The definition of an extraordinary woman

She was confirmed.

You know deep down she deserved confirmation. Ketanji Brown Jackson is, after all, a woman of great professionalism, accomplishment and dignity.

She is a woman of distinction.

You hear that? I said “woman.”

Ketanji Brown Jackson is a woman. An accomplished Black woman. She’s an intellectual without being an academic — a real-life trial judge who belongs on the highest bench in the land.

Was that really the best you could come up with?

When you first started spreading the nonsense — that Ketanji Brown Jackson “doesn’t know what a woman is,” you almost sounded like you believed your own attempt at mockery.

Or maybe you did believe it.

I hope you realize that, yes, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson absolutely knows how to define a woman — she, herself, is a woman of great distinction and accomplishment.

You’re something of a dullard if you didn’t recognize the loaded nature of that question, that it was far less a request for the judge to quote a dictionary definition of “woman” than it was a demand to know how she’d rule on any case involving transgender people. Surely you know it was an absolutely volatile question, posed with no small measure of hostility. Brown Jackson’s refusal to answer was true to her character — she’s likely to rule on cases involving transgender issues in the future.

She kept her composure and didn’t take the bait.

So the woman thing was looking a little skimpy — even to your jaundiced eye, it didn’t look like much but, by golly, the Democrats just love Brown Jackson so there’s gotta be something seriously wrong with her. It doesn’t matter that some of the most esteemed members of our nation’s judiciary — jurists from one side of the political spectrum to the other — are excited to see such a perfect candidate confirmed.

It was also convenient to ignore Brown Jackson’s statements regarding her deep Christian faith.

So you added the child pornography offender sentencing to the clamor, even though every one of Brown Jackson’s sentences were in line with sentences imposed by her colleagues, including conservative judicial appointees. Legal experts agree Brown Jackson’s sentencing was neither out of the ordinary nor inappropriate when examined in context and compared to practices of her peers.

And that was it.

Not a shred of stain beyond two patent absurdities. The irony is Brown Jackson might be the least controversial candidate put forward to that bench in my lifetime. Put another way, she might be the closest thing to a perfect candidate as I’ve ever witnessed.

C’mon, people, this is a historic moment in which we should all take pride.

Let’s celebrate the confirmation of the first Black woman, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can bet this erudite and accomplished woman knows exactly how to define “woman” because she’s had a little experience living the extraordinary life that marks her the consummate example of the very term.

Photograph © Wikicago via Wiki Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0

12 Replies to “The definition of an extraordinary woman”

  1. Really Matt?
    “The closest thing to a perfect candidate that you’ve ever witnessed”?
    You might expect many to have a “jaundiced eye” when the sole qualifications stated by our President for a lifetime appointment to our highest court in the nation is that she be a “Black Female”, all others need not apply. You see many view her as a human being with a record of litigation, jurisprudence and a level of fidelity to the Constitution. You know, the kind of things you would expect from a Supreme Court Justice.
    The definition of “woman” wasn’t the only question that she refused to answer, and if you where following the events you would Know that. For example she states “I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.” Rather and odd statement for a perfect candidate with “deep Christian faith” No? . Maybe that’s OK with you but I’ll take a hard pass.
    Perhaps you no longer believe in Dr. King’s vision of a “Color Blind Society” or never did, and you willingly embrace cults of personality based solely on box checking race, gender or preferred pronouns? Being historic can cut both ways.

    1. The only thing you’re mad about is that the preferred race isn’t white and the pronoun isn’t male.
      Brown is just as qualified as alcoholic, rapey boy, and infinitely more qualified than Barrett.

    2. What’s your beef, Graham?

      Brown-Jackson is so far superior to Barrett and Kavanaugh combined, it’s no contest. If this entire politically motivated charade hadn’t been so hatefully motivated and egregiously wrong, it might have been dismissed as merely moronic. – That’s the bottom line!!

      All this other palaver about what really motivated Biden’s choice is irrelevant. What’s important is that as Associate Justice Jackson Brown she will render decision’s based on the Constitution, the rule of law, and what’s best for the most Americans.

      Unlike certain others of her erstwhile colleagues presiding over the highest court in the land, she will not allow personal preferences or selfishly motivated, socio-political agendas to defile the performance of her sworn duties in a fair and unbiased manner.

  2. Philip,
    How is she so far superior than Barrett and Kavanaugh combined? Two justices I never even mentioned by the way.
    And since each justice has 1 vote, it’s illogical to “combine” the two for your argument.
    “My beef” Towards Matt’s article was pretty clearly articulated I thought.

    Ross,
    Seek help please. It’s not too late.
    It’s a good thing for her that her “race isn’t white and the pronoun isn’t male”, or she wouldn’t have made the cut.
    My point, Get it??

    1. Save me the semantics. My reference is based on the fact that whereas the credentials of Barrett and Kavanaugh pale by comparison to Brown Jackson’s, both sailed through the nomination process carried on the self-righteous wings of extreme-right Trumpian sycophants. She, on the other hand, was subjected to a merciless onslaught of abusive accusations centered around trivially tangential matters heaped upon her by those very same despicable excuses for representatives of the people who were unequivocally convinced that the other two could do not wrong.

      And the fact that, as expected, both of them are pursuing their own socio-politically motivated agendas (often in lockstep) at every turn, is clearly evidenced by their actions since being seated on SCOTUS such a short time ago.

