Biden’s Female SCOTUS Nominee Doesn’t Know What A Woman Is | Ep. 1459
|
Time
Text
Katonji Brown Jackson says she's a neutral arbiter of the law, but also refuses to define the word woman.
And the media object to senators asking Jackson very, very, very basic questions.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Privacy is a right, not a privilege.
Defend your rights at expressvpn.com.
Slash Ben.
Get to all the news in just one moment.
First, inflation still out of control.
I know, that's a lot of Kitanji Brown Jackson talk right now.
But your wallet is still screaming.
And this is why you need to make sure you're not spending too much money on dumb nonsense.
Like, for example, that cell phone bill from Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile.
You are paying for their thousands of retail stores across the country you never go to.
Stop paying for those added perks you never use.
Pure Talk won't charge you for any of that.
Instead, they give you killer 5G coverage on the same 5G network as one of the big guys for about half the cost.
The average family is saving over $800 a year.
So what exactly is your excuse?
I made the switch.
You can keep your number, keep your phone, or get huge discounts on the latest iPhones and Androids.
Get unlimited talk, text, 6 gigs of data for just $30 a month.
And hey, if you still want that unlimited data, you can get that, and you will still save a fortune over the other guys.
Head on over to PureTalk.com, shop for the plan that's right for you.
They have a 30-day risk-free guarantee, so you literally have nothing to lose.
Go to PureTalk.com, enter promo code SHAPIRO, you'll save 50% off your very first month of coverage.
That is PureTalk.com, promo code SHAPIRO.
PureTalk is simply smarter wireless.
Get the same great coverage, but you're gonna be saving hundreds of dollars a year.
PureTalk.com, promo code SHAPIRO.
Well, it seems that there are a lot of qualifications to be a Supreme Court nominee.
You have to have gone to, presumably, an Ivy League school or something like an Ivy League school.
You probably have to have been on law review, maybe clerked for a Supreme Court justice.
And also, you're supposed to be able to define basic words and also know basic logic.
So, if somebody in a Senate hearing were to ask you, what is 2 plus 2, and you, the nominee, were to say, I am no mathematician, I'm not.
I can't answer that question.
I am no mathematician.
This should be immediately disqualifying.
If somebody were to say to a Supreme Court nominee, the typical human being, how many fingers does the typical human being have?
And the person said, I can't answer that.
I am not a doctor.
I can't tell you how many fingers a typical human being has.
This would be automatically disqualifying because here should be the rule.
If a two-year-old could answer the question and you cannot, this means that you are either an idiot or you're being deliberately idiotic in order to pander to the political flavor of the month.
And this is what happened at the Supreme Court hearing for Katonji Brown-Jackson, who is historic because she is the first black female nominee.
We know that she's black because she's a black person.
We know that she's female because, well, As it turns out, we may not know that she's a female because she doesn't know that she's a female because, of course, she is not a biologist.
I bring this up because there is this widespread meme that has gained purchase on the left that Supreme Court nominees have to answer zero questions.
And in fact, the goal of a Supreme Court nomination hearing is to never answer a question.
This is true politically.
It is true that when you ask a Supreme Court nominee a question, ever since the Robert Bork hearings, the idea is that every nominee is going to evade and not answer questions and simply say, well, I can't say anything about that because that specific case has not come up before me.
And if they're asked about precedent, they're supposed to say, well, you know, that is precedent.
They're supposed to just describe things as they are, not as how they would rule on them.
And the reason for that is because they don't want anyone to recognize what it is they're going to do.
So every nominee is a stealth nominee, right and left.
They are all stealth nominees.
Unless you're on the left, here's the thing.
If you're on the left, you're not that much of a stealth nominee.
Because if you're on the left, the core assumption in our culture and in our jurisprudence is that we will simply allow you to do whatever the hell you want.
If you are a person on the right, and you are asked a simple question like, do you believe that Roe vs. Wade is a bad piece of jurisprudence?
You're never ever supposed to say, yes, it's a bad piece of jurisprudence, even though everyone right, left and center agrees.
If you've actually read the decision, it is a crap decision that has no basis in the Constitution, in the law or in biology.
But you're not supposed to say that because that might give away your position on what you're going to do with Roe versus Wade.
If you're on the left, however, you're supposed to just say flat out Roe versus Wade is not only a brilliant piece of jurisprudence, it is precedent.
It is binding precedent and it will never go away.
And this is considered de rigueur.
Well, this is the thing about being on the left.
You're a stealth candidate when it comes to an inordinate number of things that the right is also stealthy on, when it comes to how you'd rule on administrative law, when it comes to how you'd rule on 10 years ago gay marriage.
However, when it comes to the crucial issues of the day, if you're on the left, you can signal as much as you want because the media will just cover your ass and pretend that you're not supposed to answer questions on things like, what is a woman?
Okay, so, Ketanji Brown Jackson's hearing started off a couple of days ago.
And they start off with her as the stealth candidate.
She started off in the same way that every other nominee starts off by praising America and sounding frankly just like Amy Coney Barrett when she was given her nomination hearing.
So here's Ketanji Brown-Jackson talking about her family and the nation and sounding frankly indistinguishable from any conservative Republican on her family and the country.
When I was born here in Washington, my parents were public school teachers.
And to express both pride in their heritage and hope for the future, they gave me an African name, Kitanji Onyeka, which they were told means lovely one.
My parents taught me that unlike the many barriers that they had had to face growing up, my path was clearer.
So that if I worked hard and I believed in myself in America, I could do anything or be anything I wanted to be.
Like so many families in this country, they worked long hours and sacrificed to provide their children every opportunity to reach their God-given potential.
My parents have been married for almost 54 years, and they're here with me today.
I cannot possibly thank them enough for everything they've done for me.
I love you, Mom and Dad.
Okay, so again, every nominee gets—I mean, she sounds like a conservative Republican.
Only in a country like this one could somebody who looks like me become the person on the highest court in the land.
with my life story ends up with this kind of success. Which sounds indistinguishable from say Tim Scott or maybe Coney Barrett or from anybody else who has minority status in the United States who has gained extraordinary access to power. And then Jackson did what she is supposed to do, again this is all the self-candidate kind of stuff, where she says that she's going to be a neutral arbiter. Now remember, every democrat who's ever been appointed to the Supreme Court says they'll be a neutral arbiter and then they're a reliable vote for the left.
Katonji Brown-Jackson, who's backed by Demand Justice, will be a reliable vote for the left.
Everybody knows this, but she's not supposed to say it out loud because we're all supposed to pretend that our judiciary is filled with non-politically motivated people.
Here is Katonji Brown-Jackson at the beginning of her hearing a couple of days ago.
