With the completion of her two days of confirmation testimony, one fact is now clear: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson insists that she has no judicial philosophy other than a judicial methodology that is essentially identical to her oath of office. Putting aside the legal and linguistic problems with that position, most of the media and legal experts have simply shrugged and moved on. That is curious because just a week ago, many of these same figures went ballistic when I noted that we have little evidence of a judicial philosophy in past decisions by Judge Jackson and it would be one of the key issues in her confirmation hearings.
Indeed, it was treated as racist to even note that Jackson’s record does not offer a clear judicial philosophy on the interpretation of the Constitution or statutes. Democratic senators like Sheldon Whitehouse have now recognized the “fact that Judge Jackson said ‘I do not have a judicial philosophy.’” (3:45) It is not clear if we can now take Jackson’s word on the subject.
CNN legal analyst and law professor Steve Vladeck was one of the commentators who objected to my column that the record is thin on Jackson’s judicial philosophy on interpreting the Constitution or statutes. (For the record, I have previously criticized Vladeck for false legal claims).
Vladeck declared that the claim that the record on a judicial philosophy is “bunk” and noted that she has hundreds of decisions. Notably, Vladeck only responds to my reference to a “comparably thin record” despite the fact that it was a reference made “in terms of her judicial philosophy.”
Vladeck suggested that I was saying that she had little experience. I not only raised the record solely in terms of her judicial philosophy but previously discussed in writing and on television Jackson’s experience on the court. None of that matters with today’s hair-triggered commentary.
As I noted later, that is a bizarre take since all but one of those decisions were trial court decisions. Most deal with insular evidentiary or trial issues. As with prior nominations, I read as many as I could to do due diligence as a legal commentator. Counting the number of decisions is a rather superficial point when few deal with issues illustrative of judicial philosophy. Yes, 10 appellate decisions can be more illustrative than 100 decisions issued on trial issues. I did not find much of a record on how Judge Jackson interpreted constitutional or statutory text. With limited publications outside the court, it was a thin record on opinions showing how Jackson would approach defining rights or interpreting text.
As a trial judge, Jackson was required to follow not just the precedent of the Supreme Court but the appellate court. That was not criticism of Jackson. I have stated repeatedly that I consider her work as a trial judge and litigation experience to be major pluses for her nomination. Yet, citing the raw number of decisions does not answer the question of her judicial approach to constitutional or statutory interpretation. As I noted, there are a couple decisions that offered some insight but not a clear understanding of her judicial philosophy. I have also repeatedly noted that other nominees have been evasive on questions of judicial philosophy.
Nevertheless, Vladeck called it all “bunk” to say that there is little record to determine her judicial philosophy.
Some went even further. One of the most extreme voices was the Senior editor of Above the Law Joe Patrice who suggested my questioning of Jackson’s judicial philosophy was a racist dog whistle: “He’s just asking questions! He’d say the same thing about any nominee! It’s a lie, of course. He wouldn’t say this stuff about any nominee.” It did not matter that I asked precisely that question about Court nominees Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Even raising the lack of clarity on Jackson’s judicial philosophy was said by Patrice to be another “‘lesser Black women’ [attack] with a gentler touch. But the goal is the same.”
Now Jackson herself has claimed that she has no judicial philosophy and only a judicial methodology. Senators immediately echoed that view and insisted that she does not have a judicial philosophy and that is just fine.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-R.I.) declared: “What’s at issue is her judicial philosophy.” Yet, after Jackson refused to answer those questions, Coons declared (6:30): “I don’t believe that ‘a judicial philosophy’ is always all that meaningful.”
Likewise, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) who opposed Barrett as an unacceptable “originalist,” now dismisses originalism and judicial philosophy questions for Jackson (8:48) because “I do not find labels particularly useful.”
Yesterday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said (3:45) Jackson clearly stated that she does not have a judicial philosophy and he does not understand all of the focus on judicial philosophy in the Jackson hearings. Yet, in the Gorsuch confirmation, Whitehouse demanded that the nominee address his “judicial philosophy” and compare it to the “judicial philosophy” of the prior nominee, Merrick Garland.
