The confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court sparked controversy, particularly following her statement during the hearing that she was unable to define what a "woman" is.
This raised eyebrows among conservatives, who saw it as a potential warning sign. However, the Senate, seemingly devoid of any sense of shame, proceeded with her confirmation.
Since her appointment, Justice Jackson has emerged as a consistent left-wing vote on the Supreme Court. Her partisanship appears to know no bounds, as she persistently defends Democratic viewpoints. This was evident in recent oral arguments concerning parental rights.
The case under scrutiny revolves around the right of parents to exempt their children from being taught LGBTQ ideology, including transgenderism. While the majority of the court seemed inclined to uphold this fundamental right, Justice Jackson's stance suggested a lack of understanding or a more sinister motive.
Justice Jackson revisited the notion that "we don't know that these books aren't just sitting on the shelves," despite the clear policy of Montgomery County Public Schools that these books must be taught. This lack of awareness or feigned ignorance about the central argument of the Montgomery County School District case was startling.
The case in question pertains to a specific LGBTQ curriculum that was mandated several years ago. The books are not merely "sitting on the shelves." Even if they were, it could be argued that parents have the right to object to their children being exposed to them. The teaching of sexuality to children in schools is unnecessary and can infringe upon the religious rights of parents.
Justice Jackson's frequent display of ignorance raises questions about her competence. Alternatively, it could be a calculated act, suggesting a more malevolent intent.
The appointment of Justice Jackson to the High Court has been criticized by conservatives, who argue that teaching children they can change their gender is not only morally wrong but also biologically and scientifically incorrect. They contend that this is indoctrination, not inclusivity or inclusion.
The crux of the issue is whether parents should be forced to homeschool their children if they object to a curriculum that teaches about sexuality and transgenderism. Should their taxes, which fund the public school system, be rendered meaningless? Should they have no say in their children's education?
The question arises as to why public schools should discuss topics that contravene the religious beliefs of some parents. Does LGBTQ ideology supersede religious liberty? Justice Jackson seems to think so, a viewpoint that could have far-reaching implications if more justices of her ilk were to join the court.
Justice Jackson's argument could potentially be extended to other areas, such as a hospital denying care based on race. According to her logic, the patient could simply provide their own care. However, it is unlikely that she would agree with this, as her stance appears to be more about promoting a specific worldview than maintaining logical consistency.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought a measure of reason to the debate by highlighting the absurdity of Justice Jackson's arguments. He pointed out that parents are not asking for changes in classroom teachings, but merely the option to remove their children from discussions on LGBTQ topics.
The issue at hand is not whether these topics should be taught in schools, but rather the right of parents to protect their children from exposure to them. Yet, Justice Jackson seems intent on infringing upon parental rights and disregarding religious liberty. Whether this is due to ignorance or a more sinister motive remains a matter of debate.
Login