Most Incompetent White House Press Secretary Ever!

There is no longer any doubt; indeed, this conclusion seemed unavoidable almost from the beginning of Karine Jean-Pierre’s tenure as President Biden’s paid liar. It was clear immediately that she, like so many other Biden Administration hires, was chosen to check off tribal boxes—female (check); black (check); lesbian (check)—and actual skill and qualifications were afterthoughts, if considered as factors at all. However, the bar for this position is lying-on-the-ground low; there was always a substantial chance that Jean-Pierre might prove barely capable at her job by pure luck, or charm, or something.

Nope. She’s the champ, and I can’t see any future White House spokesperson being worse unless one just froze in front of the cameras and twitched. What clinched it? This statement Jean-Pierre made yesterday:

“There has been an urgency from this President from day one, when the Supreme Court made this extreme decision to take away a constitutional right, it was an unconstitutional action by them.”

Wow. Even allowing for political hyperbole, stating that a Supreme Court ruling is unconstitutional is moronic, making every listener inclined to trust the President and his spokesperson instantly dumber.

Is it possible some advisor or speech-writer in the White House came up with the “unconstitutional” nonsense? I suppose, but that doesn’t let Karine off the hook: a barely conscious press secretary, one with a basic sense of self-respect, would have to react to such a suggestion by responding, “WHAT? That’s ridiculous: I’ll sound like an idiot. I won’t say it.”

To state the obvious for anyone who has a scintilla of civic literacy, a SCOTUS decision cannot be “unconstitutional” because the U.S. Constitution empowers the Court to be the ultimate arbiter on legal controversies. Saying that a decision one disagrees with is “unconstitutional” asserts that there is language in the Constitution that unequivocally states that the Court does not have the power to make it. The Court, for example, cannot amend the Constitution, because the method of amending the document is in the Constitution, and SCOTUS has no role in the process. If the Court decreed that an amendment would no longer be in effect, that would be unconstitutional, but that has never happened and can’t happen.

As vociferous as the minority’s dissents in Dobbs were, not one suggested that the majority’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade (finally!) was “unconstitutional.” This is because, unlike Karine, the justices know what they are talking about. Jean-Pierre’s howler demonstrates, in contrast, that she doesn’t understand the Constitution, the Separation of Powers, the law, Roe v. Wade, the difference between enumerated rights and “penumbras,” and basic logic.

I would also assume that she hasn’t read the opinion that she called unconstitutional, but to be fair, most of the people screaming about Dobbs haven’t read it.

No, I don’t think the White House spokesperson was lying, or trying to deceive; I think it was just a stunningly ignorant and stupid comment by someone who is so far over her head in her job that coelacanths are looking down on her. If I were inclined to be cynical—Moi?—I might suggest that this was just another example of the Bidenites distorting language and definitions to confound public debate, like the recent effort to re-define “recession.”

That, however, gives Karine too much credit. She’s the worst press secretary ever.

27 thoughts on “Most Incompetent White House Press Secretary Ever!

  1. I could tell from the beginning she didn’t have any idea what she was talking about. Her whole demeanor and evasiveness was immediately obvious. Biden is better than this.

    • Is he, though?

      I set a low bar for Biden’s competence during his term of office and he has somehow managed to do worse than I expected. That he is still President and hasn’t shuffled off the moral coil or been 25th Amendment-ed by his own party is either a miracle or a genuine fear of how incompetent and unpopular VP Harris is.

      • Speaking of the 25th Amendment and I know this is a bit of a deflection but here goes…

        January 21, 2023 is rapidly approaching. President Biden does seem to be showing signs of mental decline. What are the Democratic Party plans for the Presidency after that date?

        If they 25th Amendment President Biden or get him to resign then Vice President Harris becomes President and could theoretically run for President for two consecutive terms starting in 2024 theoretically giving her the opportunity to be in office for one day short of 10 years total. Who would a President Harris nominate for Vice President and setup for a future run at the White House if the Democrats remain in control of the House and Senate? Nancy Pelosi? Chuck Schumer? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Lori Lightfoot? Stacey Abrams? I’m guessing if the House and Senate are close on the number of votes for a majority it will NOT be a member of Congress that is nominated unless they could guarantee that the State would immediately appoint another solid Democrat to fill the empty seat.