I decide cases from a neutral posture.
I evaluate the facts and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath.
That is without fear or favor, consistent with her judicial.
And not only that, she's going to stay in her lane and she is not going to overreach.
She is not going to read her feelings about what the law should be and what the law is.
She is going to be a reliable voice on behalf of the text of laws.
Again, everybody in their original sort of statements likes to sound like Samuel Alito or Justice Scalia or Clarence Thomas.
And then as we will see for the left, none of that means anything.
I am particularly mindful of not speaking to policy issues because I am so committed to staying in my lane of the system.
Because I'm just not willing to speak to issues that are properly in the province of this body.
She's going to stay in her lane.
Now, here's the thing.
She's not going to stay in her lane.
The reason we know she's not going to stay in her lane is because she is beholden to the far left.
She is, in fact, a member of the far left, as is indicated by pretty much everything that she has ever done or said.
In terms of issues where she could stray to the far left.
Anything in her social life where she could stray to the far left, she has.
Any issue where she could stray to the left, she has.
And this became very clear yesterday in this judicial hearing when Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee She asked Jackson to define the word woman.
And the reason she asked for this is because woman is a category in law.
It comes up a lot.
It comes up in the Civil Rights Act, for example, in Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.
It comes up with regards to domestic violence.
It comes up all the time.
What is a woman?
Now, this is an incredibly simple question.
It's incredibly simple to answer this question.
On a biological level, women produce eggs and men produce small-sized gametes, right?
They produce sperm cells.
That is the difference between men and women on a biological level.
In terms of chromosomal composition, men have XY, women have XX.
There are certain peculiarities in which, for example, the SRY gene, which expresses gender, is somehow attached to an X gene sometimes during transmission.
That can end up with an intersex case, or you can have an XY man where the SRY gene is not expressed, in which you have a person develop secondary female sexual characteristics, but they are genetically chromosomally male.
That is intersex people.
That is not the same thing that is claimed by the left.
The left claims that a man who is XY and whose SRY gene is completely expressed is still possibly a woman because they complain that male and female anatomy have nothing to do with male and female anything.
That gender is completely disconnected from sex.
Now, when it comes to the law, there is no law in US history that has been written that says that a man who identifies as a woman is a woman.
It's an absurdity on its face.
It makes no sense.
Nobody in writing the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was thinking that a male who says he is a woman is in fact a female or that a woman who says she is a man is in fact a man.
This is newfangled garbage that has come up in the last two years in widespread fashion on the left.
It's gender theory going back to the 1960s, promulgated by a perverse piece of human dreck named John Money, whose gender theories ended with the suicidality of actual children under his care, and now it has been bibed wholesale by all of your cultural betters and elites.
If you say on Twitter, That a man is a man and a woman is a woman.
You may be banned.
The Babylon Bee was banned from Twitter for the great crime of stating that Rachel Levine, who is the Deputy Under Secretary of Health and Human Services and who is a biological man, is a man.
If you say that on Twitter, they will ban you.
If you say that Leah Thomas, who still has twig and berries, Is a man.
Twitter will ban you.
So all of our cultural elites have embraced this idiotic notion that it is impossible, literally impossible, to define woman.
You cannot do it.
You cannot define women or men.
But you can then say that Ketanji Brown Jackson is incredibly historic because she is a woman.
Kamala Harris is incredibly historic because she is a woman.
But if you ask either of these people to define the word woman, they will not do it.
Why?
Because they are beholden to the far left.
And they understand that if they were to say a woman is biologically, as I have described, Then they would immediately be cast out as lepers by their own colony.
Their own group, the people who love them most, would immediately suggest that they are bigots in some way, they are transphobic, because you have to understand that for the left, the final destruction of the gender binary, the final destruction of the distinctions that are perfectly natural and embedded in biology between men and women, if you can destroy that, you can destroy the entire fundamental basis of natural law, which undergirds all of natural rights and undergirds all of the systemic building of civilization over the course of millennia.
If everything just becomes arbitrary, and all terms just become arbitrary, then everything is power, which is precisely what the left wants.
Every natural obstacle to utopia for the left must be wiped away.
And this includes natural, normal, and factual distinctions between male and female.
This is a question that goes very deep.
Because you have to wonder, when a highly intelligent person like Etanji Brown-Jackson is asked, what is a woman?
And she can't answer.
You have to know she's lying.
Again, I have an 8-year-old, a 5-year-old, and a 2-year-old.
All of them know the difference between a boy and a girl.
That kid from kindergarten cop basically gets it right.
Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.
This is really, really not all that difficult.
I understand for the left, this seems to be difficult, but it's not really difficult for them either.
100% of Americans, including trans people, understand biological males are males.
Biological females are females.
They may not like that, they may not want to believe that, but that happens to be the reality.
And yet more than half the population at this point, at least half the population, is willing to go along to get along.
Why?
Because of the sort of niceness of it.
We never want to say to somebody who believes that they are a member of the opposite sex that they're just wrong, that it's not true.
We don't want to do that.
It might make them feel bad.
And so an enormous number of people in the middle in this country have been cuddled by the cultural elites.
into embracing the lie that men can be women and women can be men.
Originally out of niceness, and then out of a feeling of virtue signaling.
I'm so nice, I'm willing to say it.
Why aren't you nice too?
Here's a flag, a trans flag, in my profile.
In fact, I will even buy into the idea that sex is completely malleable by adding pronouns to my Twitter bio.
I mean, you know that I'm a man, and I know that I'm a man, but if I add he him To my Twitter bio, where there is no confusion, what I'm really saying is, if I wanted to be she-her, I could be.
I mean, these are very, very difficult questions.
Like, what is a woman?
Really, really difficult questions.
Other difficult questions, should you refi your mortgage?
The answer is, like, yes, right now.
Because we know that the Federal Reserve is going to be raising interest rates a bunch of times over the course of the next year, two years.
And this means interest rates on mortgages are likely to go up.
In fact, they already are.
So if you've been holding up in the hopes that they are going to go down again, no.
You need to get into the market right now.
The latest forecast again projects a few interest rate hikes this year alone that will make debt a lot more expensive.
Don't let that happen to you.
Pick up the phone right now.
Call American Financing.
Take advantage of a free no-obligation mortgage review where you will learn about custom loan options that can save you up to $1,000 a month.
That is right, every month.
From lower rates to shorter terms, even debt consolidation, they can do it all.
And they never charge up front or surprise you with hidden fees.
So why not see what they can do for you?
If you like what you hear, you can pre-qualify for free, possibly skip a couple of payments, and you might close in as fast as 10 days.