It now appears that judicial philosophy does not matter for many senators and commentators who previously wrote exhaustively on that issue for prior nominees. Fine. However, is it ok now to say that there is no clear record establishing a clear judicial philosophy for Jackson?
Jackson was presumably not using a racist dog whistle in denying such a judicial philosophy but it is not clear if her own account of her decisions will be declared “bunk.”
It is clear to say that Judge Jackson has NO judicial philosophy.
It has a philosophy of radical activism, “fundamental transformation,” de-Americanization of America, social engineering, redistribution of wealth, communism and conquest.
Not to put too fine a point on it. 🙂
No, she HAS one. She is just trying to hide it from the American people.
PRIMA FACIE
___________
“Ketanji?”
That name suggests a deep and abiding love for America.
There can be no doubt that a person by that name is determined to achieve complete assimilation into America while “shedding the skin” and allegiances of foreign nations.
Clearly, a person by that name entertains no ill will for America and has no need to “fundamentally transform” America into something at variance with the intent of its Founders, precisely because of that person’s love for America and that person’s belief in American exceptionalism.
A prima facie, true American patriot, I say, in league with…
Ketanji Washington, Ketanji Jefferson, Ketanji Madison, Ketanji Hamilton, Ketanji Adams, Ketanji Franklin, Ketanji Hancock, Ketanji Henry, Ketanji Jay, Kentanji Mason, Ketanji Monroe, Ketanji Paine et al.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Is your “Social Score” sufficiently politically correct yet, all you spineless, treasonous, milquetoast poltroons?
You keep working on that cowardice in the face of the enemy, and the comprehensive surrender of your rights, your freedoms and your nation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Judge Jackson Hearings:
Republicans Play To QAnon Mobs
Several Republican senators followed up by channelling QAnon. Senators Josh Hawley from Missouri, Cruz and Graham all pursued the inquisitorial line that Jackson had been unduly lenient as a federal district court judge in her sentencing of sex offenders who consume and distribute images of child sex abuse.
Though they avoided stating so explicitly, the senators clearly intended to imply that Jackson’s sympathies lay with pedophiles. That’s a short stone’s throw away from the core conspiracy theory peddled by QAnon, the toxic Donald Trump-supporting online movement.
At its “Pizzagate” inception during the 2016 presidential campaign, QAnon fantasised about a child trafficking ring around Hillary Clinton and other Democratic leaders and liberal Hollywood celebrities.
The claim that Jackson was lenient towards sex offenders consuming images of children first surfaced last month. A conservative group American Accountability Foundation (AAF) ran an “investigation” into her writings while a student at Harvard law school in which she explored discrepancies in sentencing policy in such cases.
The group misleadingly claimed that her writing exposed her as a radical judicial activist dedicated to “social justice engineering”.
Days before the confirmation hearings began, Republican senators had taken up AAF’s lead and were plotting how to use it during the confirmation process. Last week Politico obtained a document that was circulating among the senators in which they rehearsed the claim that the judge “routinely handed out light sentences”, and that the lightest of all were in “child pornography cases”.
A pedophile-sympathising, critical race theory-loving, judicial activist, radical leftist social engineer. The vision of the nominee that was presented over hours of Republican grilling made for quite the spectacle.
Edited From:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/24/ketanji-brown-jackson-republicans-senate-confirmation-hearing
Jonathan: Some of your followers who oppose Judge Jackson” confirmation say she will be confirmed because she’s (1) Black, (2) Female and (3) Progressive. That’s good enough for me.
When Justice Barrett was confirmed it was precisely because she is (1) White, (2) Female and (3) Conservative. No problem for you. You enthusiastically endorsed Barrett’s nomination because she is “a nominee who is unabashedly conservative and entirely open about her jurisprudential views”. You were ecstatic Barrett is “a real, honest-to-God originalist”. Fortunately, Barrett had the good fortune that she was a shoe- in in a Senate controlled by Republicans. You didn’t have to question Barrett’s “judicial philosophy” because it was in plain sight. Now along comes Judge Jackson and you think she was obligated to clearly state her “judicial philosophy”–not just her “judicial methodology”. Why is that? Many prior nominees to the Court have been vague about their “judicial philosophy”. Didn’t stop their confirmation. But when a Black female is the candidate the failure to clearly expound on her “judicial philosophy” is a disqualifying factor. As it turns out this didn’t seem to be a problem for Republican members of the Judiciary Committee. The difference between “judicial philosophy” and “judicial methodology” is a distinction without a difference. That was not a big issue during 2 days of hearings. Republicans had other ways to race bait Jackson as illustrated by the political theater of Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton.