        There are already rumors about a possible run for President by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, can you imagine what would happen with that social justice imbecile being our President?

        • The replacement VP has to be approved by both houses of Congress. If expected trends continue, it will be a strongly republican house and a republican Senate. I don’t see any of your suggestions passing either one.

          Tulsi Gabbard is a good option as a compromise candidate.

          • Matthew B wrote, “If expected trends continue, it will be a strongly republican house and a republican Senate.”

            I understand your point but don’t put much stock in statistical political trends because people are way too partisan, finicky and too many are susceptible to propaganda. At this point in time the outcome is unknown.

        • Vice President Harris becomes President and could theoretically run for President for two consecutive terms starting in 2024 theoretically giving her the opportunity to be in office for one day short of 10 years total.

          I think the literal monkeypox virus has more chance of being President than Kamala Harris does of winning consecutive terms.

  2. Karine Jean-Pierre and Lori Lightfoot have more in common than just sexual orientation, skin color, and being female.
    The roughly 30% of dems who approve of Biden’s job performance all simultaneously experienced a measurable dopamine dump upon hearing Pierre’s declaration.
    Can’t say she doesn’t know how to work a crowd.

  3. The progressive political left has constantly been distorting what’s constitutional and what’s not for quite a while now and I think this is just one more nail in the coffin proving to me that the progressive movement wants to abolish the constitution first by intentionally bastardizing it to absurdity until it’s basically useless and unenforceable and they’ll literally party as they send it through a political, social, and cultural shredder; therefore, I view the statement “There has been an urgency from this President from day one, when the Supreme Court made this extreme decision to take away a constitutional right, it was an unconstitutional action by them” as being pure unadulterated anti-constitutional propaganda.

    The United States of America is doomed if these anti-American totalitarian-minded cultural revolutionaries remain in power for very long.

  4. Jack wrote, “She’s the worst press secretary ever.”

    That’s a matter of opinion.

    I’m sure that since Jean-Pierre is obviously willing and able to spout out the hive-minded progressive propaganda without any questions then progressives would be on the complete opposite end of that best/worst judgement scale. Getting the narrative out there in a repeatable soundbite is crucial to these propagandists.

    • I’m sure you can find some people who would say she’s great, just as you can find someone who likes tuna-and-pepperoni sandwiches. But even those who agree with her politically are (of they’re being honest) likely dismayed by her complete lack of competence at doing the job. Peter Doocy, no top-flight intellect himself, manages to fluster and discombobulate her in virtually every interaction. She’s habitually unprepared, and she isn’t even able to avoid answering questions (the primary job of press secretary) with any skill. She just flounders until she’s said enough words to move on to the next question. Compared to this, Psaki was a master of debate, and her whole schtick was just to be snarky and bitchy.

  5. From her wiki page:

    She previously served as the deputy press secretary to her predecessor Jen Psaki from 2021 to 2022 [She was press secretary to a press secretary? Who was her press secretary?] and as the chief of staff for U.S. vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris during the 2020 presidential campaign. [Well that went well, didn’t? Let’s promote her!] Prior to her work with Kamala Harris during the 2020 election and with the Biden-Harris administration, Jean-Pierre was the senior advisor and national spokeswoman for the progressive advocacy group [ Are you kidding me?] She was also previously a political analyst for NBC News and MSNBC [Surprise!] and a lecturer in international and public affairs at Columbia University. She served as a faculty member at Columbia University. [Whew. She’s teaching college students about public affairs and things like the separation of powers.]

  6. She’s not incompetent. The Left 100% hates the Constitution and only uses language of the Constitution when they want to make an argument against the power taken away from them. No, she knows precisely what she’s doing.