  3. I opposed affirmative action until I studied it.

    Ideally, any institution striving for perfection should base its requirements on merit alone. But when entire groups have been systemically excluded — effectively hobbled — in their pursuit of education / success / the American Dream / whatever, I do not think the occasional grand gesture is out of order. This was one of those.

    Jackson Brown has impeccable credentials and she had enormous support from the judiciary spanning the political spectrum. She also had broad bipartisan support when she was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit. She was confirmed unanimously to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

    I could be wrong but I don’t think she’ll turn out to be an activist jurist. I’m pretty sure she’ll serve with thoughtful dignity.

    I think she was an excellent candidate. Even if you don’t like her, Biden could’ve nominated someone so much worse.

  4. I never said that I didn’t like her Matt.
    I agree that “Ideally, any institution striving for perfection should base its requirements on merit alone”.
    That’s how I want my heart surgeon or the person piloting the plane I’m flying in hired, that’s for certain.
    But if this was a “grand gesture” then who is the next in line in the hierarchy of oppressed groups?
    You see, it never ends.
    The systematic exclusion you speak of wasn’t limited to any one race or religion throughout our history.
    But but a Supreme Court Justice who “does not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.” Is in my view an activist jurist.

    1. I wouldn’t support grand gestures like this for an endless group of grievances, Graham. Given our unique American history, I applauded Biden’s decision to select a Black woman and I was impressed with his choice. I would not support any other race-based SCOTUS nomination, none. And it should be noted, this one was enough — we don’t need to pick demographics before we pick nominees.

      I know people disagree but I am firmly convinced we’ve never finished reconciling our shameful history of slavery. At least one group is researching the familial lineages of wealthy Southern families whose wealth was built on the backs of slave labor. Simultaneously, they are tracing the lineages of the descendants of the slaves those wealthy Southerners once owned. In both cases, the bulk of the descendants of the slave-owners and the slaves live within mere miles of where their ancestors lived. Maybe not surprisingly, those wealthy landowners live in luxury today while the descendants of their families’ slaves live in relative poverty today. To me, a very clear debt needs to be settled.

      As to whether or not an individual is imbued with natural rights, it’s possible Jackson Brown avoided the question for several legitimate reasons. She may have been determined to avoid all the loaded questions in the first place — this may well have been my plan, had it been me being confirmed.

      In a purely legal sense (and I think we can agree serving on SCOTUS is a purely legal endeavor), a justice is asked to uphold actual law, not natural law so the question of natural law has no bearing on SCOTUS adjudication. Justice Elena Kagan summed it up when she responded to Sen. Tom Coburn’s query, asking do we “… have ‘certain God-given inalienable rights’ that aren’t given in the Constitution, that are ours and ours alone, and that the government doesn’t give those to us?” Kagan replied that the Constitution was an extraordinary document and she wasn’t saying she didn’t believe there are rights preexisting the Constitution and the law, but her job as a justice was to enforce the Constitution and the law — the actual law, not natural law.

      You might find Justice Clarence Thomas’ views on natural law interesting.

      Do I think human beings are imbued with innate value and rights preexisting human law and superceding government control? Of course! Frankly, I think Jackson Brown coulda said it without losing any jurisprudent capital.

    2. One other thing, Graham, as near as I can tell, she’s not pro-abortion in the progressive activist sense.

      Like previous nominees, Jackson Brown was asked if Roe was settled law and she responded that it was, much the same way Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett responded when asked the same question.

      Further, when she was asked by Sen. John Kennedy if she has a personal belief on when life begins, she said she did. “I have a religious belief that I set aside when I am ruling on cases,” Jackson Brown told the committee. This echoes Coney Barrett’s statement that laws could not be undone simply by personal beliefs, including her own. “It’s not the law of Amy,” Coney Barrett said.

      When Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked if Jackson Brown would respect the SCOTUS decision if it overturned Roe in the Mississippi case, she said she would treat it as she “would any other precedent.”

      Altogether, to me, Jackson Brown sounds like she will be a thoughtful, measured jurist — maybe one of those who will surprise everyone with her rulings.

  5. Matt, thanks for the well thought out response.

    I guess we will have to wait and see who’s prediction will come to pass of how Justice Brown’s rulings will come down.
    You state that she could have aligned with Justice Thomas on his view of natural law without loosing any jurisprudent capital.
    And I agree, but she didn’t.
    In my opinion her silence about the Constitution says that she’s not a passionate defender of the original document or it’s intent. For a layman such as you and I to have contrary views on of our founding documents is well within our 1st amendment freedom of speech rights, and hers as well.
    But for a Justice of the Supreme Court who swears to uphold and defend the Constitution? Again In my opinion, this is problematic.
    The progressive left is unapologetic about transformational law or regulations when they have the power to do so.
    And let’s be honest, that’s who she is and why she was chosen, as a reliable Justice for the left, not some “grand gesture” to undo past atrocities. And to further illustrate my point, I invite you to review the confirmation hearing of Justice Thomas and what was done to him and said about him during that process. And still continues today I might add.
    During that hearing the Chairman of that committee was none other than Joe Biden, and he somewhat incoherently grilled Thomas on his views of “Natural Law”. Biden would go on to vote “NO” on Thomas’s nomination, so that “grand gesture” you speak of rings hollow. Again, in my opinion.
    As far as your view on reparations – Perhaps when I have more time.
    I’m curious, have you ever read Dr. Thomas Sowell’s views on the subject? He’s quite prolific and profound.

    Thanks again,
    Graham

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.