Turning to Jackson’s actual judicial record you have received significant pushback over your false claim that she has a “comparably thin record”. With over 500 opinions it’s hard to make that case with a straight face. Jackson has served on federal courts longer than many of the current SC Justices. So that ruse doesn’t pass the smell test. But your role is provide something, no matter how “thin”, for Senate Republicans to justify their “No” vote on Jackson’s confirmation. To your credit you have not employed the overt race baiting employed by Ted Cruz, et. al. But in the end Jackson will be confirmed and will be the first Black female to be on the Court. That’s significant progress.
“Jonathan: Some of your followers who oppose Judge Jackson” confirmation say she will be confirmed because she’s (1) Black, (2) Female and (3) Progressive. That’s good enough for me.”
You are one of those that don’t concern themselves with the details, such as does she understand the law. Some of us prefer a SC nominee to know and understand the law no matter which side of the aisle they are on. To others, that is a minor inconvenience.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ You are one of those that don’t concern themselves with the details, such as does she understand the law. Some of us prefer a SC nominee to know and understand the law no matter which side of the aisle they are on.”
She’s demonstrated that she understands the law far better than those questioning her. That much is obvious.
Everyone can comment on almost everything. Some comments are thoughtful, while others are dumb. Your comments belong in the latter group.
Jackson may well understand the law better than people recognize, but she did not demonstrate her knowledge or beliefs at the hearings. She was evasive. Those things are what the hearings are all about. You seem to be lost in the fog.
America doesn’t want a qualified candidate that succeeds on merit.
America wants an ideologically and culturally adverse, and manifestly unqualified candidate who enjoys the benefits of ignoble bias and wholly unconstitutional affirmative action.
This is not a candidate; this is a joke.
It can’t answer without filibuster and prevarication; it can’t even define or describe what a woman is.
Anonymous: The question for you is: “does she [Judge Jackson] understand the law”. You bizarrely think she doesn’t. Had you watch the 2 days of hearings the answer would have been self-evident. With over 500 decisions, vast experience as a public defender, work on the Sentencing Commission and in private practice, Judge Jackson demonstrated a thorough and deep understanding of the law. She has more legal experience than several sitting Justices. I defy you to compare, for example, Justice Kavanaugh’s judicial record or experience with that of Jackson. During 2 days of intense questioning from Senators can you cite one example where Jackson did not demonstrate a thorough knowledge of both statutory and case law? Even Senators Cruz, Hawley and Graham, et. al. did not claim she did not understand the “law”. They instead used racist tropes to attack her. You will have to come up with a better argument against Jackson’s confirmation. So far you have failed miserably.
Dennis McIntyre – could you give us some of those racist tropes?
Word on the street is that Dennis is training to compete in the Trans Olympics.
“Do we need a Trans Olympics?”
Lia Thomas should not compete against women
https://unherd.com/2022/03/do-we-need-a-trans-olympics/
SF – although I do not follow the Olympics anymore, I would vote for a Trans Olympics for fairness.
Dennis McIntyre – What hole did you pull this out of? “When Justice Barrett was confirmed it was precisely because she is (1) White, (2) Female and (3) Conservative. No problem for you.” And if you cannot fathom a difference between a methodology with a philosophy, you should actually look up the definitions. Your argument is without a basis and is so reed thin, it topples with a baby’s breath.
Craig,
“ No problem for you.” And if you cannot fathom a difference between a methodology with a philosophy, you should actually look up the definitions. Your argument is without a basis and is so reed thin, it topples with a baby’s breath.”
Actually McIntyre is correct. The fact that he provided a sharp distinction between the expectations of Barrett who already had a clear judicial Philosophy and Jackson’s which are just as obvious. Turley just wanted to Jackson’s ambiguous answers as fodder for suspicion. The reality is that all justices have engaged in similar vagueness on their judicial philosophies.
