There are some very smart justices on the Supreme Court. But not all of them are that way.
And a Supreme Court justice loses their mind by making this harebrained statement.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson once again fumbled the basic question of what defines a woman during heated oral arguments on Tuesday. The cases centered on state laws that rightly keep males, even those claiming transgender status, out of women’s sports teams. Jackson’s comments exposed her ongoing embrace of far-left gender nonsense, proving that common sense takes a back seat in elite circles.
Flash back to 2022, when Jackson sat through her confirmation hearings to replace Justice Stephen Breyer, who was set to retire. She grabbed headlines for dodging a straightforward query on the biological truth of women.
Pressed on defining a woman, she famously replied, “No, I can’t,” and “I’m not a biologist.” That moment captured the absurdity of progressive ideology infiltrating the highest court.
Fast forward to now, and Jackson hasn’t learned a thing. In the arguments, she spouted radical activist jargon like “s*x assigned at birth.”
She tossed around “cisgender women,” which is just code for real women who accept their biology, and “transgender girls,” meaning boys pretending to be girls.
Diving into the West Virginia v. B.P.J. case, Jackson laid out her twisted logic. “Similarly, here, you have the overarching classification, you know, everybody has to be — play on the team that is the same as their s*x at birth, but then you have a gender-identity definition that is operating within that, meaning a distinction, meaning that for cisgender girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity; for transgender girls, they can’t,” she stated.
She kept probing, questioning the very essence of girlhood and whether teams should only include those who are a “girl assigned at birth.”
Jackson mused, “I guess I was getting at the — what I understood the Chief Justice to be trying to discuss — which was this notion that this is really just about the definition of who — that we accept that you can separate boys and girls, and we are now looking at the definition of a girl and we’re saying only people who were girl assigned at birth qualify.”
This isn’t just Jackson’s issue—it’s spreading like a virus. Even conservative-leaning Justice Amy Coney Barrett slipped into the same ideological trap, using similar woke terms in her questions. Women’s sports defenders and true conservatives are rightfully alarmed, seeing this as a betrayal of clear thinking in the judiciary.
The pushback was swift and fierce from voices on the right. Christian conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey fired off a reminder on X about the power of words in this cultural war. “Reminder that precise language matters when we are in a fight for truth,” she posted.
Stuckey didn’t hold back, dismantling the leftist lexicon piece by piece. “There is no such thing as ‘cisgender.’ There is no such thing as a ‘trans girl’ or ‘trans boy.’ ‘Gender identity’ is not real. It is not possible to ‘transition’ to the opposite s*x. No one is ‘assigned’ a s*x at birth. Saying ‘biological’ male/female implies that other kinds of males/females exist. Puberty blockers and g*nitalia-altering surgeries are not ‘gender affirming care;’ they’re sterilizing, mutilating procedures,” she declared.
This episode highlights how deep the rot goes in our institutions. When even Supreme Court justices parrot activist talking points, it’s a wake-up call for patriots everywhere.
Women’s rights, fair play in sports, and basic biology are under assault from a vocal minority pushing an agenda that defies nature.
Conservatives have long warned that confirming justices like Jackson would lead to this kind of erosion. Her refusal to grasp fundamental realities during confirmation was a red flag, and now it’s waving wildly in these sports cases.
Barrett’s involvement adds salt to the wound. Appointed as a solid conservative pick, her use of these terms shows how pervasive the pressure is to conform.
It raises questions about whether any justice can fully escape the leftist echo chamber in Washington.
Stuckey’s call to action hits home: “All of us, in our own ways, have pushed our country closer to sanity on this issue. But seeing as even Amy Coney Barrett still uses this nonsensical language, we’ve still got work to do.”
These cases could set precedents that either safeguard women’s spaces or open the floodgates to more confusion.
