AP Asked Justice Jackson About Her Inauguration Attire

There was not exactly a denial.

Justice Jackson gave an interview to the Associated Press at the Supreme Court. The biggest reveal is that she takes boxing lessons to get out her frustrations from the conservative justices. Lovely.

Buried deep in the story is a brief discussion about her attire at the inauguration.

Jackson, along with the other eight justices, also was part of the pomp and circumstance at President Donald Trump's inauguration, attracting attention for the white cowrie-shell necklace she wore over her judicial robe.

"It happened to coincide with Martin Luther King Day, and I thought I should wear something of cultural significance for that circumstance as well, to honor my heritage on this important day and this important occasion," she said.

The large necklace and earrings had special resonance because the shells have long been associated with African American culture and African heritage.

Um, the lede is buried. These shells didn't simply have resonance with African heritage. They are talismans to ward off evil. Jackson didn't quite deny that fact.

Carry on.

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

The immediate follow-up question is "how" -- HOW are they affiliated with culture.

Only someone not wanting to know wouldn't ask...

[SykesFive]

This is so unhinged.

[Swede425]

Take her at her word. Her explanation seems perfectly reasonable.
Plus, they looked nice.
But instead of boxing lessons, how about some biology lessons?
She'd be much less frustrated about what a woman is then.

[Malika the Maiz]

After Trump’s EO confidently defined this in a way where everyone turned out to be women you’d think his chucklehead followers would drop this line.

[Gteht]

Is it ok to spread disinformation for liberal causes?

Here's the science:

Every developing embryo, irrespective of its sex, at one point contains both male and female reproductive tracts, referred to as the wolffian duct and the müllerian duct, respectively. If the fetus produces testosterone and the anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) gene products from the Y chromosome — these molecules elicit cellular signaling events that lead to the destruction of the female müllerian ducts.
A new study published in Science by Humphrey Yao, Ph.D. challenges this age-old concept of the female pathway as “default” and shows that the development of femaleness is also an active process. The authors implicated a protein called COUP-TFII as a key player that is required to actively eliminate the wolffian duct in a developing female embryo in order to give it female characteristics.

This showed that, unlike what was earlier believed, male embryos are capable of developing male tubes in the absence of signals from testosterone and AMH, and that the development of female sex organs does not proceed by “default” but rather requires the coordinated action of specific signaling proteins. Although the study was conducted in mice, COUP-TFII is also produced by human embryos, making it highly likely that the pathway identified here may work the same way in humans.

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/09/21/embryos-arent-female-default-study-shows/
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aai9136

[Lee Moore]

If Malika's chucklehead thing is based on the theory that all humans start down the female road, but roughly half of them flip to the other team during development, then this bit of science that you link to is surplus to requirements if we are to transfer the chucklehead moniker from the trumpkins to Malika.

That is because the EO states :

“Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.

If a male is created by veering from the pre-existing female pathway when the Mullerian ducts are nuked, then the previous female state would not be "immutable". It would only become immutable after the choice of ducts has been made - and therefore any "female" categorization before that point would not fall within the EO's definition.

Back on Planet Earth however, sex is firmly established in the phenotype prior to duct decision time, in the form of the gonads. Female gonads do not produce anti-Mullerian hormone.

The EO continues :

“Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

At conception the human does not have any gonads or reproductive ducts, it's just a single cell. What is established at conception is the genotype, which is what determines the type of gonad, and hence surviving reproductive duct system, the human is going to finish up with. And it is this genetic inheritance, which later leads to phenotypical destiny, which is immutably established at conception.

[Roger S]

It is nice to have an administration that follows the science.

[grb]

Lots of words above, but totally besides the point. Some simple assertions :

1. There is sexual difference in those physical attributes we all know and love,
2, There is sexual difference at the chromosome level.

But there's also sexual difference in the mind as well. This may not be openly visible or available for study with a microscope, but is nonetheless real. In almost all cases, the three things are in sync. With both people and in the animal kingdom, sometimes they are not.

It is true beyond question that some people have a complete disconnect between the two items above and the sexual identity in their mind. It often causes these people unbearable torment. It often occurs at an extremely early age. So you look at that and wonder why the Right has picked them to target and torment. There are three answers :

1. Today's Right is a vicious & cruel movement. They get off on treating people w/ petty meanness.

2. And transexuals are the last group where a public celebration of tribal hate works in the public sphere. In the old days your average Rightie could publicly loathe Blacks, despise Jews, sneer at women and hold Gays in contempt. They could do so while slapping their buddy on the back, confident of their privileged place. Now all that is gone. You can sense their terrible heartfelt loss. Hating on transexuals is like going back to the good old days.