Turley noted how nobody really cares about the methodology, philosophy difference. It could just be that it’s not really that important.
This nominee struck me as hiding, among other things, her judicial philosophy, which is obviously not the same as her “methodology.” Did she really think she could divert us into believing that they are the same?
When questioned by Sen. Cruz about her understanding of Critical Race Theory, she claimed not to know what that was, but that she believed it was limited to advanced discussion in law schools, etc., not to her knowledge in K-12. Then Cruz whips out Abraham Kinde books offered for reading at the private proudly multiracial Georgetown Prep School, where she sits on its board, and she says that curriculum and library choices are not what she deals with as a board member. Then in what I thought was a glaring reveal on her disingenuousness, she told him that she doesn’t believe that any child should be forced to claim to be a victim or to be an oppressor, exactly what CRT teaches, thus demonstrating that she does know about CRT.
Finally, she failed to answer the question by Sen. Blackburn “what is the definition of a woman” by simply saying that she doesn’t know, “I’m not a biologist.” While she was chosen precisely because she was a woman, apparently, she somehow doesn’t know that a woman is an adult female. She recognized this to be a trap to lay a foundation to discuss transgender issues which may have put her Lefty self in a difficult position, a place that she, like most on the Left, would get tangled up in like a sea turtle in a fishing net. Blackburn should have followed up and asked her is she is a woman and what makes her so.
Obviously, the Left wants her precisely because of her judicial philosophy which she uncomfortably and disingenuously tried mightily to hide because it would be unpopular even with some Democrat Senators. Thus candidate was not honest and does not engender confidence.
“When questioned by Sen. Cruz about her understanding of Critical Race Theory, she claimed not to know what that was”
No she didn’t. She said “My understanding is that critical race theory is an academic theory that is about the ways in which race interacts with various institutions.” “It doesn’t come up in my work as a judge. It’s never something that I have studied or relied on. And it wouldn’t be something I would rely on if I was on the Supreme Court.” “I do not believe that any child should be made to feel as though they are racist, or though they are not valued, or though they are less than, that they’re victims, that they’re oppressors. I don’t believe in any of that.”
“she told him that she doesn’t believe that any child should be forced to claim to be a victim or to be an oppressor, exactly what CRT teaches”
BS, CRT does not say that a child “should be forced to claim to be a victim or to be an oppressor.”
Dear Anonymous – While my comment relied simply on my recall of the exchange about CRT between Jackson and Cruz, I accept the transcript excerpt that you provided to clarify my impression with the actual testimony. Thank you. I note that you did not challenge my recall on the other impressions that I advanced. Specifically, Judge Jackson said that she hasn’t studied CRT and that it is not a part of “her work” as a judge. Yet Cruz put up a chart showing that she included CRT as a policy factor in criminal sentencing, a subject that she clearly is involved with as Vice Chair of the Sentencing Commission and likely that she would have taken into account when considering sentencing from the bench. She also asserted that CRT was an academic theory limited to law schools. I don’t think that was a credible answer either. Given your support for her here, I presume you will differ.. Here is the exchange concerning CRT as captured by C-Span beginning about 5:41:00. https://www.c-span.org/video/?518342-1/confirmation-hearing-supreme-court-nominee-ketanji-brown-jackson-day-2&live
Does she have a judicial philosophy? Did the Greeks come bearing gifts? Of course she has a judicial philosophy. And it will be revealed once she’s confirmed. But for now, SCOTUS will still have a solid, constitutionally-conservative (philosophy) majority.
I have a different take on this. At several points Jackson sought to give the impression that she had a judicial philosophy that “moderates” would like. She talked about “staying in her lane”, not “making policy”, seeking the “original understanding”, respecting “the text”, exercising judgment with “humility”, etc. She in effect claimed to be in the “originalist” and “textualist” traditions.
Yet in the Make the Road case she disregarded the statute’s text, and precedents about when the APA applies, to get to an immigration result she wanted, and issued a nationwide injunction to impose her policy preference throughout the country. She was overruled in effect 3-0 in devastating terms by a D.C. Circuit panel that included a judge appointed by Carter and a judge appointed by Obama.