Just call 866-721-3300.
That is 866-721-3300.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net.
NMLS 182334.
NMLSConsumerAccess.org.
Go check them out right now.
It's AmericanFinancing.net once more.
NMLS 182334 NMLS consumeraccess.org.
866-721-3300.
Go check them out right now.
It's American financing.net once more.
866-721-3300.
That is 866-721-3300.
So all of this is nonsense that is directed at tearing down fundamental institutions.
There's a lot packed into this question from Senator Marsha Blackburn.
So here was Katonji Brown-Jackson's answer to, again, a question so simple a two-year-old would know the answer.
Can you provide a definition for the word woman?
Can I provide a definition?
Yeah.
I can't.
You can't?
Not in this context.
I'm not a biologist.
No, I can't.
No, I can't, she says.
The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me a definition?
No, I can't.
No, I can't, she says.
Why can't she?
Why not?
Why doesn't she ask, okay, in the context of what statute?
Because seriously, theoretically, she could say, are we talking about when a girl turns into a woman for purposes of, say, statutory rape?
That's a difference between minors and majors.
Is she talking about, can I define woman, difference between child and adult?
Or woman in terms of sexual harassment?
And sort of gender perceptions, right?
She could ask for clarification.
She doesn't.
She doesn't want to answer the question because the answer is too damned simple.
And then it gets even more simple.
So Marsha Blackburn asked her a very simple question.
Do you acknowledge that there are physical differences between men and women?
Again, any small child can tell you the answer to this because small children are apparently less moronic than people who have been Harvard Law educated.
Here is Katonji Brown-Jackson's answer.
Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?
Senator, respectfully, I am not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it's hard for me to comment as to whether or not.
Why exactly would it be hard to comment?
Why?
Seriously.
That's the quote.
The quote is, there are physical differences between men and women.
Wow.
Now, she just keeps relying on this idea.
That's because it's Angie Brown Jackson.
She can't comment on this stuff because it's a case either I don't know about or I do know.
See, these judicial nominees, because they're all playing the stealth nominee game, here's what they do.
If a case has been decided, they will say that it is precedent.
If a case has not been decided, they will say that they cannot comment on it because it has not been decided yet.
So you get no information from them.
But that wasn't the question.
The question is, what is a woman?
She's got no answer and she wants to sit on the nation's highest court.
Apparently, by the way, she says she's no biologist, so she can't tell you the difference between men and women.
I'm not an ornithologist, but I can tell you what a bird is.
I may not be a zookeeper, but I can tell you what a tiger is.
This is the most stupid thing.
It's ridiculous.
Not only is it ridiculous, by the way, it gives away the lie.
Because according to the left, you don't have to be a biologist to say what a woman is.
In fact, Exactly the opposite.
If you are a biologist, you cannot say what a woman is.
Because you may be entirely biologically male and still be a woman.
No biologist can tell you what a woman is.
So Katonji Brown-Jackson gives away the game there.
But of course, she's really just evading the question.
And here's the thing, the entire left evades this question.
We actually sent our very own Matt Walsh.
Let's just be clear about this.
The what is woman question did not come originally from Marsha Blackburn.
It is Matt Walsh's deal.
It's always been Matt Walsh's deal.
For several years, Matt Walsh has just been asking a very simple question to everybody on the left who tries to claim that they are both pro-feminist and also pro-trans.
And he says, what is a woman?
And none of them have an answer.
None of them.
So Matt went on a journey, a magical top secret journey all around the United States and abroad to determine if anyone on the left could identify what a woman is.
His documentary is called What is a Woman?
It is the most important question and film of 2022.
Here is a look at the incredible sneak peek.
It's going to be available only at Daily Wire.
I have traveled all over the world.
For the past year, asking one simple question.
What is a woman?
What is a woman?
What is it?
What is it?
I don't know.
People are laughing.
Is that a dumb question?
I've been asking everybody this, and almost nobody can answer it.
What is a woman?
What is a woman?
That's a great question!
If one person could tell me what a woman is.
Congressman, thank you for being here.
I think this interview is over.
Let's turn off the cameras.
I just wanted to know, what is a woman?
And you're not going to find out.
It's not a complicated question.
So we will be releasing that here at Daily Wire.
You need to become a subscriber today so that you can see what is a woman.
That is coming out in May.
It's fantastic.
It's fantastic.
And the reason it's fantastic is because when people refuse to answer extraordinarily simple questions like this, it means they are lying to you.
Everyone in America knows that this is Emperor New Clothes bulls**t. Everyone knows this.
Every single human knows this.
And yet we are all supposed to pretend that the Emperor is not naked, and that you're a bad person if you say that the Emperor is naked.
In fact, we will ban you from social media.
We won't let you on the Supreme Court if you say that the Emperor is naked.
In fact, even if you say that the Emperor is naked and he's showing his d**k, and that he's a man because he's the Emperor, not the Empress, and you know because his balls are hanging out, this would make you a bigot.
That is where we are in American society.
So Matt's documentary, What is a Woman?
is definitely worth the watch and you should head on over to dailywire.com right now and subscribe in preparation.
It's going to be the biggest documentary of the year and it requires explication.
But again, this goes back to the fact the wisest among us are the people who are least likely to tell you what a woman is.
These are not difficult questions.
This is a very, very easy question.
I answered it on a biological level because that we can we can uncover bodies from thousands of years ago and we can look at bone structure and we can determine from that if you are a woman or a male all of the people who claim that they are members of the opposite gender when they are buried and a thousand years from now they're dug up Biologists, as Ketanji Brown-Jackson says, will be able to tell whether they are a male or a female.
And it did not matter what they thought they were in their heads, because that's stupid.
It has nothing to do with reality.
But that is part of a broader left-wing agenda to rewrite reality so they can do whatever the hell they want, so there are no restrictions on what they do.
We'll get to more on this in just one second.
First, have you ever wanted to send your uncle a birthday greeting from one of his favorite conservative celebs?
Or have your favorite freedom-loving comedian roast that one liberal cousin nobody in the family really likes?
There's only one place to make that a reality.
It's a new app.
It is called ShoutOut.
The most popular personalities on the right are ready to make somebody's day with a personalized video just for you.
Download Shoutout Now on the App Store and Google Play to get 20% off your first customized shoutout video from the likes of Steven Crowder, The Hodge Twins, JP Sears, Jason Whitlock, and many more of your favorite conservatives.
Go check them out right now.
download Shoutout today at the App Store or Google Play.
Download that Shoutout app.
I promise it's gonna make somebody in your family super happy and will definitely make them laugh.
