Justice Jackson’s Inquiry in Trans Case Highlights Biden’s Misstep in SCOTUS Selection

It is quite ironic that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who benefited from President Joe Biden’s commitment to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court, appears uncertain about defining what a woman actually is.

During her confirmation hearings, Jackson made headlines for the wrong reasons when she stated her inability to provide a definition.

“I’m not a biologist,” she reacted with a laugh, revealing her annoyance at what she regarded as a trick question.

While this could have been dismissed as a moment of nerves or surprise, it turned out to be a telling sign of what was to come.

On Thursday, the Court engaged in oral arguments for United States v. Skrmetti.

The central issue was the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that prevents minors from receiving what is termed “gender-affirming care,” which includes puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-reassignment surgeries.

Those advocating for the law’s invalidation argued that it contravened the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition against sex discrimination.

Supporters of the law contended that it discriminated based on medical purpose rather than on sex.

Justice Jackson believed she had countered this latter argument on Thursday when she interrupted Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice. He was attempting to explain that a child’s desire not to “grow breasts” is not a valid medical reason for such treatments, regardless of whether the child is a boy or a girl.

“It’s the same medical purpose,” she asserted about the hypothetical case, this time with noticeable irritation. “I’m trying to stop the development of breasts.”

Rice was visibly surprised.

“Tennessee law doesn’t permit doctors to prescribe medications without a medical purpose,” he explained calmly.

“A girl who doesn’t want to grow – grow breasts for whatever reason could – could – could or could not get it?” she responded.

“Does not want to grow breasts?” he asked, perplexed.

“Yes,” she replied, quite flustered.

“Without a medical reason? Could not get it,” he confirmed.

Jackson’s unconventional logic—where a desire or mere wish to avoid growing breasts is treated as a “medical purpose”—was challenging to comprehend, even for an attorney who had spent significant time preparing for the case, and this does not reflect positively on her.

Remarkably, it wasn’t even the most outrageous moment of the hearing for Jackson.

Struggling to find a solid argument, she repeatedly likened Tennessee’s bill to the interracial marriage ban in Virginia, which the Court ruled against in 1967’s Loving v. Virginia.

During one exchange, Jackson indicated that she was “getting kind of nervous,” expressing concerns that Tennessee’s law might have allowed anti-miscegenation laws to persist.

Rice attempted to clarify her worries by explaining that “administering testosterone to a boy with a deficiency is not the same as administering it to a girl who experiences psychological distress about her body.”

“And what’s your basis for saying that?” she asked.

Given the stakes, Rice maintained politeness but perhaps should have responded with… basic reasoning skills?

Ultimately, Jackson’s references to severe racial discrimination in the context of a case concerning irreversible medical treatments for minors’ mental health conditions highlighted a complete lack of reasoning.

This was a blatant attempt to redirect attention from the core issues of the case and to undermine those advocating for critical safeguards for American children.

Such behavior is indicative of Jackson’s troubling judicial track record.

Last year, when the Court struck down race-based affirmative action in college admissions, Jackson neglected to address the systematic discrimination against Asian American applicants. Instead, she accused the majority of “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness.”

Earlier this year, Jackson criticized the Court’s decisions protecting citizens’ essential rights against government overreach, calling the rationale “absurd.”

She even attempted to weaken public confidence in her own institution by accusing her fellow justices of creating an undue exception for President-elect Donald Trump in a common-sense ruling on presidential immunity.

Jackson not only struggles to interpret the law coherently, but she also finds it challenging to engage in civil discourse with her colleagues.

During oral arguments, her partisan bias is evident, along with a lack of composure.

As President Biden’s term approaches its end and his supporters face the consequences of his administration, Jackson emerges as one of his most significant miscalculations.

Her deficiencies are not merely fodder for right-wing critiques.

Jackson is ill-suited for her role, and her legacy in it will likely be inconsequential.

Unlike Justice Elena Kagan, Jackson lacks the abilities and demeanor required to sway the originalist majority on the Court.

Indeed, her presence offers conservative legal commentators abundant reasons to celebrate.

Meanwhile, progressives must be lamenting their situation.

Being relegated to a minority on the Supreme Court is challenging enough.

Having members of their coalition be so ineffective must be exceedingly frustrating.

For this disappointment—and many others—President Biden is to blame.

Isaac Schorr is a staff writer at Mediaite.