Ketanji Brown Jackson has become the first ever black woman elected to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is the same [now former] judicial nominee hand-picked by the Biden administration, who, not long ago, when asked to define what a ‘woman’ is, she deferred claiming she could not.
Senator Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee asked Jackson define a woman for her and the Senate. The transcript is as follows:
SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN): Can you provide a definition for the word woman?
JUDGE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: Can I provide a definition?
BLACKBURN: Yeah.
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: I can’t.
BLACKBURN: You can’t?
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: Not in this context. I am not a biologist.
BLACKBURN: The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you cannot give me a definition?
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there is a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide.
BLACKBURN: The fact that you cannot give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about.
Read more about that here.
Now, Jackson was confirmed by the Senate to be the latest Supreme Court Justice, making her the third liberal of the total nine Justices.
The following are excerpts from Chron, explaining more of the details:
Cheers rang out in the Senate chamber as Jackson, a 51 year-old appeals court judge with nine years experience on the federal bench, was confirmed 53-47, mostly along party lines but with three Republican votes. Presiding over the vote was Vice President Kamala Harris, also the first Black woman to reach her high office.
Biden tweeted afterward that “we’ve taken another step toward making our highest court reflect the diversity of America.” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer exulted that it was “a wonderful day, a joyous day, an inspiring day — for the Senate, for the Supreme Court and for the United States of America.”
Harris said as she left the Capitol that she was “overjoyed, deeply moved.”
She told senators she would apply the law “without fear or favor,” and pushed back on Republican attempts to portray her as too lenient on criminals she had sentenced.
Jackson will be just the third Black justice, after Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and the sixth woman. She will join three other women, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett – meaning that four of the nine justices will be women for the first time in history.
This is a tremendously historic day in the White House and in the country. And this is a fulfillment of a promise the president made to the country.
Said White House press secretary Jen Psaki after the vote
Harris called out the tally, pausing with emotion, and Democrats erupted in loud applause and cheers, Schumer pumping his fists. A handful of Republicans stayed and clapped, but most by then had left.
Statements from Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah all said the same thing — they might not always agree with Jackson, but they found her to be enormously well qualified for the job. Collins and Murkowski both decried increasingly partisan confirmation fights, which only worsened during the battles over Trump’s three picks. Collins said the process was “broken” and Murkowski called it “corrosive” and “more detached from reality by the year.”
Once sworn in, Jackson will be the second youngest member of the court after Barrett, 50. She will join a court on which no one is yet 75, the first time that has happened in nearly 30 years.
The highest court in the land now will have a firsthand perspective of how the law impacts communities of color — via voting rights, police misconduct, abortion access, housing discrimination or the criminal legal system, among other issues. This will ultimately benefit all Americans.
Judith Browne Dianis, executive director the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
My commentary remains exactly the same as it was before about this woman:
[11] Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. [12] As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.Isaiah 3:11-12
So not only are we getting a progressive nutcase, America gets another CATHOLIC in the courts to pervert judgment. Why I am not surprised?
That being said though, while many are concerned that this woman will no doubtably allow all kinds of progressivism to come in, she, like all the rest, will rule in favor of the banks and corporations who pay her to vote a certain a way.
Evidence That The American Judicial System Is Full Of Bought And Paid For Criminals
Courts Once Again Deny Appeals To Avoid Vaccine Mandates. This Time It Is Southwest Airlines
Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare. Trump’s Appointees Vote To Not Challenge The Legislation
Supreme Court Defends Goldman Sachs Banker Gang
Supreme Court Allows Media Monopolies To Own Even More
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).
The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.
Insane
I am forced to ask, by her own methods of avoidance of basic questions:
‘First Black Female Justice’
1. How can she know she’s first? She’s not a mathematician. (That might explain some of her sentencing debacles).
2. How can she know she’s black? She’s not a dermatologist.
3. How can she know she’s female? She’s not a biologist. (Old news, I know).
4. How can she know she’s just? She has not written the laws, and doesn’t even follow them. How is that just?
Conundrums indeed.