 of the justices today don't either).
135 times, the Supreme Court has said the meaning of a word is the dictionary definition. Why does Jackson not know that?
If she can't define a woman, how does she know she qualifies as Biden's "Black Woman" requirement for SCOTUS?
What I was more struck by was Senator Cruz's talk about changing his own definition one day and back the next. He typifies the idea that people are like chameleons that can change at will. Decisions to change one gender designations are not made frivolously as he portrays. He not dumb, I believe he is Harvard educated, but plays dumb for the Republican base.
It is one thing to be humble, another to play dumb when you are not. Senator Cruz and a number of his fellow Republican Senators play at this far too much.
I believe he is Harvard educated,
It didn't take.
There are two genders..male and female. You can believe anything you want and dress and call yourself what you like (hell you can be a martian..who cares) but reality is reality..sorry Admiral Levine..you are a man.
Harvard Law School. Princeton undergrad. Nobody liked him there, either.
Um, have you SEEN some of the tik-tok videos out there? I could point you to one where a man (dark 5:00 shadow, low voice, huge Adam's apple) says that some days he is a women and sometimes gender fluid. Some days he is "trans-femme" (whatever the fuck THAT is), sometimes just a non-gendered spirit. It all depends on how he wakes up and feels. He is wearing fake fingernails, but male clothing, and sits there and lectures women about how if they don't want to see a "woman's" meat and two veg in the locker room, it is because they have internalized misogyny. So now women are misogynists if they don't want men who suffer delusions to be in their private spaces.
There are videos out there of (typically women) claiming to be male, female and neither all in one day. There are videos (again, typically of young women) of people claiming multiple personalities, some of whom are women and some men.
What the real fight is coming down to, though, is primarily autogynephilic men who cannot abide the idea that someone out there will not truly accept them as women. Thus, they bully and scream and intrude into women's spaces seeking validation. I saw a video where a man (obviously), films himself walking into a women's bathroom as a "women" and crowing and gloating about it.
This is NOT sanity.
This is imbecilic.
It is frivolous for a lot of people who consider themselves "non-binary" or "gender fluid", and quite literally some of them say they are men one day and women the next.
"What I was more struck by was Senator Cruz's talk about changing his own definition one day and back the next."
That's literally what gender fluid means. Cruz didn't invent that.
"Someone who is fluid -- also called gender fluid -- is a person whose gender identity (the gender they identify with most) is not fixed. It can change over time or from day-to-day. "
I don't know what the other real answers were, but this one seems like an easy freebie that's good for optics but doesn't really say anything meaningful since (as noted in the post) if she doesn't recuse her vote can't affect the outcome.
I remember, or at least think I do, confirmation hearings where practically all questions were dodged by refusing to comment on something which might end up before the Supreme Court someday.
Not withstanding how silly some of these questions are, it still seems like she has given more direct answers than I remember recently.
I didn't see Sotomayor or Kagan, but she's about Roberts-level, and way ahead of Alito's bore-fest.
The only thing that’s being revealed is that many Republican men are incredibly whiny bad faith actors who shouldn’t be treated with the seriousness that they are by society. I mean Ted Cruz actually said he wouldn’t let the Judge answer a “question” during his rants. Lindsey Graham literally stormed out like a toddler when she tried to explain federal sentencing to him.
And while they’re accusing her of being pro-child porn she hasn’t once burst into tears or threatened revenge or declared her love of alcohol.
Per popehat: It’s almost as if Jackson, as a district court judge, has experience dealing with irritating, performatively rude, mediocre white guys.
If you spent your entirely life getting stomped in the culture war by better Americans, watching your nation progress against your wishes and efforts, and recognized that your preferred mix of multifaceted intolerance, old-timey religion, and backwardness would continue to lose ground for the rest of your life, you might be cranky, disaffected, and pouty, too.
Give these clingers a bit of slack. Life is hard out there for a bigot in modern America.
"Per popehat: It’s almost as if Jackson, as a district court judge, has experience dealing with irritating, performatively rude, mediocre white guys."
I guess he'd know.