So if you've been waiting to get one of those personalized videos from a favorite like Crowder or JPCers or Whitlock or the Hodge Twins or any of these other conservative celebs, go check them out right now.
Get that Shoutout app today.
To understand how civilization works, you have to understand that civilization is built on three basic foundations.
One is the foundation of biology.
Biology just is what it is.
It is unchanging.
It is immutable.
It does not magically change.
The fact of evolutionary biology, it's so funny, the people who say they are big fans of science refuse to acknowledge the basic evolutionary biology here, which is all progeneration of the human species and all mammalian species are dependent on sexual dichotomy.
There is no controversy about this at any level in the scientific community.
There are just people who lie that there's controversy about it.
And they do so by fudging the lines.
They'll talk about, oh, well, you know, there are intersex, there are blowfish.
Are you a blowfish?
Are humans blowfish?
Can you magically change from one to the other?
Can you start producing babies if you're a man today?
Of course you cannot.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
Okay, so that is one source.
The other source is accepted wisdom of the past, which has been tried and found true over the course of millennia.
And you should not discard that for no apparent reason, just because you have decided you don't like it anymore.
It makes you a bad person to decide.
It really does.
It makes you a bad person to decide that the accepted wisdom of the past is no good any longer because you have decided on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that that accepted wisdom is bad.
You can't point to another culture where this has been successful.
You can't point to another place on earth Where people do not acknowledge the centrality of male-female duality.
It does not exist.
All of the attempts to suggest that there are people who don't fit into the boxes and therefore everyone could theoretically be either male or female.
That does not exist anywhere on earth.
You'll see in Matt's documentary he talks to some people in different places on earth.
So accepted wisdom is the second source.
And finally there is reason.
And reason again is connected to the other two sources.
Evolutionary biology and ancient wisdom.
If you come up with a rationale out of your head that men can be women and women can be men, this is illogical at a fundamental level.
These are either categories that exist or they do not exist.
The left wants them to both exist so they can claim sexism if you ask Ketanji Brown Jackson the question, and not to exist so Ketanji Brown Jackson can't actually answer the question.
So on the one hand, don't ask her the question, she's a woman, stop being sexist.
On the other hand, she can't answer what a woman is because that would make her a sexist.
Do you get the feeling this is all a power game?
That it's all a Michel Foucault post-modernist power game?
Because it's exactly what it is.
And again, this is not a surprise because for Ketanji Brown-Jackson, no matter how stealth the left wants to be, they can't be fully stealth in their viewpoints because they don't feel like they have to be fully stealth in their viewpoints.
So for example, Ketanji Brown-Jackson was asked about abortion.
She was asked about Roe vs. Wade.
Now, here is what any honest nominee would say.
No matter where you stand, Roe v. Wade is a bad piece of jurisprudence.
It is a bad case.
Everyone on the left in legal circles acknowledges Roe v. Wade is based on absolutely nothing.
They can agree with the outcome and still understand that it was a completely made-up, specious bit of nonsense.
But instead, we find out from Katonji Brown-Jackson, it is settled law.
Settled law.
Because the way that it works, by the way, according to the left, Everything I like is settled law.
Everything I don't like is bad precedent.
That's the way the precedent game works, according to the left.
So Lawrence v. Texas said that Bowers v. Hardwick was not precedent anymore.
It was bad law.
Bowers v. Hardwick said that states could outlaw sodomy.
Lawrence v. Texas said, no, people have a right to sodomy.
And it became bad law overnight.
And listen, there are lots of cases in American history where precedent was bad.
Plessy vs. Ferguson, Brown vs. Board of Education, for example.
So this notion that you are just adhering to precedent, you're going to have to explain why you're adhering to a particular precedent if you want me to believe that you believe in the precedent itself, as opposed to you just believe what it's saying.
Anyway, here's Kestanji Brown-Jackson paying homage to Roe vs. Wade, the full litmus test for the left.
I do agree with both Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett on this issue.
Roe and Casey are the settled law of The Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy.
It's settled law, guys.
Okay, so, Ben Jackson was asked another simple question.
She says she's a religious person.
Okay, and apparently, I know she's not a biologist, so she doesn't know what a woman is.
She apparently also doesn't know what a human life is.
So she was asked, when does life begin?
Now this is a rather crucial question.
It's a rather crucial question because if life begins at conception, then theoretically, 14th Amendment protections, equal protection, should apply to the unborn.
This has been the case made by the pro-life community for years and years and years and years.
And again, the simple answer as to what does a human life constitute is again biologically incredibly simple.
An individual member of the species Homo sapien.
Human life with potential, as Robert George puts it over at Princeton.
It begins at conception, as in its own independent DNA.
It will develop into a full-grown human.
It will develop into a full-grown baby.
It will develop from an embryo into a fetus.
A human life begins at conception.
But Katonji Brown-Jackson doesn't even want to offer any sort of answer.
Because if she offers an answer, she might be held to the answer.
So instead, Roe vs. Wade is good and settled law, based on bad science that no longer applies according to pretty much everybody.
Because it makes this trimester distinction that has no real basis with regard to fetal development.
But that's good law.
Meanwhile, Ketanji Brown-Jackson cannot answer either what a woman is or what human life is.
It seems to me like these should be preconditions to sitting on the nation's highest court.
Can you answer what a woman is or what human life is?
If not, I don't see why you should get to rule on major issues concerning both women and human life.
Here's Ketanji Brown-Jackson.
Do you have a personal belief, though, about when life begins?
I have a religious view.
Religious belief?
That I set aside when I am ruling on cases.
Okay.
When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?
Well, Senator, I believe that the Supreme Court... Actually, I actually don't know the answer to that question.
I'm sorry.
Oh, she doesn't know the answer.
She doesn't know.
See, here's the thing.
I think she does know, but I think she doesn't want to say.
Again, it's stealth when it's convenient to be stealth, and it's open when it's convenient to be open.
Now, what exactly do we know about Katonji Brown-Jackson?
Well, she knows that she does sit on the board of a school that is very, very far left in orientation.
According to FoxNews.com, Jackson's questionnaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee says she's been a board of trustees member at Georgetown Day School since 2019, and a member of the Georgetown Day School community for nearly a decade.
Jackson said, quote, since becoming part of the GDS community seven years ago, Patrick and I, as her husband, have witnessed the transformative power of a rigorous, progressive education that is dedicated to fostering critical thinking, independence, and social justice.
Now, let's just be clear about this.
If you sit on the board of a school, this means you have input into the curriculum of the school.
My wife sits on the board of a school, and that means that she has input into the curriculum of the board of the school.
And if ever the curriculum began to cut directly against the values in which we believe, we would drop from the board of the school and we'd move our kids.
