How do you fix a Justice who’s a moron?
How can you help a judge who cannot judge?
Is there a phrase describing Justice Jackson?
“A DEI curse,” “a Justice whose brain is fudge”?
Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her
Many a thing she ought to understand
But how can you justify
A Justice who will defy
All logic and law to follow a woke demand?
Oh, how do you fix a Justice who’s a moron?
Can law survive this fool who can’t be canned?
The recent horrified response to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s assorted gibberish and idiotic comments during the oral argument regarding the birthright citizenship issue only amplified the dawning realization that President Biden inflicted on the Supreme Court and the nation the most unqualified Justice in its history, and that’s saying something.
Richard Nixon almost got Harold Carswell on the Court, and he was so mediocre that a GOP supporter in the Senate argued that he should be confirmed because less-than-stellar people should be represented on the Court too. Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the abysmal Roe v. Wade opinion and the even more head-exploding decision “explaining” why Major League Baseball should be exempted from the antitrust laws (“Baseball is cool” would adequately describe his logic), looks like Oliver Wendell Holmes compared to Ketanji Brown Jackson. Heck, Justice Sotomayor is a veritable Scalia compared to her fellow DEI Justice.
This is incredible a depressing. What can be done about it?
Presumable nothing. If one could impeach a Justice for manifest incompetence, Jackon’s dissent in the recent case of Chiles v. Salazar would surely justify it. Colorado had banned “conversion therapy,” so licensed counselors could not engage in “any practice or treatment” that “attempts or purports to change” a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The law imposed penalties for those violating the law, including a $5,000 fine and the potential loss of their licenses, even if the therapy was exclusively talking.
Ring any bells? Here’s a hint: “Freedom of speech.”
These bans on such “talk therapy” that endangers LGBTQ orthodoxy are scattered through the statutes of “blue states” across the nation. As I find the arguments for conversion therapy denigrating to gays and others, I had to check the blog archives to make sure that I have been consistent in opposing efforts to make such treatment illegal. Whew! I have.
During the oral argument on this case in October, I wrote,
“One more thing: if this dispute doesn’t prove for all time that progressives are remarkably skilled at holding opposing beliefs in their heads without feeling any discomfort, nothing will. The Left is fighting like honey badgers to allow school personnel to talk kids into thinking they are girls trapped in boys’ bodies or vice-versa, resulting in life-wrenching hormone treatments and surgery, but insist that conversion therapy for gays must be banned as harmful.”
Ethics Alarms 
This is why I think it’s become unarguable that in a general election, the Republican needs to get the presumption of support unless something terrible comes out. The Democrats have turned into the party of radical university professors, and they are unapologetic about it.
I hate one party rule. One party rule tends to lead to that one party becoming corrupt because I believe power has that tendency for most human beings, but it’s hard to see an alternative.
Jackson’s position tracks with most liberals, the college intelligentsia, and people who act like they are too sensitive to hear an opposing argument. There is no longer an intellectual sense of rugged pursuit of truth in the open frontier to be discovered by hard work and investigation.
They claim they trust experts, but that’s not really what’s happening. If the experts shifted, these people would just say the “right wing” took over the institution and it wasn’t trustworthy anymore. They trust their emotional reactions based on looking at the world as a giant kindergarten circle or some kind of therapist’s office.
Biden has pretty much assured now that Jackson is going to go down as one of the worst justices in all of the court’s history by nominating someone who has no business on the court. Because she’s so unapologetically inept, I think she will rightfully deserve that label. I hope she changes course, but I don’t see that ever happening.
There is a therapist based in Utah who has done conversion therapy for gay men for decades. He gave a presentation about his work and clients. Much of his clientele sought out his services themselves; they wanted to be heterosexual. To reconcile their orientation with their religious and/or sociopolitical values. I’m sure there were also clients who were pressured into seeking his services by family.
If a client wants conversion therapy for himself, the Colorado law would stand in the way of that. It doesn’t make sense to me to block a person from seeking a particular kind of care, if they are in distress about their conflicting desires and values and the care itself isn’t hazardous. But it does make sense from the perspective of progressives in the culture war – can’t let people try to diminish the ranks of the alphabet soup! They should change their values to fit their orientation, not change their predelictions to fit their values!
I’ve read and heard repeatedly that sexual orientation is fixed in stone. Yet from Kinsey’s time to that hasn’t been validated by longitudinal studies of sexual preference. That claim is a convenient tagline for the progressive side of the culture war.
Interesting side note from that therapist’s presentation: his clients who were “successfully” converted by his services stated that they still possessed instinctive, uh… romantic inclinations toward other men. But now, they also experienced romantic attraction toward women. Effectively, they became bisexual! The therapy didn’t eliminate sexual interests, it expanded them to include more types of potential partners. Whatever is going on in the human mind and development, it seems we still have a lot to understand about sexual orientation.
I am inclined to believe that there are certainly some who have an innate homosexual predilection. And all cultures have come to terms with this. Similarly, there is no way around accepting this fact (in our own culture).
But what happened in the West and, in the 1980’s in America? A concerted movement by homosexual deviants to normalize not only (say) latent faggots, which are inevitable, but to (literally) indoctrinate the culture to view the choice to “act out” homosexuality in the same sense as you “choose” a flavor of ice cream. (See: After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s)
A PR man and a psychologist put their heads together and developed a marketing strategy to 1) normalize homosexuality and 2) transform those who opposed this as “abnormal”. Classic transvaluation of values!
To get an immediate sense of this see this clip from American Beauty:
Those two — tax attorney and anesthesiologist — are the ONLY “well adjusted” ones in the entire film!
It must be understood how these insidious currents operate. And it must be understood that they start with laxity and toleration in one area … and it evolves from one deviancy into a hundred. Then, your children “identify” as little animals or (take it from a local exponent) your lover drags you around on a leash feeding you dog biscuits for sexual favors or you dress up in diapers and really regress. There is no end to it.
It is very likely that if a will existed, andcwere backed up with spiritual conviction, that sick people with sick derangements could achieve some level of healing, right? But from where would this “will” come? The entire definition of normality has been (following James Lindsay) been “queered”. This perversion connects to psychology, to culture, and definitely to ethics and morals. But in our rotted ultra-liberalism it is thoughtcrime to state what I have just said.
See James Lindsay on the “queering” of children. Though it seems uniquely geared toward sexuality and gender, in the backgrounding of it there are currents of potent but occulted political and ideological radicalism.
https://youtu.be/obs6x10fqfM?si=qJr_QNsGhTKOFtc_
Up to a point Lindsay is quite good. But he takes very string stances against ideological counter-currents to contend with the ideological queering trends. Thus he defines a “woke Right” and equates counter-opposition to Hitlerian ideology. I am not making this up!
Perhaps the title “The Stupid Justice” is too harsh.
If her questions indicate the pinnacle of the development of her reasoning, she may not be stupid but simply only having achieved the breadth of reason of a very smart, ful of potential 18 year old boy.
During oral arguments about birthright citizenship, she seemed to suggest that committing a crime would somehow automatically grant citizenship because it would “subject someone to the jurisdiction” of a nation. I mean, talk about a WOODEN, literal interpretation when it is convenient.
I am hoping her questioning was just to test the legal principles and not something she actually believes. Many justices do that, and it’s a common practice in law school or when new laws are being debated.