She was also unable, in questioning by Cornyn and Kennedy, to articulate any operational limitations in finding new unenumerated rights under so-called “substantive due process” or the 9th amendment.
I believe her statements with regard to judicial philosophy were a calculated effort to deceive that are belied by her practice on the bench and her vague responses to detailed questions.
I hope all Republicans vote not to confirm and that they are joined by at least one Democrat.
According to you, what should she have said about “operational limitations” in determining unenumerated rights?
Whether she believes there are any, for one thing.
I am not seeking to be a Supreme Court Justice. But where I would begin is to ask whether the alleged right in question involved conduct within the purview of those drafting or approving the constitutional provision, and if so whether there is evidence that they understood the provision to protect it, or to preclude conduct that burdened it. If not, then I would say the provision does not cover it and it is left to the state legislatures and/or congress to decide. This would leave very little room for the expansion of constitutional rights, absent a constitutional amendment.
And I would focus on the specific conduct in question, not whether it can be said to be a manifestation of the more general concepts of personal autonomy or liberty. Once you generalise, you can rationalise nearly anything as a manifestation of a fundamental right.
Finally, I would question the entire notion of substantive due process, which is a contradiction in terms. The constitution limits the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. It does not protect these when due process is provided. And as originally understood, liberty as used here meant little more than the right to move about, in contrast to being incarcerated. Raoul Berger analysed this at great length and with much evidence.
Another source of rights might be the privileges and immunities clause, but that too was originally understood as being very limited in scope, though not quite as limited as the court quickly interpreted it to be.
If I’ve understood correctly, you’re implying that states have broader unenumerated rights than people do. Have I misunderstood? Either way, what would you say the “operational limitations” are in determining the unenumerated rights of states?
That is an interesting subject. One approach is to look at England where sovereignty rests with parliament. By contrast in the US sovereignty rests with the people. That is why we have ” We the people…” Rather than “We the Continental Congress”. The powers of the states and the federal government have been granted to them by the people rather than the other way around.
Despite claims of hypocrisy and right-wing leanings (though he admits to being a Democrat who supported Biden), Professor Turley has proven himself prescient.
Jackson has ” no judicial philosophy”
Kavanaugh: “My judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law. A judge
must interpret statutes as written. A judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.”
From her comments, KBJ agrees. Turley is making a mountain out of a molehill.
As for “I have previously criticized Vladeck for false legal claims,” yes, and Vladeck has criticized Turley for false legal claims. Turley puts up with a lot of criticism from us commenters, but he greatly dislikes being criticized by law professors. I’d love to see a Vladeck-Turley debate on the law.
Anonymous,
Turley’s obsession with this judicial philosophy as it is with the majority of republicans really doesn’t seem to be about what kind of justice she would be. That is already obvious. It seems more of an attempt to score quotes that can be used against her for future criticism.
If originalism is really that important then they would need to come to grips with the fact that the constitution itself has no real requirement on what judicial philosophy any Supreme Court justice must have.
Judicial philosophy is really determined by each individual justice. Look at Scalia’s own judicial philosophy. When he was faced with determining the question of the constitutional right of individuals to bear arms he completely abandoned his judicial philosophy of interpreting the words as they meant at the time of the 2nd amendment’s creation and debate. All intents and meanings were about state militias. Not individuals. Scalia himself avoided going to that debate by simply dismissing it and applied his own reasoning. Many scholars noted how originalists when faced with a problematic interpretation they revert to using a living constitution interpretation for political expediency.
ABA has nothing to say. Nor ANYONE ELSE. The rules are President NOMINATES THE Senate Confirms. There ARE NO OTHER Rules. The dog and pony show is over. It’s up to composition and deal making of the Senate. And that is a 50 50 situation.
You seem to assume that no Republican Senator will vote for her.
No matter what her achievements and credentials are, she was picked for nomination to SC, as biden told us, because she is a black women (one of the last solid supporters of the dem party) and what he didn’t say, but was part of the equation, is she has the same mind think as every other cyborg dem.
Yep, it’s OK that 6 of the 9 Justices are part of the Federalist Society’s cyborg thinking, but God forbid that there be a liberal minority with shared views.