  7. Here’s a problem that I think needs to be solved to defeat the lefties. What this SCOTUS did was to declare that a former SCOTUS decision was unconstitutional. KJP is simply siding with the former SCOTUS which is where her team sits. I doubt that you will ever convince them otherwise. Therefore, to them it is possible for a SCOTUS decision to be unconstitutional–it just depends which one you like more. Or, am I missing something having no background in law?

    • No, that’s not what unconstitutional means, as SCOTUS uses it, and how SCOTUS uses it is what matters. SCOTUS said that Roe was a misinterpretation of the Constitution, which is not the same as saying the decision was unconstitutional. Unconstitutional would mean that SCOTUS was exceeding Constitutional authority to make the decision.

      And this is what makes her statement incompetent and pernicious. She’s not a lawyer, she doesn’t understand those distinctions, and she’s ensuring that much of the public now is confused too.

      If an umpire makes a wrong call, out when a player was safe, one can argue that the call was wrong, was inept, was bad. One cannot say the umpire violated the rules, however, because the umpire is empowered to make those decisions.

      • Thank you, Jack, for the explanation. That distinction is not understood by those who believe they are educated nor is it understood by the media whose job it is to provide the nuances of news-worthy issues. My uneducated analysis of the situation is, unfortunately, what I suspect the vast majority of people will “reason”.

  8. I am going to give a different perspective on this (surprise, surprise). I think they knew everything you said and they don’t care because they are appealing to their base constituency. This message makes complete sense if you realize it is meant for abortion supporters only. They don’t care if you understand the law, or truth. You probably won’t be voting for them in November if that is the case. They are appealing to potential Democratic voters here.

    The analysis above misses a few things.
    (1) For my entire life, every teacher, history and political science professor, and every mainstream media outlet has stated that in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court found that a right to an abortion is in the US Constitution. You can say that is wrong and lots of people never accepted it, but that is what everyone in this country under the age of 50 has been told their entire life.
    (2) This right to an abortion has been treated as more fundamental than anything else ‘in’ the Constitution. You can restrict protests at abortion clinics more stringently than other protests, because the right to an abortion is more important than the 1st Amendment.
    (3) The right to an abortion has trumped parental rights by allowing minors to get abortions without their parents consent or even notification in some places. The right to an abortion has trumped health and safety and physician licensure laws.
    (4) Until this year, I don’t think I ever heard legal experts say that Roe v. Wade was a bad ruling or that it didn’t find a right to an abortion in the Constitution. This seems like the legal profession has acted the same way Islamic scholars act with “perfect preservation” of the Koran.
    (5) The Supreme Court has had a leftwing majority or tilt to it for 50+ years. It has been a liberal activist court. Because of this, most Democrats have grown up believing that this is the only way the Court is allowed to be. For Constitutional rights to suddenly be upheld is quite a shock and an unthinkable one. This is why so many Democrats are OK with the idea of court packing. They feel the Supreme Court has been subverted because it hasn’t been this way before.

    The right to an abortion has been seen as potentially even above the Constitution itself. It is definitely, you betcha in the Constitution and if you say the Supreme Court can’t put new rights in the Constitution, you are a most definitely a right-wing white supremacist homophobe (according to esteemed scholars like those on The View). With the importance that has been placed on Roe v. Wade and the right to an abortion, you can see that, for a lot of Americans, removing that ‘right’ is much worse than removing the 1st Amendment. This is why you see such unbridled rage and murderous plots from the left. For them, the Supreme Court really HAS violated the Constitution they were taught. They were taught that we can get rid of ‘problematic’ and ‘archaic’ parts of the Constitution, like the 1st and 2nd Amendments because that is needed for a modern society that needs ‘safe spaces’ and hate speech laws. However, ‘removing’ one of the progressive parts of their Constitution goes against their ‘Right Side of History’ narrative, so is definitely evil.

  9. A stroke of genius to recruit a mental midget who is incapable of coherent speech – and then who can not be questioned because of what she is. Game. Set. Match

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.