If you’ve been living under a rock or blissfully enjoying a social media-free Spring Break vacation, you may have missed the hullabaloo over Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s absurd response to Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s (R-Tenn.) question asking her “to provide a definition for the word ‘woman.'”
“Can I provide a definition?” Jackson replied. “No. I can’t.”
“You can’t?” responded a perplexed Blackburn.
“Not in this context,” Jackson flatly stated. “I’m not a biologist.”
Absurd, right? Most right-thinking people know the definition of ‘woman’ has been commonly accepted for millennia as being an individual of the sex that normally is capable of producing young or eggs. It’s common sense, and we can safely imagine Jackson knows this definition as well.
The real questions are why wouldn’t Jackson dare to publicly define such a commonly used word? What would happen if she did define it, possibly “incorrectly?” And who is she afraid of offending? The answer to that last question is, of course, the radical left. Jackson wouldn’t answer a simple question about a gender term for fear of risking the wrath of the radical left by possibly defining it “incorrectly.”
And doesn’t that tell us all we need to know about Jackson’s mindset and motivations? That one seemingly absurd interaction confirms what the right has suspected all along (and the left has denied): Ketanji Brown Jackson is more than just a female black nominee; she’s a radical leftist herself. One who, as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, would clearly be more concerned with pleasing the radical left and promoting its agenda than following precedent or the U.S. Constitution.
Related: The Disturbing Details About Biden’s SCOTUS Pick Just Keep on Coming
With their relentless attack on gender, the left is denying reality as author George Orwell described through the characters in his novel,1984: “Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.” It would therefore be heresy for Jackson to incorrectly define “woman” according to the radical left’s pre-approved definition (whatever that happens to be this week). While defining “woman” may on the surface seem commonsensical, it’s actually instrumental to the left’s ideology. “Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing,” wrote Orwell. If the left can force us to invalidate commonsense reality and replace it with their own, they can also hold all the power.
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four,” Orwell wrote. “If that is granted, all else follows.” In other words, the left can’t allow ‘woman’ to be defined by the right as anything objective or provable. It must remain vague and subjective so that it can be defined in whatever malleable way benefits the left’s ideology and power. Or, as the Party in Orwell’s book put it, “You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves.”
Tellingly, Jackson’s answer to that commonsense question is also typical of leftism in that she obfuscates by claiming she’s somehow not qualified to answer it. She does this in order to avoid revealing her true ideology. A true leftist — and she most certainly is a true leftist — knows it’s more acceptable to do and say nothing overly radical until she officially sits on the Court, at which point she’ll be free to let her authentic ideology show.
We knew the left wants to unmoor us not only from the Constitution, our basic rights, and our language, but now we see them undermining our understanding of biology as well. The right has learned this the hard way over the years. Will they see Jackson’s attempts to hide her ideology this time, and will they do anything about it? That remains to be seen, because as Orwell pointed out, “we know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”