Accepting a Supreme Court Justice with no judicial philosophy demeans the court and the Constitution. Democrats have no dedication to American institutions.
If you don’t believe in something, then you probably believe in nothing.
“I have no judicial philosophy”. If I walked in a room with an ill patient and said I had no medical philosophy, there would almost total unanimity in tossing me out of the room. No one would believe it and rightly so. The judge’s statement defies logic. We all have a philosophy which colors our interpretation of events, facts, judgements. It is the sum of our experience, knowledge, defeats and victories. A learned individual with a wide degree of experience and gained knowledge will adjust and/or change their philosophy over time. Otherwise what do you have a brain for. It’s also why we have written law so that various philosophies can still come together to keep society civil. The Supreme Court basically decides our interpretation and implementation of the Constitution. A philosophy is essential to that role, as I see it.
She also could not define what a woman is because she “is not a biologist”. My first degree was in biology. I think I already had a pretty good definition of a woman well before I left high school. Now women’s roles in our culture have, of course, changed and matured but a role is just that, a role. It’s a construct. Women are far more than a cultural construct but as a biological entity they are easy to define. Of course men are far easier to define because they are far less complex and subtle than women, even if they argue otherwise. Also women generally are smarter. Hate to admit that but it’s true. Thats my philosophy.
What is your definition of a woman?
It presumably isn’t something like “someone with xx chromosomes,” because not all women have xx chromosomes (the person might have XXX trisomy, the person might be a genetic mosaic, etc.) I can’t be something like “has a uterus,” since not all women have a uterus. Since you think the definition is easy, present it and educate us.
This guy provides definitions only for those that are exceptions. Everyone and everything else be dam-ed. It demonstrates a twisted logic and an individual that is not credible. He lives in a world where truth and fiction lie together.
Since you think the definition is easy, present it and educate us.
I note you didn’t bother to provide a definition. That permits you to say anything you wish and change your mind instantaneously when questioned. That is a dirty type of debate. Definitions can have exceptions. However, you asked me to define woman.
Woman: An adult female person
OK. An adult is a person who is 18 yo or over. Now you need to define “female.”
“Now you need to define “female.”
Take note of how your interrogations never stop, no matter what answer one provides to you. I defined woman correctly as asked, but you are not looking for the truth. You are looking to continue your type of abuse of the English language, debate and almost everything else.
The fact is you consider yourself an intellectual. You are not. In fact, you are pretty shallow. That is demonstrated by your asking me for a definition and then asking for another one. You rely on the intelligence of others, with very little intelligence being unique to yourself.
Female: The sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.
“Female: The sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.”
Now you need to define “the.”
Then “sex.”
Then “that.”
Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam.
Dizzy yet?
“[N]ot all women have xx chromosomes (the person might have XXX trisomy, the person might be a genetic mosaic, etc.)”
Using borderline cases is a centuries-old trick, used by sophists to reject a valid definition.
They aren’t “borderline” cases.
“They aren’t “borderline” cases.”
Then what are they?
Naturally occurring variations. And lest you say that they can be both, give some other biological example where you believe that naturally occurring cases are “borderline” and tell us what the border is.
Well if you wanted a course on sex and women vs men i could teach it but with you I would be wasting my breath and time. There are xxx, xx, xy, xyy and others and then there are hermaphrodites who carry the sexual organs of both sexes, and there are then secondary sexual characteristics. I could teach you a very remedial course on sex but again it would be a waste of time for a mind that would likely fail to encompass all the other subtleties of biology and human biology. And then the after class tutoring sessions would be interminable
I wouldn’t want to take a course from someone who resorts to the logical fallacy of begging the question, nor do I need a course about this. Your deflection from providing a definition is noted.
“Your deflection from providing a definition is noted.”
Your throwing sand in people’s eyes, yet again, is duly noted.
The existence of a spork does not invalidate the definitions of “spoon” and “fork.” Such borderline or hybrid cases are handled by descriptive phrases — the very type you keep using in the descriptions of those biological anomalies.
Notice that you are unable to give examples from biology — which is what we’re discussing — and resort to things that are man-made.
