Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, tasked with defining obscenity, said: “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”  Current Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson can’t manage even that. Asked to define “woman” during her confirmation hearing, she infamously intoned: “I’m not a biologist.” Unfortunately, her congressional questioner didn’t ask obvious follow ups, like “are you a woman?”  Or “how do you know?”

Graphic: Twitter Screenshot

Brown-Jackson, like most Democrats/socialists/communists (D/s/cs), rejects biological reality, screaming “trust the science!” Should one distrust D/s/c “science” they’re immediately branded a “science denier,” which puts them in the very good company of “climate deniers,” “trans deniers,” “race deniers,” and “D/s/c deniers” in general. As do her fellow travelers, Brown-Jackson must ignore genuine women, because biological reality—actual science—has no room for people who “identify” as women regardless of their male appendages, DNA and innate physiology.

Equally infamously, Brown-Jackson’s place on the Supreme Court is due to Joe Biden’s handlers, who determined that seat belonged to a black woman whatever that might be. Let us travel back to 1970, when President Nixon nominated G. Harold Carswell to the Supreme Court. Panned as a mediocre jurist, Nebraska Senator Roman Hruska defended him with faint praise: 

"Even if he [Carswell] were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises and Frankfurters and Cardozos."

But of course! It’s only the Supreme Court, the court that interprets the Constitution, that defines the limits of our liberties, that constrains unlimited governmental growth and usurpation of those liberties. Why not seat people among America’s most mediocre? Why not, like the FAA, hire the severely intellectually and psychiatrically disabled? Isn’t DEI what the Supreme Court—what America—is all about?

According to the American Bar Association (ABA), about 5% of American lawyers are black. Interestingly, the ABA doesn’t provide gender breakdowns, but even if women represented half of that total, black female lawyers could only comprise 2.5% of America’s lawyers. That’s not a lot. Are we to believe Ketanji Brown-Jackson, of that 2.5%, is the single most qualified and experienced black female judge in America? The most qualified jurist, or are we working from the Hruska standard? The New York Post provides an illuminating answer:

Graphic: Twitter Screenshot

On Thursday, the Court held its oral argument in United States v. Skrmetti.

At stake was the constitutional viability of a Tennessee law barring minors from receiving so-called “gender affirming care,” i.e., puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and sex-reassignment surgeries.

The argument of those seeking to see it invalidated was that the provision violated the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex.

Its proponents, meanwhile, submitted that it discriminated based on medical purpose rather than sex.

Justice Jackson thought she had undone the latter argument on Thursday when she interrupted Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice as he tried to explain that a child’s desire not to “grow breasts” is not a legitimate medical purpose for such treatments, be it for a boy or a girl.

“It’s the same medical purpose,” she insisted about the hypothetical, this time with more than a hint of irritation. “I’m trying to stop the development of breasts.” 

Rice was taken aback.

“Tennessee law doesn’t just allow doctors to prescribe drugs without a medical purpose,” he explained patiently.

“A girl who doesn’t want to grow – grow breasts for whatever reason could – could – could or could not get it?” she followed-up.

“Does not want to grow breasts?” he asked quizzically.

Yes,” she replied agitatedly. 

“Without a medical reason? Could not get it,” he confirmed. 

According to the single most qualified black, female jurist in America, doctors should do whatever mentally compromised children demand they do to their bodies and legitimate medical reasons for that “treatment” don’t enter into it. Should the Tennessee law be upheld, as questioning from a majority of the other justices suggests it might, we’ll probably have the opportunity to experience Brown-Jackson’s erudite legal reasoning for that stance in the minority’s dissent. If that’s the case, at least in Tennessee, confused children and in some cases their equally confused parents, will have to content themselves with only medically necessary procedures that cause no harm.

The harm caused to all Americans by Supreme Court Justices seated for reasons other than experience, judicial temperament and excellence is another story.

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.