LTG is a irritating, performatively rude, mediocre white guy too.
I could say the same of you. But at least I’m not also a sadistic ghoul who mocks people for having basic human emotions. I also don’t discredit the profession by being against fairness in legal proceedings. Oh and I don’t want to execute kids. So I may be all that but at the end of the day, at least I’m not a sadistic ghoul with a corroded soul.
Don't you mean "white" with a capital "W"...ha ha
She is mediocre at best..but so are most of the current justices.
She may not know what "recuse" means, she has a lot of trouble with simple definitions.
In all fairness, she's not a lexicographer, so she couldn't possibly know that.
Admitting you don’t know something is much preferable to the Armchair/Brett Bellmore school of thought that is often embraced by conservative politicians pundits and judges where they’re an expert on everything despite having no expertise experience or even done any of the relevant readings.
If she honestly can't define what a woman is, given that the SCOTUS deals with a number of cases regarding women's rights....then she shouldn't be on the SCOTUS. Full stop.
And if you say it’s one definitive thing that medical science says isn’t the case you shouldn’t be on SCOTUS because it means you reject evidence and substitute your arrogance for expertise. I’m sorry the world is more complicated than your simple-minded brain can handle, but Judge Jackson recognizes it is, which makes her a great fit for SCOTUS.
You guys really are taking the "experts say" stuff to the next level, eh?
Sorry, if you can't give a definition for a woman, you're not qualified to be on the court.
Yep.
I guess she's destined to continue to succeed in life without the support of bigoted right-wing losers.
Those disaffected clingers will always have Volokh, though.
OK: what's your definition, other than "man is man, woman is woman"? Give us the answer you would have had her give. A judicial definition, not some circular nonsense.
There is no judicial definition. And the medical/scientific and social/cultural definition is complicated as I posted above. She gave the right answer.
She gave the "avoid the question" answer. Unless you think she really didn't know, which you've alluded to, several times.
In which case, she shouldn't be a judge ruling on women's rights.
Sigh. A man has a penis, a woman has a vagina.
But...But....What about John Bobbitt?!? A-Ha!
#snark.
You’re joking but by his definition he’s not a man anymore.
"But...But....What about John Bobbitt?!? A-Ha!"
I know. People actually think this is an effective counter.
A definition isn't an exhaustive list of criteria to be included in the category. The definition of a spider includes having eight legs, but that doesn't mean that a spider with a missing leg stops being a spider.
TP,
Yep.
TP
Then you shouldn’t have given that as a definition. It was obviously a bad one.
LTG,
Look up the definition of a spider. Anywhere.
Then ask yourself, if you take a leg off a spider, does it cease to be a spider? Are they all bad definitions then?
A definition isn't an exhaustive list of criteria to be included in the category. The definition of a spider includes having eight legs, but that doesn't mean that a spider with a missing leg stops being a spider.
Huh? That makes no sense. If an having eight legs is required in order to be a spider then an animal with seven legs isn't a spider.
Actually, a definition may well describe what the requirements are to be included in a category.
Bernard,
Do two things.
1. Look up the definition of spider in a common dictionary.
2. Ask yourself, if you take a leg off a spider, is it still a spider.
A.L
1. Is it necessary for an animal to have eight legs (among other things) to be a spider?
2. If it is, then how can you call an animal with seven legs a spider?
My point is simple. It's not that once a spider loses a leg it ceases to be a spider. It's that it's entirely possible that a seven-legged animal is still a spider, which means your "definition" is nonsense.
So what if you’re born intersex? What if you have a full hysterectomy? What if your genitals are blown up, like has happened to
soldiers? Is someone born without a penis but does have testicles a woman?
You can't reason with bigotry (gay-bashing, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, etc.), superstition (of any flavor), or belligerent ignorance of the type taught at conservative-controlled schools.
It is pointless to try, perhaps counterproductive.
These stale hayseeds shouldn't be appeased, either.
From a biological perspective, a woman is an adult human female, ie an adult human with XX chromosomes, aside from a very small number of exceptions.