3. The last reason is generated by the Right's addiction to perpetual victimhood and their obsession with zero-sum thought. As ludicrous as it sounds, they've convinced themselves they are somehow "cheated" if transexuals are treated with normal human understanding and compassion. It's like when same-sex marriage became legal. The Right's hive mind then insisted marriage didn't exist anymore and no marriage had meaning. You could slowly explain to a Rightie that life didn't end just because others weren't being treated like dirt, but no. They'd somehow been "cheated" of marriage.

Of course most of them came around and will this time too. Because no one is being "cheated" of anything and pointless cruelty is pointless. God alone knows who the Right will pick for their performance tormenting then.

[bernard11]

And transexuals are the last group where a public celebration of tribal hate works in the public sphere.

Nonsense, grb. They will find someone else, as you yourself suggest in your last sentence. Besides, they are really working hard on non-white immigrants. "Criminals, welfare bums, lazy." Where have I heard these descriptors before.

[Lee Moore]

It is true beyond question that some people have a complete disconnect between the two items above and the sexual identity in their mind.

There are also bearded women, and men with undescended testicles. All sorts of secondary sexual characteristics can develop in unusual ways (ie ways that are unusual for people of that actual sex.) "Sexual identity" as you describe is just one of a hundred, or a thousand such secondary items.

And just as one should not usually laugh at bearded ladies, one should not usually laugh at men who either believe they are, or would desperately like to be, women.

But when the bearded lady demands that she is in fact a man, and you must change your defintion of "man" to accommodate her, she goes too far. Maybe if you like her, you call her a man to keep her happy.

But when you're in a bar chatting to friends, you don't have to refer to her as a man. When you're construing legislation you don't have to read "man" as including her. And when you're teaching biology in school, you don't have to confuse your students with the bearded lady's problems.

[grb]

I'm very happy to see you make my point for me.

[Malika]

"All sorts of secondary sexual characteristics can develop in unusual ways (ie ways that are unusual for people of that actual sex.)"

These are real, biological things as you concede. When it comes to policy, why should they be brushed off but your conception level characteristics be determinative?

Let's be clear here, MAGAns are not upset because people with genotypes at conception that determine they are males as you claim are going into women's bathrooms, they are upset that people with these 'secondary characteristics' that are associated with males are going into women's bathrooms, right?

[Lee Moore]

As it happens, it's not possible to acquire the sort of secondary sexual characteristics that women prefer not to see in their bathrooms (eg Arnie physique, whanger, scrotum etc) unless you have the primaries - a couple of cojones. Which as I mentioned arise from your genetic inheritance.

It is not so the other way round - you can look extremely like a woman, even with your clothes off, even if you are in fact a man. (Also the result of genotype.) But I bet you no actual woman has ever been even slightly discomforted by the appearance of such a man in the women's bathroom. Nor would be even if she knew it was a man, which she almost certainly wouldn't. And the same might go for the man in question.

As to the brushing off thing - the President is merely establishing a simple straightforward workable definition for policy purposes, which happens to align with biological reality. Unlike the unworkable nonsense that it replaces.

[damikesc]

"And transexuals are the last group where a public celebration of tribal hate works in the public sphere."

There is not a group in America as praised by the culture writ large than trannies.

"As ludicrous as it sounds, they've convinced themselves they are somehow "cheated" if transexuals are treated with normal human understanding and compassion."

Let me guess --- you call anorexics "Fat", don't you? It's how they truly view themselves, after all, and it is wrong to tell anybody that their vision of themselves is anything but correct.

[Lee Moore]

To be fair, and I am never less than scrupulously fair ☺, I shall changes sides for a moment.

Psychiatrists and psychologists (when operating in the clinical realm) do aver that going along with the trans delusion is helpful to the patient, while for anorexia the recommendation goes the other way – towards (gently) trying to combat the fat delusion. Yes, psych-folk do differ in their views, yes those who disagree with the affirm-trans treatment are somewhat deterred from heresy by their professional bodies, so we don’t know what the real balance of opinion is, and yes the record of glittering success of psych-folk in the last century is a lot less glittering than that of other medical folk. But even so, humor the trans delusion is advanced as a proper, even the proper, medical treatment.

