Supreme Court and abortion

[Ken]

Perhaps because unlike Judge Brown, Grace doesn't aspire to be one of 9 Justices charged with interpreting both the Constitution and our Common Law; both of which have, heretofore, assumed as unnecessary, the need to subject to complicated perorations, the legal difference between a man and a woman.

LOL...trying to interpret that statement. If you are saying the question about the definition on a "woman" was kind of stupid. I agree.

Judge Jackson said she will stand for the rights of all women. I am still attempting to figure out how she will do that, since it takes a biologist (something she is not, at her own admission) to know what a "woman" is.

I was pushing back on Ken's "how dare you expect Judge Brown to give a legal definition of "woman", when you (Grace) cannot" argument. In this case, the legal definition of things, she's pretending to be eligible for the highest body that is supposed to understand exactly that. In other words, she's supposed to be an expert on such matters. The rest of us are supposed to be able to simply say that, like pornography, we know a woman when we see one.

The correct answer is that it depends entirely on the context. There is no single legal definition of a "woman" just like there is no single biological definition of a "woman"

There are, in fact, dozens of different legal definitions of the term "woman" depending on the statute in question and the context in which the term is used. The definition used for say Olympic qualifying is different from the definition used by the military or by anti-discrimination statutes. So Judge Brown Jackson was correct not to take the bait.

[HondurasKeiser]

I found it interesting that judge Brown Jackson seemed to indicate that biology is the authority in gender.

John Hirschauer at The American Conservative has an interesting take on that:

It is easy to mock her response. But it was not, from a progressive perspective, an easy question to answer. It forces the respondent to navigate several competing and contradictory left-wing claims about sex and identity.

The first is that the United States is, in some enduring sense, “a patriarchy”—that is, it was designed by men to benefit men and subjugate women. This claim requires a definition of the word “woman” so clear and unambiguous that a group of men could successfully construct an entire social order dedicated to the oppression of women.

The second claim, related to the first, is that women are and have been corporately oppressed in the United States. This again requires that “women” exist as a distinct and definable class of persons.

The third claim is that marginalized groups of people have perspectives that are unique to those groups and inaccessible to people who do not belong to those groups. Hence proponents’ claim that it is important to have a “black woman’s perspective” on the Supreme Court, which implies that women have a perspective meaningfully different from and inaccessible to men.

The fourth claim, quite at odds with the first three, is that a person with male reproductive organs and a Y chromosome who claims to be a woman is, in fact, a woman. Womanhood, according to this view, has no objective component, and can be claimed by any person who sincerely identifies as “a woman.” It is a self-referential definition.

If Jackson answered Blackburn’s question correctly—”a woman is an adult human female”—she would have run afoul of the fourth claim. If she answered incorrectly, she would run afoul of the first three claims. She also would have seemed like a lunatic.

[HondurasKeiser]

LOL...trying to interpret that statement. If you are saying the question about the definition on a "woman" was kind of stupid. I agree.

Judge Jackson said she will stand for the rights of all women. I am still attempting to figure out how she will do that, since it takes a biologist (something she is not, at her own admission) to know what a "woman" is.

I was pushing back on Ken's "how dare you expect Judge Brown to give a legal definition of "woman", when you (Grace) cannot" argument. In this case, the legal definition of things, she's pretending to be eligible for the highest body that is supposed to understand exactly that. In other words, she's supposed to be an expert on such matters. The rest of us are supposed to be able to simply say that, like pornography, we know a woman when we see one.

The correct answer is that it depends entirely on the context. There is no single legal definition of a "woman" just like there is no single biological definition of a "woman"

There are, in fact, dozens of different legal definitions of the term "woman" depending on the statute in question and the context in which the term is used. So Judge Brown Jackson was correct not to take the bait.

What are those multiple legal definitions? Perhaps she could have landed on just one of them by way of example.

[temporal1]

Page 10

HK:

The fourth claim, quite at odds with the first three, is that a person with male reproductive organs and a Y chromosome who claims to be a woman is, in fact, a woman. Womanhood, according to this view, has no objective component, and can be claimed by any person who sincerely identifies as “a woman.” It is a self-referential definition.

i’m not aware there is any need nor measure for “sincerely” in this context.
from what i’m seeing, CLAIMS must be respected on face value, and catered to, to whatever extent the “woman” desires/imagines, in every context of society, including in courts, jails, sports, education, etc.

the only nominee that could possibly be more delightful in the eyes of the Left would be a trans woman, they might squirm at a trans man at this particular time, i don’t know. bottom line, it’s whatever they imagine they want, language exists to adjust to their whims, not vice versa.

a trans woman, regardless of skin color, would certainly edge-out KJB, and she could not do a thing about it, aside from stepping aside, smiling, affirming. “trans” trumps race. it taunts misogyny.

in this paradigm, it’s up to the majority to be in a constant state of adjustment of language+life to accomodate the next claimed minority. fully funded at taxpayer expense.


Women: losing
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4621&p=152616&hilit=rachel#p152616

Pages 6-7 / Bunny Trails: Politics
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3487&hilit=lia&start=50

Page 294 / I think it is funny / Awaken with JP / Woman of the Year
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=47&p=153577&hilit=awaken#p153577

[Grace]

He seems a bit confused about his Assistant Secretary for Health, though.

