excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 22,759
- 44,333
- 2,290
You just knew that the left would waste no time in their sad attempt of a hagiography about what may be the dumbest Supreme Court Justice in our lifetimes, that would be Ketanji 'I don't know what a woman is' Brown-Jackson.
But this is the sort of stuff to make sane people retch.
But this is the sort of stuff to make sane people retch.
I had no illusions that Ketanji Brown Jackson would have a “Road to Damascus” moment once seated on the Supreme Court, but during Monday’s oral arguments in Merrill v Milligan, Justice Jackson demonstrated that she misapprehends history and has trouble understanding simple words. During her confirmation, she did not know what a woman was. Equally, her reading of the word “citizen”, as found in the 14th and 15th Amendments seems to not match our common understanding.
By doing so, she’s invented a new form of textualism and originalism that is at odds with close to 150 years of precedence and logic. On Thursday, faithful leftist Toadie, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post authored a screechy op-ed in which Rubin claims Jackson established herself as a “potent intellectual force”, and the woman who single-handedly “blew up” the arguments of “right-wing” Justices hearing the Merrill case.
Jackson did neither.
...
During oral arguments on Monday, Jackson claimed that contrary to the plain text of the 14th Amendment, it grants special rights, and special protections for post-war freed slaves called “Freedmen”. It’s an intentional misreading of history and the plain text of the amendment.
During her colloquy with Alabama’s Solicitor General, Jackson first placed the “founders” and “framers” in post-war Congress, as drafters of the 14th Amendment. That the “framers and founders” were long since dead by 1866 seems to have eluded Rubin. Jackson conflating the founders with post-Civil War congressmen doesn’t reflect well on Jackson being a “potent intellectual force”.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to afford equal privileges and protections to all “citizens”. Yes, it was drafted with former slaves in mind, but in fact “citizens” was the noun used. The drafters did not use nouns like “former slaves”, “negroes” or “blacks”. They could have but didn’t. Only in Section 4 does the amendment mention anything about freed slaves, and that was in the context of a former slave’s “value”. Section 4 of that amendment simply invalidated any claim by former slaveholders for compensation.
It also put to rest any attempt to “value” humans by confederates. Valuing humans was deemed “illegal and void”. None of the previous sections intended to confer more privileges or lesser privileges to any group or race. In fact, the intent was precisely the opposite. The intent was to make citizenship “race-neutral”.
It is undeniable that that wasn’t the result after reconstruction. And, it wasn’t just southern states that violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Plessy v Ferguson’s “Separate but Equal” language was a perversion of the 14th Amendment finding “equality” while separating races. Brown v Board of Education overruled that precedent.
...