From there one may proceed to argue that the treatment cannot be effective if there are leaks in the delusion affirmation balloon. Mere passers-by failing to affirm can wreck the whole treatment and cause a devastating trail of misery and suicide. (In excess of the amount of misery and suicide that would otherwise obtain.) Josh R often pops up here to insist on this.

My difficulty – aside from a certain skepticism about the validity of the proposed treatment – is that the proposed treatment is impractical. I leave aside that it is totalitarian, and so objectionable on those grounds, but even if I made no such objection, impracticality is a killer. It is simply impossible to ensure that all passers by comply. There is no point in launching this all hands on deck none shall sleep effort to affirm the opposite of reality, even in the good cause of keeping the unfortunate alive and happier than they might otherwise be, if the effort is doomed to failure by the requirement that all must sing the required tune. Because they won’t. Some small boy, somewhere, will whisper that the Emperor has no clothes, and that will be that.

In reality of course this fad is in its death throes and in ten years no one will admit to ever having bought into it. It will be memory holed. In fifty years or so though, it will be dug up and historians will write of it as the Tulipmania of the 21st century. And point the finger at the guilty men – Trump and the Republican right.

[Malika the Maiz]

How does XO (Turner's syndrome), XXY (Klinefelter's syndrome), or XYY fit into this story?

[Lee Moore]

Short biology lesson. (Well shorter than sitting through a whole semester.)

Those are karotypes. Karotype is not the same thing as genotype.

An XO karotype does not prevent a woman with Turner's syndrome being a woman. She's a woman ...... with Turner's syndrome.

The reason that they're women is their genotype.

And so, mutatis mutandis, with Klinefelter's and XYY.

Karotype is your collection of chromosomes. A chromosome is a discrete lump of various genes (and junk.) A gene is a string of DNA that encodes for a protein (which does something in your body, in combination with other proteins.)

Several genes are involved in the phenotypical differentiation of sex, but probably the most important is the SRY gene, which triggers the development of bipotential gonadal tissue into testes.

The SRY gene is almost always carried on the Y chromosome. Which is why people with an XY (or XXY or XYY or XXXY) karotype are almost always male. Because they've got an SRY gene.

But very very very occasionally, during the crossing over part of meiosis an SRY gene on a Y chromosome is transposed onto an X chromosome, so that when the resulting sperm meets an egg and forms a zygote, the zygote's genotype includes an SRY gene, even though the zygote's karotype is XX.

Thus it remains the case that the zygote's sex is encoded in its genotype, while it is incorrect (in these rare cases) to say that its sex is revealed by its karotype.

The reason why an XO woman is a woman is that she doesn't have an SRY gene. And because she doesn't have an SRY gene, she doesn't have testes.

I suppose it is theoretically possible to be an XO man, if you are unbelievably unfortunate twice - ie you, as a zygote, inherit only one sex chromosome (an X) AND it happens to be an X with an SRY gene. Probably this would make you dead within the first couple of cell divisions, since an intact X chromosome is very important for lots of other things than sex development. Which is why there are no YO karotype folk.

Anyway, the point is - if youre going to use biology to try to make political points, you need to learn some. And not from Mother Jones. Mother Nature is the gal you need to consult.

[Lee Moore]

I suppose I should add that it is possible to have a malfunctioning SRY gene, so that even though you have it, it doesn't work properly to give you testes.

But the reason it malfunctions is because it contains some incorrect nucleotides, ie nucleotides that prevent it coding for the correct protein.

Your genotype has a bum SRY gene rather than a working SRY gene. Thus your sex is still determined by your genotype, which is provided to you at conception.

The same, obviously, applies to any genetic abnormalities which cause you to develop unusually in your sexual phenotype. Whatever it is, it's listed in the ingredients on the back of the packet. Under "genotype."

[Malika]

What does "correct" and "incorrect" mean here?

[Lee Moore]

"Correct" means it works. Same idea as cars, toasters etc.

Artists may go for non functional objet 'd'art toasters, but Mother Nature is a philistine. If you don't function you're .... toast.

[Malika]

So, teleology then? What's the "function" here? Mother Nature's "intentions?"

[Lee Moore]

No, just death and no offspring. That's how Nature judges its productions.