On the other hand, from a gender perspective, there's a long history of a woman being a human being who self-identifies herself as a women and falls into the common categorization of "women." This includes a large number of transgender individuals, including those who have undergone substantial surgery and hormone therapy, and should be considered women, rather than whatever biological sex they had when they were born.
Wow. That’s actually really impressively nuanced. So why were you pretending this was a simple question that Jackson is too dumb to grasp?
Because LTG,
I have high expectations of my SCOTUS judges. And if she's too dumb to come up with a "nuanced" answer like that, then she shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.
Here’s the thing though: she isn’t. Deep down you know it. You just really really need to believe that you’re smarter than this much more accomplished person. Whether it’s cause she’s a woman or black (or both) or liberal, I don’t know. But you do, and you’re seizing on this to give you cover. But there are much healthier ways to deal with mediocrity than convincing yourself that the SCOTUS nominee is dumb because she doesn’t answer a gotcha question like you’d prefer.
Once again, you're telling me what I believe? Wow.
Yes. Because it’s painfully obvious.
What's obvious is that you're resorting to personal attacks, rather than admit that Jackson should've given a nuanced answer, akin to the one I did.
But, if all you have are personal attacks, go for it.
Armchair: nothing is more of a personal attack than thinking someone is too dumb for SCOTUS because she didn’t answer one question with nuance. You’ve already engaged in it. I’m just trying to highlight why that’s the case.
"you're resorting to personal attacks,"
Armchair, that's is MO. He insults people on every thread. Usually multiple people. You've seen that.
He's incapable of accepting anyone's argument. I'd tell him to grow up but he'll recite that tedious Lewis quote again.
LTG,
Attempting to redefining what a personal attack is doesn't help you at all, and is frankly dishonest.
“He's incapable of accepting anyone's argument.”
Pot kettle. Maybe if you didn’t want to be insulted you should stop being such bad people?
"Maybe if you didn’t want to be insulted you should stop being such bad people?"
I don't care about your insults dude, don't flatter yourself. Sticks and stones etc.
But of course, its not just me, you insult just about everyone you disagree with. Kirkland's not actually a role model.
Mostly because you’re all bad people who say horrible things. You often express contempt for basic fairness or human life. Think about it: when have you ever said something not worthy of
insult? Is it when you want to execute children? Or torture suspects? Or when you mock having empathy for children shot by cops with quips like “need a tissue?” What about defending Jim Crow era trials as “fair?” Is it when you gleefully support lying to get what you want? Or when you think you can kill people in defense of property? When have you EVER said something here that could be viewed as moral and non-ghoulish?
Ah, the ever-popular, -effective and -compelling "convince me you are not actually evil, or you are eeeevil" argument.
If the nominee had provided the answer Armchair Lawyer has offered, the half-educated (home ec major at a Deep South school) yokel senator from Tennessee might have stroked out upon hearing the syllable "trans,"
So Judge Jackson seems to have performed a heroic act of mercy, ministering to the lesser among us.
Experts are rent seekers with zero credibility except as technical advisors, about complexity of a subject. All studies with any exclusion criteria violate the assumptions of parametric statistics. One is not even allowed to carry out the statistical test let alone draw any conclusion about a population. Nearly all medical, psychological, sociological, political science, economic studies are garbage. Aggregate garbage in the mind of an expert, you still get garbage, even if the expert is not a foam at the mouth, lying, attack dog for the Democrat Party.
LTG,
I expect a minimum level of knowledge from the SCOTUS justices. Among this is defining what a woman is. That minimum level is necessary to interpreting the large number of laws that use these terms.
If she can't do it, she shouldn't be a SCOTUS justice.
No, it isn't.
"The world is more complicated"...funny for a bolshie to say that
She was asked to define "woman", a simple word, not explain string theory.
She said today she was a woman, she must have went back to school overnight and became a biologist.
Wow. You’re a dick.
How would you know? You're not a biologist.
A dick is a colloquialism for a generally unpleasant person. I can assess that based on his comments. No expertise needed. I can also assess that you aren’t particularly clever with rejoinders.