Because that is what parents do.
So if she's sitting on a board of a school where she's progressing, she's praising the rigorous progressive education, you have to assume that she's greenlit at least the generalized orientation of the school.
Georgetown Day School's website indicates the board of trustees is involved with executing an anti-racism and action plan, which includes reviewing and revising current language around community expectations and reviewing anti-racist work to inform potential governance changes.
The website says, We at Georgetown Day School have been engaging across the community to further define and deepen our commitments to being an anti-racist institution and staying true to our founding mission.
We have identified a path forward for the institution we want to transparently share how we have performed in meetings in meeting our commitments for the 2020-2021 school year and beyond.
Some anti-racist resources recommended by the school include Richard Delgado's Critical Race Theory, a video by Kimberly Crenshaw titled The Urgency of Intersectionality, and Peggy McIntosh's White Privilege, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.
Also on the list is Ibram X. Kendi's garbage book, How to Be an Anti-Racist.
Hey, so, yes, this is relevant.
She also has multiple times championed As reported by the Daily Wire, she moderated a Harvard Alumni Association webinar in October 2021.
The webinar discussed diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, in which Jackson asked how the university recruits and retains talented faculty of color.
She spoke at an award dinner for the Black Law Students Association at the University of Chicago in February 2021, where she lectured about how microaggressions are real, She gave a lecture in January 2020, in which she said she took inspiration from Derrick Bell, who is one of the godfathers of critical race theory.
And so she was asked about this.
Now, as we will see, the media get very angry that she was asked any of these questions.
Marsha Blackburn asked her, are you interested in injecting critical race theory into your jurisprudence?
It's funny because the left again likes to have it both ways.
The way that this works is that they will say, if you say critical race theory has been boiled down and weaponized in schools for small children, which is true, you'll say, no, no, no, it's a legal theory, guys.
It's a legal theory that they began.
It began at law schools.
It's a legal theory.
And then if March of Blackburn asks, are you going to apply this legal theory in any of your thinking?
That is also considered inappropriate.
So once again, it's all about power.
You can't ask this question and you also can't ask the converse question.
Here is Marsha Blackburn asking about critical race theory and SCOTUS jurisprudence.
You have praised the 1619 Project, which argues the U.S.
is a fundamentally racist country, and you have made clear that you believe judges must consider critical race theory when deciding how to sentence criminal defendants.
Is it your personal hidden agenda to incorporate critical race theory into our legal system?
These are answers that the American people need to know.
Well, yes.
Okay, and Ted Cruz also asked Katonji Brown-Jackson about critical race theory and her previous comments on it.
Here he was.
You described the job you do as a judge, and you said sentencing is just plain interesting because it melds together myriad types of law, criminal law, and of course constitutional law, critical race theory.
So you described in a speech to a law school what you were doing as critical race theory.
And so I guess I would ask, what did you mean by that when you gave that speech?
What I meant was that there are a number of, that slide does not show the entire laundry list of different academic disciplines that I said relate to sentencing policy.
Oh, it just relates to sentencing, but why does it relate to sentencing policy?
So yes, if the idea is these are factors that relate to sentencing policy, why is that a factor you should take into consideration?
Then, he was mocked, was Senator Cruz, for bringing up the fact that Ibram X. Kendi's book is assigned in the library over at the school where this particular judicial nominee is on the board.
An anti-racist baby, which is Ibram X. Kendi's indoctrination into critical race theory for small children.
Ibram X. Kendi, one of the great grifters and one of the least brilliant public figures of our time.
His book for small children, if you want to see my critique of that book, by the way, I believe I did one on YouTube maybe a year ago.
Here is Senator Cruz asking her about it and people on the left mock this.
Here's the rule for the left.
If you ask them a question about the dumb crap they're doing, you are the one who is mocked.
If they do dumb crap, that's just de rigueur.
If you ask them about it, this means you're bad.
Philip Bump, by the way, did the same thing at the Washington Post today.
Marsha Blackburn asked Ketanji Brown-Jackson, what is a woman?
She refuses to answer, and Philip Bump's answer is, that's a really bad question.
They do the same thing here.
So, she has, at the school, she is a board member, a book teaching small children that they are inherently racist.
And Ted Cruz asks her about it, and this means that he's asking a bad question, because how dare he?
They include a book called Anti-Racist Baby by Ibram Kendi and there are portions of this book that I find really quite remarkable.
One portion of the book says babies are taught to be racist or anti-racist.
There is no neutrality.
Another portion of the book They recommend that babies confess when being racist.
Now this is a book that is taught at Georgetown Day School to students in pre-K through second grade, so four through seven years old.
Do you agree with this book that is being taught with kids that babies are racist?
Senator, I do not believe that any child should be made to feel as though they are racist or though they are not valued or though they are less than, that they are victims, that they are oppressors.
I don't believe in any of that.
But what I will say is that when you Asked me whether or not this was taught in schools, critical race theory.
My understanding is that critical race theory as an academic theory is taught in law schools and To the extent that you were asking the question, I understood you to be addressing public schools.
Georgetown Day School, just like the religious school that Justice Barrett was on the board of, is a private school.
Okay, so apparently it's fine to teach it to private school students according to this justice.
By the way, that distinction makes no difference whatsoever between public and private when the question is, should this be taught to kids?
And for all the people on the left who are like, why is she being asked all these questions?
You'll remember that Amy Coney Barrett was asked a bunch of questions about being on the board of a private Christian school that held traditional values with regard to sexual activity.
Okay, so all of this was very bad.
In an irrational world, there is no way this person would be on the Supreme Court.
She has plenty of academic qualifications, that's fine.
She has zero qualifications to be on the Supreme Court, so long as you don't know what a woman is, believe that small children should be assigned things like anti-racist baby, and you inject critical race theory into education, and also believe, by the way, that you can't define human life.
These seem like pretty disqualifying characteristics, but I understand that's not how we do this game anymore.
The way we do this game is Democrats appoint radical Democrats, and Republicans appoint people who they think can get through.
That's pretty much all that happens at the Supreme Court level.
In a second, we'll get to what has become the most controversial portion of the questioning of Keitanji Brown-Jackson.
Believe it or not, not even her failure to announce what a woman is, despite being a historic woman.
We'll get to the accusations that she has been easy on sex offenders in her decisions for sentencing.
We'll get to that in just a moment.
So folks, if you haven't heard of my book club, now is your chance to sign up.
Last week, I took members through my analysis of A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens.
You can watch that right now at dailywire.com slash watch.
Remember, my third Thursday book club.
It's a live experience.
You get to engage with me in real time.
You can ask me questions.
You can comment on the book.
