Affirmative But Not Affirming II

In my first article under this title, I showed that affirmative action is more harmful than good.  Let’s look at Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record and qualifications to see whether this is actually the case.

We all saw that she couldn’t define what a woman was.  USA Today wrote an article on her answer, saying, “...experts say Jackson’s answer was scientifically sound” (Read it here.).  Honestly, if Kid Rock can correctly define a woman, then a judge from Harvard Law should be able to get it straight.  Going back to the USA Today article, it says, “Scientists agree there is no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a woman, and with billions of women on the planet, there is much variation.”  No woman is exactly like another, that much is evident.  However, aren’t there some things that can be used as defining factors that stay the same, regardless of the race, height, and weight of the woman?  Just because a man who calls himself a woman can win a women’s swimming championship doesn’t mean that everything needs to be viewed through a trans lens.

NBC published an article by a black female criticizing Ted Cruz for his questions on critical race theory.  According to this article, Jackson said, “I’ve never studied critical race theory, and I’ve never used it.  It doesn’t come up in the work I do as a judge.”  However, Cruz was able to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that she had in fact presented a speech in which she said the exact opposite.  I don’t think we need another liar on the nation’s highest bench.

While not normally a source I quote for decent information, LifeSite News did make a valid point on her “relatively light sentencing for possession of child pornography.”  There is no good reason why she consistently sentences less than the minimum required.  I can think of one: affinity.  

I am really sick of race being projected into every political discussion in America today.  When a liberal can’t face facts and truth, he/she/they automatically call our side “racist”.  Great arguing skills, pal.  Well, as you can imagine, NBC ran a piece fawning over Jackson’s hairstyle.  After lecturing us that her style ought to be referred to as “locs” rather than “dreadlocks”, which is apparently offensive, the author proceeds to inform us that her hairstyle is quite expensive, and then advocates against “race-based hair discrimination.”  How any of that has to do with her Supreme Court qualifications is inexplicable.  But, at least we know more about her hair!

The Senate has before it a nominee who can’t answer basic questions of biology and law.  She’s been lying and double-talking her way through the proceedings.  Needless to say, she also doesn’t know when human life begins.  I really hope no Republican senators turn traitor to their country and Constitution by voting for her.