Ketanji Brown Jackson Wears Ignorance On Her Sleeve Like Others Wear Emotion

Geez, how in the hell did Ketanji Brown Jackson get on the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court used to be universally thought of as the “Highest Court In The Land,” but that reputation has been tarnished, and Jackson has firmly established herself as the Alfred E. Newman of this judicial body, often referred to as “the court of last resort.”

What’s frustrating about Jackson is that she tries endlessly to prove she’s intelligent, but she’s not. This is the woman who, during the hearings on her nomination, claimed that she could not define a woman because she wasn’t a biologist.

It was obvious that Sen. Marsha Blackburn was stunned by her answer, as was everyone else. It seriously looked like a Saturday Night Live Skit. This is the worst example of a DEI appointment ever, because of the length of time the country will have to endure it. Biden made such a huge deal out of the fact that he was going to put the first black woman on the court that if she hadn’t been appointed, the MSM would have crucified everyone involved. The major Irony being that Biden wanted a black woman, and the one he appointed couldn’t define what one is.

Jackson wasn’t voted onto the court; she was “shamed” onto it. Her appointment is the perfect example of why DEI doesn’t work. Oh sure, Biden got what he wanted; he can strut around in the mental coma he abides in, telling everyone that he put the first black woman on the Supreme Court, but this was a huge mistake. Jackson wasn’t qualified then; she isn’t now, and she never will be.

Some of the comments after she uttered her infamous “I’m not a biologist” line were funny but emphasized the absurdity of what she said. Here are a few:

Senator: “What’s a taco?”

Jackson: “I don’t know, I’m not a chef.”

Senator: “Can you provide a definition of a dollar?”

Jackson: “I cannot, because I’m not a banker.”

Prosecutor: “The woman was seen leaving the building.”

Jackson: “What’s a woman?, I’m not a Biologist.”

Prosecutor: “Never mind, the suspect was seen leaving the building.”

Jackson: “What’s a building?, I’m not an architect.”

Prosecutor: “Never mind, the suspect was wearing a red Jacket.”

Jackson: What’s a jacket? I’m not a manufacturer.”

Prosecutor: “Never mind, the suspect got into a Black Vehicle.”

Jackson: “What’s a Vehicle?, I’m not a car dealer.”

Prosecutor: “What do you know?”

Jackson: “Nothing, what’s a brain?”

Police Officer: “Do you know how fast you were going?”

Jackson: “Well, I’m not a physicist…”

Jackson is one of those people who seems to sit around for hours looking up words in a thesaurus and uses them in her dissertations, even though she really has no clue what they mean. She projects a wordy image of intelligence, but it’s an empty shell.

In a cut-and-dry case regarding the First Amendment, Jackson was the lone abstention in an 8-1 vote Tuesday that Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” was viewpoint discrimination against Kasey Chiles, who was barred under the law from offering talk therapy encouraging gender-confused kids to feel comfortable in their bodies.

Imagine that, as absurd as it is, a case involving such a common-sense issue had to go to the Supreme Court for a ruling, it’s even more ludicrous that Jackson, trying to look intelligently woke, would overthink such a straightforward matter.

As if her irrational vote wasn’t enough, Jackson decided she needed to write a 34–35-page dissent. In it, she wrote:

“Ultimately, because the majority plays with fire in this case, I fear that the people of this country will get burned.”

“It is baffling that we could now be standing on the edge of a precipitous drop in the quality of healthcare services in America. But the Court sees fit to bring us one step closer to that fate today. Stranger still is the fact that this possibility looms in the 21st century, given what science now enables us to know about medical conditions and treatments, what our cases say, and what we all should have learned by now from history.”

Jackson’s delusional concerns are not based on anything concrete. In fact, they are so far off base that Justice Elena Kagan called her out for “reimagining” settled First Amendment law. The First Amendment protects free speech regardless of the state’s stance, Kagan noted in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“Consider a hypothetical law that is the mirror image of Colorado’s. Instead of barring talk therapy designed to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, this law bars therapy affirming those things. As Ms. Chiles readily acknowledges, the First Amendment would apply in the identical way.”

Kagan went on to call Chiles’ case a “textbook” example of viewpoint discrimination. She pointed out that the court’s opinion does not address laws that are content-based but viewpoint-neutral.

“Justice Jackson’s dissenting opinion claims that this is a small, or even nonexistent, category, but even her own opinion, when listing laws supposedly put at risk today, offers quite a few examples. Her view to the contrary rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”

The decision could have “potential long-term and disastrous implications.”

“To be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now. This decision might make speech-only therapies and other medical treatments involving practitioner speech effectively unregulatable—not to be reached via licensing standards, medical-malpractice liability, or any other means of state control. Who knows? Certainly not the majority.”

Jackson based her argument on what she called a “consensus” from medical organizations, concluding that “conversion therapy” is harmful.

“Ultimately, scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the anticipated harms from conversion therapy are twofold. First, conversion therapy stigmatizes the patient, telling them that their gender identity or sexual orientation is something to be fixed, rather than accepted. This rejection can lead to shame and guilt, which in turn can cause long-term emotional distress. Second, conversion therapy sets patients up to fail by giving them an unattainable goal.”

Several prominent medical organizations have recently revised their guidance on the care of minors with gender dysphoria. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons announced in February that it now opposes sex-change surgeries for minors, recommending that these procedures be postponed until at least the age of 19.

Jackson’s reasoning is as confusing as the basis of her “dissent.” Needless to say, if the other eight members disagree with her, a group that normally doesn’t agree on many things, she could have saved her 34-page waste of time.