It is a blast.
We're going to be reading the best literature together.
I'm talking about everything from Russian literature to English literature to American literature.
When you sign up, you also get my notes, which is a cheat sheet to the important issues, themes, and lessons of books.
I will be sending my notes out today.
For this month's book, one of my very favorites, T.H.
White's The Once and Future King.
It's considered sort of the granddaddy of all fantasy novels.
The Once and Future King by T.H. White.
It's about Lancelot and Guinevere and Arthur.
It's just a fabulous, fabulous book.
It has a lot of really interesting lessons to it.
Sign up at thirdthursdaybookclub.com.
Get yourself a copy of The Once and Future King by T.H.
White and then sign up at thirdthursdaybookclub.com to join us and get my notes on the book.
You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So, meanwhile, the other major issue that has arisen during the Katonji Brown-Jackson hearings is the issue of her record on child pornography and the sentences for child pornographers.
So, Josh Hawley put out a bunch of statements in a case called U.S.
v. Hawkins, where she sentenced a sex offender in possession of over 600 images of child pornography to just three months in prison.
Sentencing guidelines apparently had suggested about 10 years.
She said, quote, I am willing to do that to some extent because I do think that the guideline factors are in many ways outdated and no longer adequately distinguish more serious child pornography offenders from the less serious child pornography offenders.
She said, although the guidelines charge you with having more than 600 images, the court notes that your collection at the time that you were caught was not actually as large as that seems because it consisted of 16 digital images and 17 digital movie files.
Well, no big deal.
I mean, if you just have 17 digital movies of people having sex with children, then obviously you're not that bad of a child pornographer.
That's not that big a deal.
Judge Jackson said, In your case in particular, I don't feel it is appropriate, necessarily, to increase the penalty on the basis of your use of a computer or the number of images or prepubescent victims as the guidelines require, because these circumstances exist in many cases, if not most, and don't signal an especially heinous or egregious child pornography offense.
Okay, so, Andy McCarthy has a piece over at National Review breaking this stuff down.
What he says is that this child pornography angle is actually Less of an angle than the generalized angle, which is the Ketanji Brown Jackson is super soft on crime generally.
And here's what Andrew McCarthy says to give it the sort of full fairness he's here.
He says.
I was a federal prosecutor for nearly 20 years, and ran a satellite U.S.
Attorney's Office for the last four of those in the Southern District of New York.
Child pornography increasingly became a priority for SDNY in the 90s, with the ascendancy of the internet, social media, and digital markets, which not only dramatically increased the volume of images, but made interstate facilities, over which the feds have jurisdiction, the dominant means of commerce in pornography and of soliciting minors for sexual purposes.
There is a wide variety of federal offenses gathered under the label sex offenses.
In his critique of Jackson last week, Josh Hawley tweeted he had noticed an alarming pattern when it comes to judge Jackson's treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on children.
This is a misleadingly broad claim.
Sex offenders who prey on children include deviants who rape children and those who force them into sexual acts for purposes that include prostitution and the production of pornography.
At the other end of the spectrum, sex offenders include people who have never put a hand on a child for sexual purposes, But are consumers of pornographic images, which they possess, transmit, or trade, sometimes for money, but often not?
To be sure, well-adjusted people, if they had to view these images as investigators do, would be sickened.
Still, when we talk about consumers, we are not talking about people engaged in the atrocious conduct that produced the images.
It is rational to criminalize consumption offenses because they contribute indirectly to the atrocious production of conduct.
If there were no market for the images, many fewer of them would be produced.
Yet the criminal law makes these kinds of distinctions all the time.
The offender who commits a gruesome murder is orders of magnitude more culpable And the associate who helps him get rid of the murder weapon.
So, the basic idea that McCarthy is saying is that there's been a lot of talk about the sentencing guidelines with regard to child pornography and treating somebody who sexually enslaves a child the same way as somebody who has child porn on their computer.
According to McCarthy, that's a pretty open debate within sort of legal circles.
He says, Judge Jackson's views on this matter are not only mainstream, they are correct, in my view.
Undoubtedly, Jackson is more sympathetic to criminals than I am.
If I were to judge, I'm sure I'd impose at least marginally more severe sentences than she has.
Contrary to Howley's suggestion, she appears to have followed the guidelines at the low end of the sentencing range.
But other than the fact that Congress wanted to look as though it was being tough on porn, there's no good reason for the mandatory minimum in question, and it's unjust in many cases.
Okay, so in any case, the basic idea here from McCarthy is that there's sort of kind of bipartisan need to rewrite these particular statutes.
Now, I disagree with all of that.
I think that, basically, if you want to penalize people for having images of small children in sexual positions on their computer, you go for it and you lock them up for life.
I don't care.
I really, really don't.
If you are involved in any way in the production or consumption of child pornography, you should not be in public.
You just should not.
Apparently, that is a more open debate, but the point that McCarthy makes is that Judge Jackson, her general take on criminal law is very, very loose.
He says that she's gone out of her way in order to loosen criminal statutes or in order to push loosening of criminal statutes.
In any case, Howley really pushed this a lot in the hearings.
And here is what he said.
He said, it's hard to argue the sentencing guidelines for child sex sentences are too harsh.
Now, it's true that there's been, again, bipartisan approval in terms of the child sex Sentencing for the sentencing guidelines from Republicans and Democrats to change the standards there.
But Howley, I think, correctly says, I'm not sure why that's bipartisan or why anybody should be in favor of it in the first place.
Here's a New York Times report from 2019.
I'm quoting now.
Last year, tech companies reported over 45 million online photos and videos of children being sexually abused, more than double what they found the previous year.
The report goes on to say this.
20 years ago, these online images were a problem.
Ten years ago they were an epidemic.
Now the crisis is at a breaking point.
I think it's difficult against this backdrop to argue that the sentencing guidelines are too harsh or outmoded or that we should be somehow treating child porn offenders more leniently than the guidelines recommend.
Okay, and then he starts asking her some pretty specific questions about her behavior with regard to sentencing in certain cases.
So, for example, there's one case where she apologized for giving a particular sentence to a pedophile, to a child pornography consumer.
You said to him, this is a truly difficult situation.
I appreciate that your family's in the audience.
I feel so sorry for them and for you.
And for the anguish this has caused all of you.
I feel terrible about the collateral consequences of this conviction.
And then you go on to say sex offenders are truly shunned in our society.
I'm just trying to figure out, Judge, is he the victim here, or are the victims the victims?
Okay, so Jackson answered this by talking about the sentencing guidelines, saying that the sentencing guidelines overall are too harsh.
She was talking to Lindsey Graham at the time.