You have heard of natural selection, right ?

[Malika]

Interesting.

If it's a karotype and not a genotype, why do you think if you Google XO genotyope you get over a million and a half results?

[Lee Moore]

Because it's an extremely good proxy ?

You can specify the karotype in two letters, whereas it would take you a book to specify the genotype ?

It is only necessary to insist on the difference between karotype and genotype when some bright spark body comes up with an "Aha !" that relies on brushing over the difference.

[Malika the Maiz]

This article is about research on mice and as you say it “challenges” a “paradigm.” Sounds like the kind of biological debate a potential Justice would be right to be cautious to opine about..

[Peter Gerdes]

This is all irrelevant because how we use words is a practical and not scientific question*. We obviously could use male and female to describe humans in the way we apply those notions to animals (the trans-exclusive meaning Trump wants) or we could use those terms to refer to the way people wish to be percieved by society and use the terms biological/natal male and female for the notion we use when we talk about other animals.

And that choice about how language should work is a purely moral and practical one. You need to weigh the cost in inconvenience and upset against the extent to which it makes some people feel unhappy if you use the animal based concepts. Personally I tend to see it as a relatively small cost balanced against how much people care but you may disagree. But whatever your view it's just not a scientific question.

*For instance, our racial categories aren't based on the most principled genetic clusters but how people look and what differences are socially important.

[Lee Moore]

And the President's Executive Order is advising the executive branch on how they are to use the relevant words for the carrying out of executive branch business.

How employees of the executive branch use these words at home or during la lutta continua sessions during coven evenings is their own affair.

[Super Scary]

Nah, it's still funny (and sad) that she wasn't able to define a what a woman is.

[Malika the Maiz]

What should she have said? Described a genotype? Phenotype? Gender?

[Lee Moore]

Adult human female.

Which is a phenotype, but one which as the EO explains is determined by the genotype.

[Malika]

"genetic abnormalities which cause you to develop unusually in your sexual phenotype."

The genotype is destiny, except when it ain't?

[Lee Moore]

Your genetic destiny may be to be a woman with Turner's syndrome - ie the genetic abnormality results in abnormality in your sexual phenotype. And in other aspects of your phenotype.

That you have abnormalites in your sexual phenotype does not prevent you from being a woman, any more than abnormailty in the rest of your phenotype prevents you from being a human.

As I said, if you want to try biological sophistry to make political points, you need to up your game. Learn some biology.

[Magister]

Adult human female.

Three words which have had varying definitions for legal purposes. What's the youngest child tried as an adult? Before the Southern rebellion was quelled, slaves were not persons but property. Intersex people may be rare but certainly confound the simplistic definitions promulgated by conservatives.

[Lee Moore]

You do appreciate, I hope, that being "intersex" according to either the activist definition or the much narrower medical definition does not involve actually being "inter" the two sexes ? It covers male people, and female people, with "differences of sexual development" of various kinds.

Intersex people - again on either activist or medical definition - are not prevented from being male, or female, according to the defintion in Trump's EO, merely by being "intersex."

PS - I did note your eagerness to change the subject from the point in question today - sex - by quibbling about adults and humans. If any Neanderthals turn up we can fine tune the defintion to specify the species, if we wish to. At present it's not worth the ink. As to "adults" - again it's a pointless quibble. The line that divides adult from juvenile is the line that divides men from boys, and women from girls, wherever you draw that line.

[Magister]

My point is that your simplistic notions of gender and sex exist to support your bigotry, and that the matter is not as simple as you pretend.

[Lee Moore]

So, o complex one, explain your subtle notion of sex, beyond the “simplistic” one that it is a matter of reproductive type.

Appealing only to biology of course, not sociology, politics or handwaving. For as KBJ advised her interrogator - it’s a biological question.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And have you ever, like, looked at your hands?

[Lee Moore]

The lady at the link :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Dorothy_Macmillan

who looks fine if you like that sort of thing, married Harold MacMillan, who became British Prime Minister in 1957. By which time Lady Dorothy had already been carrying on a not at all secret - but kept out the newspapers - affair for nearly 30 years, with one of McMillan's political rivals in the Conservative Party, a splendid rogue and scoundrel by the name of Bob Boothby.

Anyway, a cruel wit once described Lady Dorothy as having "hands like a stevedore" - which if true confirms that there can be a fair amount of variation in the secondary sexually differentiated features of the phenotype, without confusing anyone at all about the actual sex.