ATS, if Sam provides an example from biology, you will mention both the animal and plant kingdom. If he uses the animal kingdom, you will ask for mammals. You won’t stop because you are feeding off the knowledge of others and cannot anticipate the answers to relatively simple questions.
Example from above:
ATS: “What is your definition of a woman?”
SM : “Woman: An adult female person”
ATS: “Now you need to define “female.”
SM : “Female: The sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.”
SAM: “Now you need to define “the.” Then “sex.” Then “that.” Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam. Dizzy yet?
This is pure foolishness, and now you are doing the same thing. That means you haven’t learned anything. That means you are fed your talking points and word parsing tricks. Rarely are you able to go beyond.
“. . . you will mention both the animal and plant kingdom. If he . . .”
SM: Yours is the perfect reply.
Once you fall down its rabbit hole, you’re trapped in its world of deceit and delusion.
Your’re such a dolt.
Mammals are warm blooded, fur bearing, live birth, creatures.
Well no. A duck billed platypus lays eggs.
In your world that means the definition a mammals does not apply.
Animal kingdom is male or female. Humans are male or female. XX Chromosome
There are exceptions, These exceptions do not nullify the criteria.
The natural order of the planet is well organized. Attempting to ignore the science exposes a lot about leftists
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
LOL that you call me a “dolt” and then proceed to make false, ignorant claims like “Animal kingdom is male or female.” Some animal species reproduce asexually, so the individuals are neither male nor female. Some animal species reproduce sexually but each individual in the species can produce both male and female gametes, so again the individuals are neither male nor female. Only in some species does sexual reproduction occur where individuals are male or female, and even then, there can be individuals that are intersex, individuals that are born without the capacity to produce gametes, etc.
“Humans are male or female.”
Many are. But not all. For example, someone can be an XX/XY chimera.
“There are exceptions, These exceptions do not nullify the criteria.”
They do if you’re trying to come up with a definition that works for every person on the planet.
Anonymous – it has been reported that Jamie Lee Curtis was born with both sexual organs. They snipped the front one and raised her as a girl. This would have been the common practice in her age category.
“Many are.”
And a proper definition applies to the “many” that “are.” Everything else is handled by descriptive phrases.
Your fallacious uses of exceptions is a vicious attempt to undercut a person’s confidence in their own knowledge and mind. It is an attempt to deny reality, and to sow doubt.
You want to exclude from the answer everyone who isn’t part of the norm, when their existence is the very reason that Judge Jackson was asked the question, got it.
“You want to exclude from the answer everyone who isn’t part of the norm . . .”
The issue is not what I want to do. (Though I do grasp why you wish to make this a matter merely of “opinion.”) Such exclusion is inherent in the nature of a definition. A proper definition refers to “this” and not to “that.”
Read more Aristotle; less of the Sophists.
The entire reason she was asked is to find out whether “this” definition includes trans women.
Anon “The entire reason she was asked is to find out whether “this” definition includes trans women.”
+++
But she didn’t explain that. Why? I could have done. So could you. She didn’t because she is deceitful, dishonest and a radical who would significantly damage the reputation and influence of the Court. Might as well have Rachel Maddow as a justice, or Bozo the Clown.
Are you rereading minds? How do you know the reason she was asked? You don’t. Your ratio of assumption and opinion to reasonable fact is about as high as one can go.
Anon– “if you’re trying to come up with a definition that works for every person on the planet.”
+++
You surely know that every living creature is unique in its genetic code. A definition that ‘works for every person on the planet’ would necessarily be overwhelming in its data and useless for most purposes. Workable definitions and classifications work because they pare away some data and examples. ‘Exceptions’ sometimes need to be excepted.
She wasn’t asked about all living creatures, and she wasn’t asked about “genetic code,” so that’s irrelevant.
Biologists regularly come up with definitions and classifications that are 100% accurate. For example, they can determine with 100% accuracy whether a living organism is or isn’t from the species H. sapiens.
“Now Jackson herself has claimed that she has no judicial philosophy and only a judicial methodology. Senators immediately echoed that view and insisted that she does not have a judicial philosophy and that is just fine.”