On the internet, with one click, you can receive, you can distribute tens of thousands.
You can be doing this for 15 minutes, and all of a sudden, you are looking at 30, 40, 50 years in prison Good.
Good.
Absolutely good.
I hope you are.
Good.
Allow her to finish, please.
I hope you go to jail for 50 years if you're on the internet trolling for images of children and sexual exploitation.
See, you don't think that's a bad thing.
I think that's a horrible thing.
Well, I mean, he happens to be correct about all of that.
Okay, then Jackson was talking about another case in which a person got a lower sentence for possessing imagery of child pornography.
Here's her answer on that.
He presented all of his diplomas and certificates and the things that he had done and argued, consistent with what I was seeing in the record, that this particular defendant had gotten into this in a way that was, I thought, inconsistent with some of the other cases that I had seen.
Okay, so this is part of a broader In 2020, anarchists, rioters, and left-wing street militias raged across the country.
And murders increased at the fastest rate in history.
on crime. This is a point that Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas made in his questioning of Kitanji Brown-Jackson.
In 2020, anarchists, rioters, and left-wing street militias raged across the country, and murders increased at the fastest rate in history. And in the first year of the Biden administration, violent crime got even worse. It's no coincidence that this violence came as localities and states pushed to defund the police and reduce the punishment for criminals.
Thank you.
Career criminals are committing violent crimes and going free under the guise of a supposedly more equitable justice system.
Okay, now, Katonji Brown-Jackson, again, her history when it comes to criminal offenders is very, very weak.
So, for example, in one particular case, she sentenced some Black Hebrew Israelites by essentially calling them part of a vegan community.
There was some sort of decision in which she called them part of a vegan community.
Now, I can safely say that the Black Hebrew Israelites are a wildly anti-Semitic group.
They call themselves the African Hebrew Israelites, but it's not a religious community.
And apparently they're mostly just a vegan community, according to Ketanji Brown-Jackson, or at least that seemed to be the implication of what she was saying.
They call themselves the African Hebrew Israelites, but it's not a religious community.
It's a cultural community around healthy living.
And they have created a restaurant and a series of restaurants here in the Washington, D.C.
area with menus involving really, I'm told, terrific vegan foods.
That's a weird take on the black Hebrew Israelites that are vegan community.
Okay, well, anyway, the media have determined that all of these questions, from her sentencing guideline questions, to critical race theory, to what is a woman, to when does human life begin, basic, basic questions.
All of this should have been off limits, which of course was the goal.
And Joe Biden declared that he was going to put a black woman on the Supreme Court.
And then he selected a black woman.
And then if you ask the black woman any questions, it's because you're a racist and a sexist.
We can all spot the game here.
The game here is pretty obvious.
The game is that I will put up somebody who is a particularly vulnerable minority.
And if you then ask a normal question to that person, it is because you are a racist and a sexist, even if that person cannot explain why you would be a sexist since women have no definition.
So Jeffrey Toobin, who should never ever be called upon to to talk about sexism in any way, considering that he knocked up a colleague's daughter, attempted to pay her to have an abortion, and then was caught in a Zoom call f***ing off.
This person seems like the least likely person to talk about the victimization of women, Jeffrey Toobin.
Nonetheless, there he is back on CNN, spreading his hot, sticky legal journalism everywhere, and talking about how questions being asked by Josh Hawley, this is actually connected to QAnon.
People are trying to apparently get Ketanji Brown-Jackson killed.
This is the going concern among members of the media.
If you ask a tough question to a Democrat, it's because you want them assassinated.
If, however, you accuse Justice Brett Kavanaugh with no evidence whatsoever of being a gang rapist, then that is just because you're doing your job as somebody trying to vet for the Supreme Court.
Here is Jeffrey Toobin, who has put it away, at least for this clip.
This is about appealing to the QAnon audience, this cult that is a big presence in Republican Party politics now, that is where Senator Hawley is trying to ingratiate himself with that group and run for president with their support.
Oh, that's what it is.
Meanwhile, an MSNBC guest did the same.
It's a dog whistle.
It's all dog whistling.
Dog whistles, whistles of the dog, dog whistly, McWhistleface.
That's so tiresome.
The entire media just sweeping into defense for Katonji Brown-Jackson, who again is not performing especially poorly for a Democratic nominee and also is not performing particularly well.
She's performing exactly as you would expect a woke Democrat to perform when asked to pretend to be a judge in front of a committee of people.
That is, or asked to pretend to be a judicial nominee for the Supreme Court.
A neutral arbiter in front of other senators.
Here is an MSNBC guest.
It's a dog whistle.
To hold up books that he claimed are part of the curriculum at Georgetown Day, I found to be a really deeply offensive line of questioning and clearly a dog whistle in terms of racial politics.
Oh, it's a dog whistle, don't you see?
So just to get this straight, asking Amy Coney Barrett about her religious beliefs, not a dog whistle.
Pretending Brett Kavanaugh is a gang rapist, not a dog whistle.
It's a dog whistle if you ask her about the books that appear at the school where she's a board member.
There's an editorial board piece today from the Washington Post.
It is titled, quote, Republicans boast they have not pulled a Kavanaugh.
In fact, they've treated Jackson worse.
Excuse me.
Are you kidding me?
They've treated Jackson worse?
I'm going to need an explanation.
Did somebody accuse her of drugging and raping somebody without any evidence?
And then did the entire media go on a search to find other people who could falsely accuse her of rape?
Did I miss that part?
Was she asked about boofing in her high school yearbook?
These people are so high on their own supply, it's absolutely unbelievable.
The echo chamber is so thick out there.
It's like Under the Dome by Stephen King, this echo chamber.
It's how thick that echo chamber is.
Nothing comes in and nothing comes out.
Here's CNN's Abby Phillip doing the same thing.
If you ask about critical race theory to Ketanji Brown-Jackson, who has lectured multiple times and made reference to critical race theorists, that's, you know, that is not, it's not even important.
Why are you even bothering to ask about these things?
So the left plays this game.
Number one, how dare you ask about it?
Number two, it's not even important.
It's not even important to find out whether she knows what a woman is, or when human life begins, or whether her legal theory is infused with the teachings of Derrick Bell.
None of that is important.
What's really important is that she's a black woman, damn it, even if she can't define woman.
That's the important thing.
So shut up and just confirm we're all ready.
How dare you ask a question, sir?
She answered all the questions, and at the end of the day, it was Ted Cruz holding up pictures of a picture book, and I think that in the context of a Supreme Court nomination, that just seems sort of below the line of what is important in the big scheme of things.
Oh yeah, it's not important at all if her critical race theory beliefs start to infuse her judicial beliefs.