Boothby was AC/DC, earning the soubriquet "Twice Nightly" as a student at Oxford. Perhaps he liked her hands.

[Sarcastr0]

Right after that quote there were a couple of open threads asking folks to define what a woman was.

There were a ton of definitions! Not a lot of agreement, though.

[Scooter]

It looked like something you'd buy on the Home Shopping Network.

[Dan Schiavetta]

She contradicted you, and you are telling us this proved you correct.

This is an extreme example of white-man-splaining.

[Bubba Jones]

Blackman is whitemansplaining the cultural significance of jewelry worn by a black woman on MLK.

FFS. Has every white man had a fucking lobotomy over the past 4 years?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I've said this before, but I think JB would think twice before going down this road if this wasn't an all-white, all-male (except for the very occasional Irina Manta post) blog. There needs to be some DEI at VC. They honestly don't seem to know any nonwhite people, and not a whole lot of women either, at least none that they feel comfortable discussing substantive issues with.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not a whole lot of women either"

They have had multiple women as guest posters just within the last year.

[Malika]

Guest posters! Well....

[Bob from Ohio]

The claim was they didn't know women. The captain is just wrong, as usual.

[Malika]

We invite a few women to speak to our male only club!

[Bubba Jones]

"The claim was they didn't know women."

This is a peak Volokh.

[SykesFive]

I mean, it’s also Blackmansplaining, so maybe that makes it okay?

[Bob from Ohio]

A+ trolling once again!

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is C material at best.

Come on Prof. Blackman, don’t just phone it in! You need another couple thousand words, some self-citations, maybe a demand that she resign and some smug accusations of hypocrisy? I know you’ve got it in you!

[Riva]

A sitting S.Court justice that views the President as evil and you see no potential improper bias issues here? Jackson is essential Chutkan, only with more power and less height.

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s sloppy at best to think this demonstrates she thinks he’s evil.

[Riva]

So, she went out of her way to wear a talisman to ward off evil to President Trump’s inauguration but really it had nothing to do with it being President Trump’s inauguration? She’s classless at best.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe she doesn't want evil to befall Trump or the inauguration.

[Riva]

You must have some impressive self control if you can say that with a straight face

[Malika the Maiz]

Because something has been used by people as a talisman doesn’t mean everyone who has one uses it that way.

[David Nieporent]

All black women look alike to Rivabot!

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m not sure how this is responsive to anything in my comment, but:

1. No, I don’t think a Supreme Court Justice thinking a president is evil is improper.

2. There is absolutely no evidence that Justice Jackson does think the president is evil.

[Riva]

Uh huh. No evidence Noscitur. Outside of going out of her way to wear a talisman to ward off evil at President Trump's inauguration. You completely ignore the subject of the article and the context of the whole matter. Is this alias of yours meant to be ironic?

[not guilty]

Begging the question much, Riva?

[Riva]

No, that's my view based on the tasteless choice of the little justice to wear a talisman that wards off evil to President Trump's inauguration. Now, you're welcome to draw your own conclusions. I might disagree but I wouldn't accuse you of "begging the question." I might mock you for another ridiculous yokel expression but that's about all.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This is C material at best. "

The hysterical responses from our left friends here will prove you wrong.

Already started: "Putting out an alert for Josh’s colleagues: this is a cry for help. This man is too stupid to speak in public. He’s begging for one of you to establish a guardianship over all his means of online communication."

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oh, obviously it’s profoundly stupid, and any normal person would indeed be deeply embarrassed to have their name associated with it. I just think Prof. Blackman is capable of more.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Your belief in his potential is optimistic.

[Malika the Maiz]

People would be outraged if he fucked a goat too, but that wouldn’t show it was brilliant.

[SimonP]

You forgot the opening anecdote, where Josh insinuates himself into the thing he's commenting on.

[Sarcastr0]

"He didn't shit his pants, it was a troll for everyone posting how he shit his pants!"

Bob, you do a poor 4chan impression.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's just having fun. You all are the ones who need to change pants.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, YOU are the poopy pants!

[Savagely Average]

He may be having fun, but he’s committing the worst cardinal sin a troll can commit: being boring.

I mean, making fun of ethnic fashion accessories? Trump has bowel movements that troll more effectively than this.