Yes he seems a bit confused about Dr. Richard/Rachel Levine. But these days he is confused about many things. The White House seems to be walking back his statements on an almost weekly basis.

[Ken]

I was pushing back on Ken's "how dare you expect Judge Brown to give a legal definition of "woman", when you (Grace) cannot" argument. In this case, the legal definition of things, she's pretending to be eligible for the highest body that is supposed to understand exactly that. In other words, she's supposed to be an expert on such matters. The rest of us are supposed to be able to simply say that, like pornography, we know a woman when we see one.

The correct answer is that it depends entirely on the context. There is no single legal definition of a "woman" just like there is no single biological definition of a "woman"

There are, in fact, dozens of different legal definitions of the term "woman" depending on the statute in question and the context in which the term is used. So Judge Brown Jackson was correct not to take the bait.

What are those multiple legal definitions? Perhaps she could have landed on just one of them by way of example.

Just to cite two conflicting examples:

International sports competition uses a testosterone-based standard. So, for example, female athletes with Hyperandrogenism (naturally-elevated testosterone levels) cannot compete as women despite having female genitalia and having been designated as female at birth on their birth certificates, and having XX chromosomes. And even that standard changes depending on the event and sport in question.

By contrast, I believe the military treats birth certificates as definitive and does not examine genetics or testosterone levels. And Title IX uses yet a different definition.

So there are individuals who might meet one legal definition of a woman but not a different one. The job of a judge is to interpret the law, not make it. That is the role of the legislature and executive branch. And there are, indeed multiple different definitions depending on the context and statute in question. So Judge Brown Jackson was correct to decline to answer what was not a sincere question. Senator Blackburn could have followed up with a more nuanced question addressing an actual point of law. That would have been easy to do. For example, the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration had conflicting guidance on this topic as it applied to LGBT students and Title IX compliance. Senator Blackburn could have asked her opinion on that and I expect the answer might have been interesting. But she chose not to.

[temporal1]

I found it interesting that judge Brown Jackson seemed to indicate that biology is the authority in gender.

Yes.

There are 2 sexes, and abnormalities.

Ken:
.. genetic abnormalities ..

In our present state of minority rules, genetic abnormalities literally rule the day. Align, or begone.
(Not confined to genetics!) Self-perception, or desire, are just as acceptable/legal. ASK NO QUESTIONS.

[Ken]

I found it interesting that judge Brown Jackson seemed to indicate that biology is the authority in gender.

Yes.

There are 2 sexes, and abnormalities.

Ken:
.. genetic abnormalities ..

In our present state of minority rules, genetic abnormalities literally rule the day. Align, or begone.
(Not confined to genetics!) Self-perception, or desire, are just as acceptable/legal. ASK NO QUESTIONS.

So what is your view of people who’s sex does not conform to simple binary biological definitions.

Are they abominations who should be exterminated? That was the Nazi view.

Are they all part of God’s creation and deserving of respect despite not fitting into binary definitions of sex?

Are they examples of God’s mistakes? And therefore should be pigeoned-holed into societal or religious-based categories into which they may not fit?

[Grace]

So what is your view of people who’s sex does not conform to simple binary biological definitions.

Are they abominations who should be exterminated? That was the Nazi view.

Are they all part of God’s creation and deserving of respect despite not fitting into binary definitions of sex?

Are they examples of God’s mistakes? And therefore should be pigeoned-holed into societal or religious-based categories into which they may not fit?

They deserve respect and kindness, the same as any other human being. Are they part of God's creation? Yes all mankind, the animal kingdom, nature etc. is God's creation. So what about the question whether God made a mistake when someone turns out to be non-bianry. We live in a fallen world, which was Man's doing, not God's. For that reason we have all kinds of aspects that are far from God's perfect plan for mankind. We have terrible sicknesses, we have terrible wars, famines, earthquakes, pandemics, and yes non-binary people. But let it never be said that, those things are God's mistakes. Those things came about because we live in a fallen world.

[ken_sylvania]

The correct answer is that it depends entirely on the context. There is no single legal definition of a "woman" just like there is no single biological definition of a "woman"

There are, in fact, dozens of different legal definitions of the term "woman" depending on the statute in question and the context in which the term is used. So Judge Brown Jackson was correct not to take the bait.

What are those multiple legal definitions? Perhaps she could have landed on just one of them by way of example.

Just to cite two conflicting examples:

International sports competition uses a testosterone-based standard. So, for example, female athletes with Hyperandrogenism (naturally-elevated testosterone levels) cannot compete as women despite having female genitalia and having been designated as female at birth on their birth certificates, and having XX chromosomes. And even that standard changes depending on the event and sport in question.

By contrast, I believe the military treats birth certificates as definitive and does not examine genetics or testosterone levels. And Title IX uses yet a different definition.

So there are individuals who might meet one legal definition of a woman but not a different one. The job of a judge is to interpret the law, not make it. That is the role of the legislature and executive branch. And there are, indeed multiple different definitions depending on the context and statute in question. So Judge Brown Jackson was correct to decline to answer what was not a sincere question. Senator Blackburn could have followed up with a more nuanced question addressing an actual point of law. That would have been easy to do. For example, the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration had conflicting guidance on this topic as it applied to LGBT students and Title IX compliance. Senator Blackburn could have asked her opinion on that and I expect the answer might have been interesting. But she chose not to.

What definition of "woman" does Title X use?