“Is treating someone transgender, but does not have, because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have, uh, the same, uh, threat to physical competition and safety and all the reasons the state puts forward – that’s actually a different class, says this individual. So you’re not treating the class the same. And how do you respond to that?”
That was Joe Biden’s DEI Supreme Court nominee, who couldn’t define what a woman is during her confirmation hearing, talking like Kamala Harris during oral arguments over the challenge to two state laws banning biological men from competing in women’s sports.
What an embarrassment. Do any blacks think it really is helpful to overcoming racial bias in this country to have a babbling dope, also a flagrant partisan hack, as one of two African Americans on the High Court? To look on the bright side, at least Jackson relieves the only Hispanic on the Court, the consistently ludicrous “Wise Latina,” Sonia Sotomayor, from being the most obviously unqualified judge on the panel.
Ethics Alarms 
I feel better now. I listened to that statement and thought why cannot I understand her argument. Now coming at me in written form I now why.
I had an evil thought.
“Hey Grok, rewrite the US Constitution in the style of Justice Jackson’s oral arguments.”
Her word salads are even more inedible as those tossed by Kamala Harris. Dan McLaughlin has another example highlighting the poor quality of her questions. She and Kamala are the ultimate DEI hires.
https://x.com/therabbithole/status/2011174950590431387?s=46
I wonder if this is accurately tallied?
That’s fascinating.
If true.
What do you think the chart would look like if a similar analysis were done of words spoken by the spouses during a marriage?
That’s a trap.
I’ve been listening to SCOTUS arguments as background noise, and it’s almost painful when KBJ starts talking, even the way she forms questions is rough… A drinking game where you drink when she says the words “I don’t understand” would result in blindness or death.
But I thought this exchange from Alito was interesting, he basically asks the meme question: “What is a woman?” And the respondent says: “We don’t know, and it’s irrelevant, the state classified this person as biologically male, and we don’t take issue with that, what we’re saying is that there is a class of men for which the exclusion of men from the women’s division doesn’t make sense for the stated goal of athletic fairness.”
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, to pick up on the issue of discrimination on the basis of transgender status, let me just go back to — let me go to some basics. Do you agree that a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE ALITO: If it does that, then is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
MS. HARTNETT: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE ALITO: And what is that definition? For equal protection purposes, what does –what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
MS. HARTNETT: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, the –would have to –we’d have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the Court. And we don’t take issue with the — we’re not disputing the definition here. What we’re saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth-sex males categorically from women’s teams and that there’s a subset of those birth-sex males where it doesn’t make sense to do so according to the state’s own interest.
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, how can you — how can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?
MS. HARTNETT: I think, here, we just know –we –we –we basically know that the –that they’ve identified pursuant to their own statute that Lindsay qualifies as a birth-sex male and she’s being excluded categorically from the women’s teams as the statute –so we’re taking the statute’s definitions as we find them and we don’t dispute them. We’re just trying to figure out, do they create an equal protection problem?
Which I think is rich:
Q: Do you agree that a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls?
A: Yes
Q: Is it not necessary for there to be an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
A: Yes
Q: And what is that definition?
A: And we don’t take issue with the state’s definition here. What we’re saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth-sex males categorically from women’s teams and that there’s a subset of those birth-sex males where it doesn’t make sense to do so according to the state’s own interest.
Which brings us back to
Q: Do you agree that a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls, or don’t you?
If a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls, and you don’t argue with the states definition of the class, then what the fuck are we doing here?
Hah!
Which brings me to a solution I’ve been thinking about for quite a while: why not have teams and competitions for guys who identify as women? They can compete against each other on a level playing field, figuratively. This smacks of “separate but equal,” of course, if you want to make that argument, but creating that third class of competition would be no more discriminatory than having separate teams and competitions for boys and girls.
Of course, advocates would argue that would shame the transgenders like separate bathrooms would. To which I say, that’s not the case. You’re simply different and being different has consequences.
The other solution is no girls’ teams and competitions. Simply have, for example, track and field teams and competitions for anyone who wants to be on the team and compete. Girls aren’t good enough? Too bad.
Here is Josh Hawley cross-examining a doctor in a senate subcommittee hearing:
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/2011485172768632969?s=20
In boxing, aren’t there different classes based on weight? We don’t have heavyweights fighting strawweights. This seems to be the way we should be going for alot of the sports. I could be wrong about this if it can be shown that men are in the strawweight class have some advantage over women in the same category.
However as someone who isn’t overly bothered with affirmative action, her writing skills are not good.