[ReaderY]

Would Professor Blackman be pressing his case this strongly if a Jewish member of Congress had put a mezuzzah on his office? A Catholic wears a silver crucifix? People have also described these things as talismans to ward off evil.

Give us all a break.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Give us all a break.

Don’t count on it!

[Savagely Average]

{A crucifix and a mezuzzah are Judeo-Christian symbols which means they’re normal. A cowrie-shell necklace is African which means it’s clearly some creepy weird voodoo thing.}*

*Realized the above needed sarcasm brackets.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about a swastika?

[ReaderY]

What if Justice Jackson sat in the front of the bus?

You don’t get to define what you find highly offensive according to your own arbitrary standards and then expect to be able to impose it on others. It’s awful when the left does it. It’s awful when the right does it. It’s awful when you do it.

[bernard11]

Oh STFU, Josh.

This is nonsense on stilts. What next? You don't like her hairdo?

[Gregory]

Putting out an alert for Josh’s colleagues: this is a cry for help. This man is too stupid to speak in public. He’s begging for one of you to establish a guardianship over all his means of online communication.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Advocating for censorship?!?

[JD85]

A couple things:

1) In the interview she doesn't say she's taking out frustrations from the conservative majority. She says she takes out frustrations that arise from being in the minority, which is not the same thing. I can be frustrated when I lose without being frustrated at my adversary.

2) You have no idea what question was asked to Justice Jackson in regards to the necklace, as the question wasn't provided. The question might have been "is the necklace culturally significant?" which would make her answer a functional "sure". You impute a meaning to her words that there is no way of knowing.

[Mark Regan]

In modest defense of Prof. Blackman, while Justice Jackson didn't say she was frustrated with the conservative Justices, the AP's headline came close to saying that:
Justice Jackson punches out her frustrations with the conservative Supreme Court in the boxing ring

[JD85]

True. The article is poorly headlined (and mediocrely written). She gets an interview with a SC Justice and doesn't write out a single one of the questions actually asked to provide context? Blech.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

In your first post about her attire -- your first of many, revealing an incredibly creepy fixation. I must again stress that you should find a woman in your life that you love and trust and talk through this issue with her and try to understand how weird you come off -- you said:

> This report in Vogue (which I cannot vouch for) explains:

Which suggests you are relying on Vogue to help you understand the semiotics of the jewelry, and then you quote:

> While the shell was used as currency in a variety of ancient cultures around the world, it was especially prized in African cultures, where it signified prosperity and protection. Meanwhile, the National Museum of African American History and Culture notes that, in America, the shell is thought to be a totem used to resist enslavement

So your position is that you did not know anything about these shells, then you went to a source that although you cannot vouch for, was sufficient for you to understand that she was being an Unacceptable Liberal Who Is Mad About Trump And Being Very Unjudgelike Just Like RBG Who Once Said Trump Was A Doo Doo Head And You Blogged About Her 8,716 Times To Say She Should Apologize To You. That source directly says that the item in question is in fact symbolic of African cultural heritage.

Now, in this post, you say:

> These shells didn't simply have resonance with African heritage.

But you don't know whether they "simply" have resonance with African heritage or not because you had to rely on Vogue to tell you what they meant to begin with, and Vogue told you, first and foremost, that they had resonance with African heritage.

There's a meme image about how once you already hate someone, everything they do makes you angry, and the caption is "Look at this bitch eating crackers, who does she think she is?" and that's how you're coming off here.

Again, I really need to stress that beyond the substance of the matter, you are coming off like a giant creep. If you don't know you're coming off as a creep, then you need to find an adult, neurotypical, well-adjusted person in your life that you trust to help explain social interaction to you. If you do know you're coming off as a creep, but want to persist anyway because you think this is a really important point, I promise, it's not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the swastika is an ascent symbol meaning good things...

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

For this analogy to make any sense -- in addition to all the other deficiencies -- you need to begin with the premise that Josh does not know the meaning of a swastika, and posts a series of confused posts trying to figure it out. Do you think that's a good analogy for what happened here?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, you have to likewise presume that Brown Jackson, not to be confused with the great Justice Jackson, isn't the racist Delta Charlie that we all know she (it?) is.

[Savagely Average]

The worst thing about the Nazis is definitely that they ruined the swastika and the Chaplin mustache for everyone else.