********************************
Back when we assumed competency, we used to repeat Thos Aquinas and say “beware the man of one book” (hominem unius libri timeo) in analyzing a person’s suitability for office. Thus implicitly avoiding ideologues as strident zealots unworthy of governing a pluralistic society. Now when competncy isn’t so clear, we get a candidate of “no books.” So we can’t decide what, if any thing, she believes. She’s concerning for a number of reasons but by fat the most troubling is Alan Dershowitz’s recollection of her student days at Harvard. Read it for yourself and as Thos. Jefferson said “tremble.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/03/21/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-my-encounter-with-ketanji-brown-jackson-at-harvard-in-1991/
JT:
(For the record, I have previously criticized Vladeck for false legal claims).
************************************
And well you should. Vladeck puts the one mouth-two ears philosophy on its head – talking twice as much as he listens in my opinion. He’s exactly the kind of “analyst” that failing CNN needs. That said, you do appear to live rent-free in his noggin. Seems if you’re his foil, his intellect is quite protuberous but limps away meekly when your manifest facts catch up with his “analysis.” He’s probably a nice guy but got a comprehension issue, perhaps.
Vladeck has argued and won several cases before the Supreme Court. When you accomplish as much, maybe your opinion of him will matter in the legal community.
Behind too many Democrat attorneys, intelligent or not, there is a hidden Avenatti.
Aninny:
“Vladeck has argued and won several cases before the Supreme Court. When you accomplish as much, maybe your opinion of him will matter in the legal community.”
********************************
I’m a member of the Million Dollar and Two Million Dollar Advocates club. You think Vladeck would trade credentials?
You’re in the same club as Avenatti. Big whoop. Hopefully you’re not a criminal like him.
How many SCOTUS Justices are in your “club”?
I doubt any of them would trade credentials with you. I doubt anyone who has argued and won cases before SCOTUS would trade credentials with you. I doubt any law professor at an R1 law school would trade credentials with you.
Their loss and and they would.
Says a guy posting to the blog of a professor at an R1 law school. If you think Turley would trade credentials with you, your head is bigger than I’d realized.
It appears that there is no such organization as the “Two Million Dollar Advocates Club”.
Now called the Multi-MIllion Dollar Advocates Forum.
Yes it is a Political Appointment
Yes it is a Movement’s Appointment
Yes it is a Declarative Appointment
Yes it is Lacking Substance of Her Intellectual Reasoning
Yes it is Filling the Void with the Unknown
Yes it is – But here We are – Roll-the-Dice!
Whatever Will Be Will Be Que Sera Sera (Doris Day)
It is not that Jackson has a thin record. She / he / they / it / black nominee / whatever, has thin cognitive ability.
Consider the source: Hunter Biden’s Daddee
From the very intelligent Wesley Lang
Wesley Yang
@wesyang
Is the person asking a BAD FAITH question about the extremely fraught, very scientifically abstruse subject of how one defines the category of person protected by Title IX the one fighting a culture war?
and great snark by writer comedian Bridget Phetasy
Bridget Phetasy
@BridgetPhetasy
Fascinating turn of events as we’ve gone from #BelieveAllWomen to “What is this word you speak of?” in just four years.
Notice that Bridget couldn’t define “woman” either.
Clearly you have never felt the love of a woman or else you would not be asking.
It is your own fault though considering you pursue chicks with a dick, kinda like Bill Clinton pursuing Hillary
The commentary comes from CNN did anyone expect truth. The so called racial dog whistle is always blown by the Marxist left. They’re incapable of dealing with truth so out come the buzz word’s, spin like a dervish and put you on the defensive. She’ll get confirmed with the help of some cowardly Republicans.
Funny, they are the only ones who hear it.
She has a philosophy, but it’s clear that the WH handlers told her to keep it under wraps. Guess we’ll have to wait and see when her first dissent comes out
The only “philosophy” on SCOTUS is that “My side wins and the other side loses”.
Lefties lie.
One of the consequences of that mendacity is that thinking people tune out many lefty commentators.
Look at this blog; many of us just skim past known lefties.
We know that we will be lied to and we ignore those lefty liars.
And yet the right are the ones who eat up all the false information from Fox News, are still saying the 2020 election was stolen, and are lying about the vaccine.
Is that so? Truth does tend to come out. Eventually.