So now you're a linguist? You don't seem very cunning.
And I am very clever with rejoinders.
Not on the basis of that one.
Worth noting that currently, the UNC and Harvard cases are consolidated for hearing. Presumably the court could split them back apart, with Jackson recused from the Harvard case but not the UNC case.
Or, alternatively, her "plan" will change once safely confirmed.
Bob,
Why not, for the first time in your life, just assume that a liberal means what she says and is saying what she means? Just because you lack integrity, and just because you would lie under oath about what you'd do, once confirmed; this does not in any way suggest that people with actual character and honor would act with the same lack of class.
In other words, don't be another Ted Cruz or Lindsay Graham. One of each is already more than enough.
Spare me, your side is not exactly filed with people of "character and honor".
Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin among many others.
Politicians in general are not people of "character and honor", if they were, they would not be politicians. Its a nasty profession filled with nasty people, on both sides.
You should run. You’re a thoroughly nasty person.
Bob,
I'm a Republican. So (Sadly!!!), *my* side is filled with Lindsay and Ted. To my everlasting embarrassment. Especially given that I financially contributed to Cruz's first race for Senate.
[But I'll grant you that both sides have some nasty sorts.]
Was I the only person astounded at the spectacle of white guys (Ted Cruz in particular) lecturing a black woman on racism?
Ted Cruz is Hispanic. What you have done is a form of mis-categorizing someone deliberately.
Have you never seen the woke whites lecturing unwoke blacks? What rock have you been hiding under all these years?
Are white guys not entitled to ask questions about or have opinions on racism? Even in the context of talking with a black woman?
Do white guys only get to talk about racism when they're also talking to white guys? What if they're talking to white gals?
With whom are Hispanic guys allowed to talk to racism?
If this a racially hierarchical line of conversational privilege that you are proposing?
"Was I the only person astounded at the spectacle of white guys (Ted Cruz in particular) lecturing a black woman on racism?"
I'm sure Clarence Thomas would be shocked.
Given assault and murder %'s of blacks on whites..I would say lecturing a white person on racism is a bit ironic.
Way to erase Ted Cruz's identity bigot.
I assume that she still intends to rule on the North Carolina case, a more straightforward case of race-based state action, where she can issue most of the (likely dissenting) opinion she would have written on the SFFA case.
Sure. Her participation in the NC case is expected and not at all controversial.
These cases are to be heard together.
Yes. I'm pretty sure my original comment is accurate (ie, she will recuse in one case and will not recuse in the other...and her participation in the companion case is expected and not controversial).
Everyone knows what the outcome of this will be - she will confirmed on a party line or near party line vote. The point of this whole exercise is to make partisan points. Republicans want sound bites that they can use in November. Jackson gave them one with the her answer to "what is a woman?" Whether or not you think that's a fair question or a reasonable answer from a "legal" perspective, it doesn't sound good. Now, whether that will convince or motivate voters is unclear. But that's the point here - the minority trying to exact a political price.
Culture war signaling, as far as the eye could see.
I thought she handled herself quite well in the face of all that performative nonsense from entitled mediocrities.
Do you agree that one needs to be a biologist to give a definition of a woman?
Do you think that's the best answer someone in her shoes could have given? And if so, how did we get there?
How did we get here? A complex human society and advancements in medical science.
How did we get here? It is a mystery to everyone, except perhaps biologists. Middle-school biology is the new rocket science.
You know that biology has advanced beyond a
Middle school level right?
I know that, but if we are appealing to biologists for definitions, sex chromosomes are -- or at least used to be -- introduced around the middle-school level. If one defers to biologists about the definition of "woman", then one should have some explanation for why more advanced biology is required... unless one wishes others to think one is ignorant of basic biology.
Ignorance of basic biology is kind of selling point among republicans so you’d think they’d like that about her.
"You know that biology has advanced beyond a
Middle school level right?"
Not in the gape-jawed, half-educated, desolate, broadly intolerant, obsolete backwaters inhabited by conservatives and Republicans.