[bernard11]

Ah, but they were brilliant engineers. When fuel ran low they figured out how to make trains run on thyme.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This will get Frank going, but it is quite possible that they would have taken Moscow if they had allocated *all* of their finite railroad resources to send badly needed supplies (e.g. winter clothing) to the front.

Instead they prioritized transporting Jews to death camps, and we aren't allowed to say that helped win the war for the Allies.

[bernard11]

Excuse me, but what does any of that have to do with my comment?

Plus, they weren't taking Moscow, and we are allowed to say what we want.

[Savagely Average]

Not sure who’s not allowing you to say that the resources used to perpetrate the Holocaust hurt Germany militarily and thus helped the allies. We were taught that in high school in the 90s and I’ve heard it remarked many times since then.

Not sure if Hitler taking Moscow would have changed the result, though. Honestly, Germany did well against the Soviets - about as well as against Russia in WWI. The difference was that the Tsarist government collapsed and Stalin’s government didn’t.

[Peter Gerdes]

I agree with everything besides the creep part. He comes off as a dick suffering from bitch eating crackers syndrome but it's not like he's creepily obsessed.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

May those shells protect us from the evil that is Jackson

[SRG2]

More evidence for the proposition that VC let Josh post in order to discredit conservative legal academics.

[CJColucci]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Snorkle]

Just call her a witch and get it over with, dude.

Obsessively weird and pathetic.

[David Nieporent]

Jackson didn't quite deny that fact.

She also did not deny that they are the symbol of her fealty to ISIS!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Good catch!

[windycityattorney]

Maybe the shells were fresh and still had that fishy smell to them and she wasn't warding off evil; she would rather smell that than whatever foul odor could have wafted her way from Trump.

Rep Kinzinger has said its something to behold. There have been other examples of people sitting near him making odd faces as if they were in the presence of a lingering foul stench.

Many people are saying... his notoriously terrible diet and years of amphetamine/stimulant abuse made him incontinent and he has no bowel control. I don't know if that is true or not. But many people are saying it. Which is enough for Trump to bloviate on any subject so it's good enough for me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Amphetamines do not cause incontinence -- you have to have food going in for it to come out the other end.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As I noted earlier, multiple media sources talked about her necklace, providing different possibilities. People's attire has a range of meanings, including something like a cross necklace.

People have various Christian beliefs. The cross can also be a family heirloom. There is no "one" meaning to such symbols. There is a legal connection here since symbols arise in legal disputes including their meaning. For instance, hairstyles can have cultural meanings, but each person might not have the same reason for wearing them. Stereotypes will lead to confusion.

I also noted it would be a good idea if the sources asked Justice Jackson for a statement. I am glad that she explained herself.

It isn't exactly a compelling concern but it is helpful especially since she was making some sort of statement by wearing them.

[hobie]

Blackman, please reassure me that you are not responsible for teaching kids

[David Bremer]

There used to be a way, possibly when this was on another platform, to exclude posts by certain authors.

Although I never used it, I would for Blackman if it weren't so fascinating to see whatever crazy politics-driven thing he'll throw out there.

Considering he makes about 70% of the posts on here, it's sad to see what used to be a highly informative and intellectual blog devolve in to this.

[hobie]

Same thing happened at National Review. It used to be about intelligent, polite political discourse. Now it's just a cesspool of hate and fear

[Dan Schiavetta]

I've noticed that too. It's hard to detect any lingering "never Trump" tendencies (remember their banner issue from 2016?).

[Estragon]

Indeed, the changes around here have been so stark one could be forgiven for wondering if it isn’t intentional. I know what I think!

[Peter Gerdes]

She wore a good luck charm to the inauguration...how utterly and totally completely appropriate and respectful. Seems no different than a prayer to protect the new president from evil.

You are the one who is reading it as some kind of defense from the president.

[Roger S]

A good luck charm? I think she brought bad luck. I am going to post over on Truth Social that she may have caused the plane crash in the Potomac.

[grb]

Makes as much sense as anything else you post.....

[grb]

Pretty weak tea. That the shells can be seen as a "talisman" is indicative of nothing. That's ubiquitous across African art. It was that fact alone that made African masks so influential to artists like Picasso, who looked to infuse his paintings and sculpture with the same electric charge.

