I know that I am on thin ice when I question the current nominee for the Supreme Court. The reason, no one is allowed to question the validity of the nominee is because of her ethnicity and gender. However, based on her testimony, I am not sure gender can be used because she, a woman, does not know what a woman is. In our woke world, I am not sure any of the followers of that toxic ideology know either.
My comments have nothing to do with the gender or ethnicity of the nominee. I am appalled at any nominee for the Supreme Court being chosen based on ethnicity or gender. I desire that the nominee is of exemplary character, which is not always the case, but still my desire. I desire that the nominee be a student of the Constitution and the Law and blind to personal preferences and a strict constructionist. That is now always the case but remains my hope. I oppose any nominee who is a political activist and has a history of making rulings based on their political views and agenda.
I believe that the Republicans are asking legitimate lines of questioning and snarl at the hypocrisy of the Left demanding kids gloves in the handling of this nominee after what they did in the recent past hearings. The Left was vicious and vitriolic in their attacks and now charge racism and hurl every insult they can dream up at those who ask challenging questions that need to be answered. They have not challenged her faith or whether she liked beer in college. They are asking questions that must be answered.
It is important to discover her views on current issues and her involvement in how she has acted judicially and in her personal activism. She sits on the board of the Washington, DC, private school that has bragged about its commitment to social justice causes and approves the indoctrination of children with the critical race theory. She pleads ignorant on so many things, I find that questionable in any nominee.
The school she is a board member of has exposed its students to adult sexual content and pushed them to agitate toward social justice. Can she put aside her bias and rule fairly based on the Constitution and the law? I do not know, but I have deep concerns and those concerns have nothing to do with ethnicity or gender.
I agree with those who have suggested that she might be a Trojan Horse. I am saddened that in 2022, the federal government is still be engaging in advancing people based on their gender, ethnicity, and looks rather than their qualifications. Joe Biden has participated in filibustering a Black female’s nomination (Judge Janice Rogers Brown) to the U.S. Court of appeals. He told President Bush that if he dared nominate her to the Supreme Court, he would filibuster. They did the same with a Hispanic male judge, two other females, and a male of Lebanese descent along with others. Yet, they claim to be diverse and inclusive. Seriously?
I find it almost laughable that the most apparent attribute she has in common with Joe Biden is her terrible memory. The questions by Senator Ted Cruz resulted in her claiming to not know or not remember. I laughed aloud when I heard her recollection of “staring at the image on the cover of Derrick Bell’s book ‘Faces At The Bottom of the Well’” when she was growing up. Why laugh at that? Because she said, ‘growing up’ and the book was published when she was a senior at Harvard. When did she grow up or has, she grown up?
She has avoided or failed to give concessive or complete answers regarding her rulings on the near-total recidivism rates of pedophiles and sexual offenders. She has ruled leniently on many of those cases yet is unaware of the information documenting those facts. She, a graduate of Harvard Law School is unaware of the core arguments in the Dred Scott case. How can that be? She cannot define what a woman is because she is not a biologist. Can she do math since she is not a mathematician? How could she receive testimony about drugs from those who are not chemists? Her response was ludicrous!
She has demonstrated either a willingness to avoid questions to hide her understanding of the Constitution or is woefully weak in that area of law. Another frightening and discrediting thing is the number of times her rulings have been overturned. That is an indictment of both her judgment and understanding or willingness to follow the Constitution.
I believe she is an activist who will prove to be a Trojan Horse providing ammunition and arms for the progressives in the courts. I am concerned that she will make her rulings not based on the Constitution and the Rule of Law but through the view of power structure and victimhood. That is not the right path for the Supreme Court or any Court. Her terrible rulings regarding the lowest dregs of human society pedophiles and her expressed sympathy for them should be a major red flag.
I believe that she, like other activists, will prove to be other than a seeker of the truth. Her testimony before Congress was filled with many obfuscations, voids, and outright fabrications attest to my view.
The many things that are in the pipeline of cases coming before the SCOTUS include gun rights, abortions, gender identity, the role the state may play in the lives and education of our children, government actions that cause the loss of livelihood, defining peaceable assembly, and collectivism via emergency declarations versus individual and state’s rights. Those are deep concerns to this citizen.
I agree with Keisha Toni Russell, a constitutional lawyer at First Liberty Institute (also a Black woman) that if Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is confirmed she would not be able to uphold the constitution if she believes it is racist. Her support of the CRT points in that direction. Russell cited the fact that every lawyer and judge promises to protect and defend the Constitution. She charged that if this nominee believes the constitution is inherently flawed and racist, she could not fulfill that oath.
To put the lid on my concerns I suggest that we remember how we have been told for the past two years to ‘follow the science.’ Well, her Dan Quale moment when asked the simple question of “What is a woman?” She said, “I’m not a biologist.” Seriously?
I guess if asked what a dog is, the proper answer now will be, “I’m not a veterinarian.” If I call 911 and tell them that an intruder is a male or a female, will the operator ignore me or challenge me asking If I am a biologist? This is ridiculous but terribly revealing and is either dangerous double-speak, ignorance, or a classic example of political correctness and woke speech.
I desire the Supreme Court Justices to devotedly and faithfully adhere to the text of the Constitution and rule based on the Law, not ideological preferences. I desire that even when their ruling does not jive with my views. It is imperative that the members of the Supreme Court know the Constitution and discover, as best as possible, the views of the founders on the matters. Investigate what they said about the various aspects of that document. We have many of their letters, notes, and statements and therefore it is not difficult to establish their intent.
America, I do not care if the nominee is a female or male. I do not care about their ethnicity. I care about their history, their knowledge of the Constitution and Law, and their demonstrated willingness to follow the Constitution. We need an unbiased Court capable of ruling strictly on constitutionality, not ideology.
That is my view, and you are welcome to yours. God bless you and God bless America!