"Advancements in medical science"..what the hell do you mean by that? Science has known of the rare case of a women born with internal testicles and high T levels for over a hundred years . If you mean trying to "create a woman from a man"..well you can get the boob job and a fake female vagina, hair removal and estrogen pills but you can't have a kid...
I know a trap question when I see it, and so do you. Don’t be disingenuous.
The definition is controversial, even if culture war dead-enders like you choose to be like to insist it’s not.
It’s also context dependent, and not the job of the candidate to provide in any broad sense.
Do you have to be a biologist to provide a definition of a woman or not?
No, you have to be a biologist, and a sociologist, and a social-anthropologist (and maybe a psychologist and a few other "ists" as well), if you are going to give a full, and nuanced, and thorough answer). I mean, this was *obviously* a gotcha-type question. Now, you can be bothered by her refusal to engage with the question. But, I suspect that you would have been even more bothered by pretty much any answer that she would have given.
Dating must have been tough for you.
You get that most people identify men and women every day without being any of those, right.
The question wasn't identifying; the question was defining.
How do you identify something without using your own definition??
And it doesn't take a biologist to explain that a female has the organs to produce an egg and a male to fertilize it. That's the simple definition. Animal breeders have known this for centuries, and few of them were PhDs in biology.
" I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it,"
That's understandable for nuanced distinctions like pornography vs art. But the difference between reproductive sexes across the entire animal kingdom has been a very well known concept for thousands of years.
How do you identify something without using your own definition??
'I know it when I see it' has a long and storied judicial history.
"The definition is controversial"
"Female human", or "adult female human". Not controversial" at all to normal people.
"culture war dead-enders"
We've taken our lickings but we'll see about this battle. Its being fought on good ground for us, like guns.
The Republican Governor of Utah thinks conservatives are being a bunch of dicks about this and the biggest transphobes are also some of the most repulsive bullies in the Republican Party. The dickish bullying killed you on gay rights, and it’ll kill you on trans issues. This isn’t good ground for you at all.
We'll see.
We were killed on gay "marriage" because of Tony K.
Marriage in scare quotes. You’re such an utter dick. How do you live with yourself? How do you interact with gay couples in real life? Are you as rude to them as I suspect you are? Or do you purposefully avoid them at all costs lest you be polluted.
And hate to break it to you dude, but while Obergefell may have been a Kennedy job, the cultural embrace of same sex marriage was a thorough ass-kicking for conservatism. If there was anywhere near the antipathy for same sex marriage that you think there is, there would have been a real attempt to amend the constitution. There wasn’t. Wasn’t even given a floor vote by a Republican Congress. We’ve had a 6-3 SCOTUS for well over a year and not one state has attempted to stop issuing licenses to get it overturned.
Love won. The assholes lost for once.
Its not "marriage" no matter how many insults you spew.
You’re spewing them now by putting marriage in scare quotes. So you deserve them. Maybe if you don’t want to be insulted try being less of an asshole.
Again: do you insult gay couples to their face like this?
Its not "marriage" no matter how many insults you spew.
Is your definition of marriage whispered directly in your ear by dear sweet baby eight-pound, six-ounce tiny infant Jesus, all swaddled in golden fleece . . . or does your Ohio Jesus deliver the bigoted messages >wearing a tuxedo t-shirt ('formal, but here to party, too'), with giant eagle wings and a mullet, singing lead for Lynyrd Skynyrd?
Ohio? I expect the mullet Jesus.
" We'll see. "
Bob from Ohio isn't sure how the culture war is going to develop.
That's the level of education, judgment, and insight that puts a guy in downscale Ohio (even with a law degree).
I'm sure it will develop with men in the top ranks of women's sports, sharing prison cells with women, etc.
The biology answer was a stupid response to a stupid question. A better more honest response would have been “if you think I’m sticking my hand into that hornet’s nest you’re crazy”. Clearly she was avoiding the question and I don’t blame her.
Heh. I think you summarized it well, and accurately.