I've tried my hand at collecting African masks, but have no feel for the art. That's essential at the price point where I collect, given an ability to distinguish limited value from absolute dross is essential. This is in contrast to Japanese woodblock prints of the late-Edo and Meiji Eras, another gray market. There I can always tell what I'm seeing, good or bad.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Many of JB's posts have subjects of some interest even if the analysis is dubious. For instance, it's useful to examine Trump's EOs and the other contributors are not doing so as much even when they overlap with their interests.

The comments provide a way to discuss the issues in a more reasonable way than some of the commentary. OTOH, for another commentator, the comments are often more unhinged than the typical original post. Libertarian border policy triggers people.

Again, this issue is a more minor matter though it's fine to discuss more trivial things sometimes. It is helpful to know it's trivial.

[John F. Carr]

Josh is sounding like the people who want to ban the expressions "rule of thumb" and "grandfather clause."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Um, I'm not an expert in African magic or anything like that, but wouldn't the proper talisman to wear to the inauguration if one had malicious intent be a talisman to summon evil?

A talisman to ward off evil would indicate a desire to protect Trump and the inauguration, no?

I mean, I suppose you could argue that someone who doesn't know what a woman is might not know which talisman to wear, but I don't think we've ruled out the theory that although she might disagree with Trump, she really doesn't want evil to befall him or his inauguration.

[DIsrobing]

Why is this intellectual powerhouse languishing at a Top 200 law school?

Why???

[grb]

DIsrobing : Why???

Lord knows he's doing his whorish best to escape that fate.

[Kazinski]

She was literally surrounded by congressmen, in the Capitol Dome, the seat of their power.

I would wear something to ward off evil too.

And it would be perfectly appropriate for Kash Patel to wear a similar necklace too.

[grb]

Well, given Patel "invented" a pill to "reverse the covid vaccine", no doubt he could invent one to ward off evil too. Maybe he could even market it to the same dupes and gulls as he did previously.

You see, the gullible are usually generous in their gullibility. Hell, MAGA is based on that very principle. No doubt the same suckers and chumps he scammed before will line up again.

Can I put you down for a bottle of pills, Kazinski? No doubt the price of his fraud cons will go up once Patel runs the nation's premier law enforcement agency.....

[RedheadedPharoh]

Did Senator Warren come dressed in her wampum to celebrate her heritage too?

I guess she just wore her Pfizer sponsored gear.

[Bored Lawyer]

Two words: Who Cares?

[MoreCurious]

Josh, my mother taught me to be polite, so I would never publicly call someone an asshole. But . . . .

[Judge Magney]

So warding off evil is a controversial issue, which Justices should not take a position before it reaches their Court?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Not knowing the definition of "woman" while also believing in magic voodoo shells is the controversy, Judge.

[SykesFive]

Josh, seriously get help or at least run these ideas by someone who tells it like it is.

[Old Smokin' Egg]

A cross is also a talisman to ward off evil. Are cowrie shells anti-evil talismans and nothing else, or are they like crosses in that there might be lots of other reasons for wearing them?

[Syd Henderson]

"Justice Jackson gave an interview to the Associated Press at the Supreme Court. The biggest reveal is that she takes boxing lessons to get out her frustrations from the conservative justices. Lovely."

You do realize that was a joke?

[SilverlakeBodhisattva]

The POTUS is blaming a fatal air crash on diversity hiring policies which didn’t affect air traffic control hiring, and provided this additional stunning insight :”I have helicopters. You can stop a helicopter very quickly. It had the ability to go up or down. It had the ability to turn, and the turn it made was not the correct turn, obviously.” His press secretary seems to think the government was going to send $50 million worth of condoms to Gaza.
…and Blackman still has his pants in a twist about Justice Jackson’s fashion choices.
I used to respect VC back in the day, because even though I disagreed with most of the authors’ political positions, their concerns were legitimate concerns, and they mostly relied on actual arguments and actual facts, not name-calling and whining. Now, Volokh should be embarrassed to have his name associated with it.

[Stuart]

"They are talismans to ward off evil." Wow, is this so bad? Don't numerous religions and cultures have such 'talismans'?

Why don't you say what is really on your mind Prof. Blackman; that she believes Trump is evil and show wore these beads to ward him off. Have some guts for a change. If that's what you really believe.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this is what I keep hearing is what you are saying.

[David Nieporent]

I thought he explicitly said that in the first of his 18-part series on the subject!

[Emerson]

Josh, I respect your constitutional expertise, but are you actually opining on the meaning of cowrie shells in African and African-American culture?! Hilarious.