It is no small irony that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the beneficiary of President Joe Biden’s promise to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court, does not herself know what a woman is.
Jackson made all the wrong kinds of headlines during her confirmation hearings when she claimed to be unable to provide a definition.
“I’m not a biologist,” she declared with a laugh that betrayed an irritation at being asked what she perceived to be a trick question.
It was a bad moment that nevertheless could have been chalked up to nerves, or being caught off guard.
But as it turns out, it was a strong indicator of what was to come.
On Thursday, the Court held its oral argument in United States v. Skrmetti.
At stake was the constitutional viability of a Tennessee law barring minors from receiving so-called “gender affirming care,” i.e., puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and sex-reassignment surgeries.
The argument of those seeking to see it invalidated was that the provision violated the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex.
Its proponents, meanwhile, submitted that it discriminated based on medical purpose rather than sex.
Justice Jackson thought she had undone the latter argument on Thursday when she interrupted Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice as he tried to explain that a child’s desire not to “grow breasts” is not a legitimate medical purpose for such treatments, be it for a boy or a girl.
“It’s the same medical purpose,” she insisted about the hypothetical, this time with more than a hint of irritation. “I’m trying to stop the development of breasts.”
Rice was taken aback.
“Tennessee law doesn’t just allow doctors to prescribe drugs without a medical purpose,” he explained patiently.
“A girl who doesn’t want to grow – grow breasts for whatever reason could – could – could or could not get it?” she followed-up.
“Does not want to grow breasts?” he asked quizzically.
“Yes,” she replied agitatedly.
“Without a medical reason? Could not get it,” he confirmed.
Jackson’s bizarro world in which a desire or even whim not to grow breasts constitutes a “medical purpose” was too much even for an advocate who had spent countless hours preparing for the case – and that’s not a credit to her.
Incredibly – and implausibly – it wasn’t the most egregious moment of the day for Jackson.
With little else to lean on, she repeatedly compared Tennessee’s bill to the interracial marriage ban in Old Dominion that the Court struck down in 1967’s Loving v. Virginia.
During one colloquy, Jackson professed to be “getting kind of nervous,” before worrying that under the structure of Tennessee’s law, anti-miscegenation statutes might have stood the test of time.
Rice tried to address her concerns by explaining that “giving testosterone to [a] boy with a deficiency is not the same treatment as giving it to a girl who has psychological distress associated with her body.”
“And what’s your basis for saying that?” she asked.
Rice was too polite and had too much at stake to answer this way, but . . . elementary reasoning skills?
Of course, Jackson’s invocation of the worst kind of racial discrimination in a case about experimental, irreversible medical treatments for minors’ psychological conditions had nothing to do with reasoning.
It was little more than a hamhanded attempt at distracting from the core issues of the case and smearing those trying to implement basic protections for American children.
And it was characteristic of Jackson’s deplorable jurisprudential record.
Last year, when the court struck down race-based affirmative action in college admissions, Jackson eschewed any mention of the systematic discrimination against Asian American applicants to accuse the majority of “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness.”
Earlier this year, Jackson objected to the court’s protection of citizens’ most basic rights against government overreach on the grounds that doing so was “an absurdity.”
She even attempted to undermine the public’s faith in her own institution by charging her fellow justices with carving out an undue exception for President-elect Donald Trump after the court issued its common-sense ruling on presidential immunity.
Jackson is not only incapable of interpreting the law in a cogent manner, she’s incapable of civil disagreement with her peers.
Even in oral argument, she struggles to disguise her partisan allegiance — and keep her composure.
As President Biden’s administration winds down and his allies grapple with his failed tenure, Jackson stands out as one of his greatest mistakes.
After all, her shortcomings aren’t just fodder for conservative critics.
Jackson is unsuited for her position, and she’s destined to leave an inconsequential legacy in it.
Unlike, say, Justice Elena Kagan, Jackson lacks the skills and comportment necessary to persuade the originalist majority on the Court of much of anything
Indeed, she gives conservative legal observers ample reason to celebrate her ascension to the highest court in the land.
Progressives, meanwhile, must be lamenting their plight.
To be condemned to a minority on the Supreme Court is bad enough.
To have members of its coalition be so ineffectual must be unbearable.
For that disappointment — and so many others — they have President Biden to thank.
Isaac Schorr is a staff writer at Mediaite.