The answer was stupid in itself. The question, in itself, is quite significant considering how the subject is treated in law. Asking the question is arguably stupid during confirmation hearings -- but only because nominees go to such lengths to avoid a substantive answer on any controversial subject. In that respect, it's a bad answer because it professes ignorance to avoid the substance while still implying that the answer is fundamentally biological, which plays into both the XX vs XY basis for answering the question and the idea that left-wingers think typical people are unqualified to tell the difference between men and women.
So far I've been impressed with her responses.
She has explained things clearly so even a non lawyer can understand.
She has maintained her cool and treated even some frivolous questions seriously.
She has refused to be drawn into silly grandstanding to the point of shutting down the religious questions and refused being drawn into what was likely a trap on gender identity.
She seems to lack critical reasoning, not understanding the role of the judicial versus legislature and executive branch. Have no idea on her view of the 1/2/4 amendments. Does she believe in sunk costs? Views on the commerce clause? Views on "group rights"? Views on censorship by big tech? I could go on..no idea and that is very disconcerting.
She intends to recuse like Basement Bunker Biden intended to be a unifier.
Bet?
Yeah I’ll take some of that action too. I see no reason to think that she’s been dishonest.
It’s pretty racist to not even look at her merits before declaring she doesn’t deserve the position.
Not to mention that nobody's accused this nominee of rape yet.
Simena is pretty far left, she's a sure yes. This is not an institutional issue like the filibuster.
Manchin is an unreconstructed New Deal lib, he's a yes also.
Who cares though, the next nominee would be just another left wing black woman. She's no better or worse than any of the other options.
Race card! Totally unpredictable.
From our point of view, she doesn't deserve it because she's a lefty nominated by Biden. Race and sex are what your side focuses on.
Its politics, not personal.
Isn't that how Biden chose her though? By looking at skin color and chromosomal make up first?
Which is why it doesn’t make sense for the opposing party to really vet a potential justice because it would be better if something comes up in the future in which the justice could be impeached when the opposing party is in charge. That said most of the people that end up a justice are the most boring people on the planet that spend their Saturday nights reading by a fire in New England. In contrast t14 lawyers that try to make partner at big law firms are ultra competitive and would be more likely to be ethically challenged.
Race and sex are what your side focuses on.
Just a coincide that most of Trump’s appointees were white men and that most of the books targeted by anti-CRT folks are by PoC, huh?
What do you mean “she doesn’t deserve it” because she’s a lefty. A lefty is the president and he nominated her. That’s all you need to deserve it.
Just like Gorsuch and Barrett and Thomas deserved it.
She’s one of those shot should have been approved by like 90-10 (as were Gorsuch and Barrett) but that doesn’t happen any more because owning the libs/cons is the height of our political intellectualism these days.
She's not being "vetted", the hearings are just a political show, on both sides.
"Race and sex are what your side focuses on."
That's why Biden's two most prominent selections are black women. Because of the GOP focus.
Yes because white people don't typically write books talking about White Devils.
Yeah everyone is a racist, man. Everybody every day.
And the people going around screaming about race all the time aren’t the racists, it’s the other side.
Jackson is doing an excellent job in her testimony, but your defense of her still relies on tribal name calling.
What is AA? Come on corn pop..the left has had this equal results thing since the 60s. We eliminated govt from discriminating and forcing private citizens and companies to discriminate but that wasnt' enough..first AA but still didn't get the %'s so then the "bar" was racist..SAT..racist, LSAT racist, now math is racist....I recall the Jesse Grifter Jackson saying the SAT was racist because a math problem used yachts and as he said "black folks don't own no boats"...this is how ridiculous this whole DIE stuff has gone...
The GOP need to marginalize these communities requires him to take some affirmative steps to correct that.
She's not being "vetted", the hearings are just a political show, on both sides.
For once, I agree with Bob.
It's a lot of posturing, trying to get TV time, etc. Why do you think that jerk Graham throws all those tantrums? He knows they'll be on the news and rile up his supporters. That equals more contributions.
This is true. But doesn't mean you can't call it out when it's out there like that.
Robin DiAngelo has made millions doing exactly this though.