No, no, no.
Meanwhile, NBC's Cynthia Allen went so far as to say, this woman is a pragmatist.
She is dead center of the political spectrum, which is exactly why Joe Biden would pick her because he's looking for centrist judges.
That's, I mean, that was the record for the person she's replacing, Stephen Breyer, who is a consistent Democratic vote, the least influential justice in modern American history.
Just a solid Democrat vote for pretty much everything, did not write a single important decision his entire career.
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter.
and is backed by Demand Justice, a radical left-wing group.
But don't worry, she's a pragmatist who is dead center according to, you know, this is why the entire Democratic Party has moved to the left, because they actually believe that wild leftism is dead center.
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter.
She's a pragmatist.
She's right smack dab in the middle.
And she was very effective in communicating that today.
Hmm.
Yeah, right in the center.
Wow.
And she's effective.
And then, of course, we have Jimmy Kimmel, great legal theorist, the woke pope of our times, Jimmy Kimmel.
And he just cannot believe that people would launch gratuitous attacks on Kitanji Brown-Jackson.
How dare any... I mean, Jimmy Kimmel, a man who's dressed in blackface, he has never launched gratuitous attacks on anyone.
It's not like his entire show is just a series of gratuitous attacks that make no sense.
But he is very offended when people make gratuitous attacks on judicial nominees.
Here we go.
Despite the gratuitous attacks, Judge Jackson's been very cool under pressure.
They don't have anything real to criticize her.
They've been trying to portray her as being soft on crime, which is interesting because she's been endorsed by both the International Association of Police Chiefs and the Fraternal Order of Police and the Band Police.
Even Sting is in her corner.
Wow.
That's some good joke right there.
Did you hear the joke where it was like the band police because of Sting?
Wow.
He's so good at dehumoring, man.
He is such a humorist.
The humor and all.
The laughter.
What a comedic genius.
Here's the thing.
The reason that the left believes Ketanji Brown-Jackson is dead center is because they live in this little tiny bubble.
And in this little tiny bubble, everything that is the most radical is the mainstream opinion.
And this is why I take, for example, what's going on at Disney.
So Disney has had a walkout, okay?
And if you read the media, you would imagine that thousands upon thousands of Disney employees have been walking out of their places of employ.
There are 200,000 employees at Disney.
200,000.
Here's a little video of Disney employees walking around the block at their Burbank headquarters.
This is like 60 people, maybe.
Chanting, say gay in the middle of Burbank, California.
Yes.
Such heroism.
Wow.
Say gay.
First of all, not illegal to say gay in the state of Florida.
Second of all, not illegal to say gay in schools in the state of Florida.
Third of all, illegal to indoctrinate kids in sexual orientation and gender identity at the age of six in the state of Florida.
But, here is the point.
How many people do you think, if you read the media, how many people out of 200,000 do you think walked out during this massive Disney walkout?
Earth-shattering.
So earth-shattering that Bob Chapek at Disney had to run screaming from his own apolitical position on what particular states do with their educational systems.
By the way, bills that are widely approved by parents I mean, according to the poll data, I will just point out here, 60% of Disney's own employees, when told about what this bill includes, support the bill in Florida, which does not say anywhere in it the word gay and is not, in fact, a Don't Say Gay bill.
The Daily Wire, we did our own poll on this with a polling firm.
We found 67% of Americans said Disney was wrong to oppose the bill, and 60% of Disney's own consumers backed the legislation's main provisions.
So not a majority of Disney employees, a majority of their consumers.
So they're idiots.
Okay, Disney, for embracing this cause.
How many employees walked out?
Now you might imagine if 10,000 employees walked out.
10,000.
That was still 10,000 employees.
It'd be about 5% of the entire Disney workforce.
Okay, not...
Not a huge percentage.
If 10,000 walked out.
And if they caved to those 10,000 employees, you might say, well, you know, stupid move, but you can sort of see why 5% is a fairly critical mass of your employee base.
And for every person who walked out, maybe there were two people who were sympathetic.
So maybe it's actually 30,000 people.
Okay.
How about if I told you that 70 people in Burbank walked out?
70.
And that across the nation, it was probably grand total, a few hundred, maybe 300.
If I told you that it was like, let's say, let's go high-end.
Let's say it was 500 employees.
Okay, 500 employees.
So, what would that amount to?
That would amount to, let's see, 0.25% of a percentage point.
Okay, that would amount to nothing.
It is a rounding error.
A rounding error in the Disney employment base.
And yet, they decided that they were going to cave to this.
Because again, in their bubble, this matters.
In their magical little bubble, where the media dictate terms, this matters.
And what's amazing is how many people are falling victim to this.
It really is incredible.
I mean, people in Republican states.
So for example, Utah's governor, Spencer Cox, he just refused to sign a bill that barred male athletes from playing with females.
This makes him the second Republican governor in two days to reject such legislation.
Republican legislators in Utah are going to override the veto.
Cox said in a statement that while politically it would be much easier and better for me to simply sign the bill, he chose to veto it because he tried to do what I feel is the right thing regardless of the consequences.
And on Monday, Governor Eric Holcomb of Indiana, a Republican, vetoed a similar bill, saying it would likely have been challenged in the court and would not have solved any pressing issue.
Okay, the actual reality here.
is that both of these governors are weak-kneed.
And because they are weak-kneed, they're not protecting girls and women in their state.
Period.
Because they have decided that they would rather be held hostage by a small group of people who are very, very loud than do what's in the interest of their own constituents.
And it is because of this sort of cowardice that you see things like the question of what is a woman bleeding up to the Supreme Court?
Remember, everything that happens at the Supreme Court level starts off in law schools.
Really interesting piece over at Barry Weiss's Substack by a guy named Aaron Sebarium.
Aaron Sebarium is a staff writer at the Washington Free Beacon, and he has a piece talking about the infusion of our entire legal education system with wokeness.
He says, In 2017, the super-lawyer David Boies was at a corporate retreat at the Ritz-Carlton in Key Biscayne, Florida, hosted by his law firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner.
Boies was a liberal legend.
He had represented Al Gore in Bush vs. Gore in 2003.
In 2013, he had successfully defended gay marriage in California.
On the last day of the retreat, Boies gave a talk in the hotel ballroom to 100 or so attorneys, according to a lawyer present.
Afterward, Boies' colleagues were invited to ask questions.
Many of the questions were yawners.
Then, an associate in her late 20s stood up.
She said there were lawyers at the firm who were uncomfortable with boys representing disgraced movie maker Harvey Weinstein, and she wanted to know whether boys would pay them severance so they could quit and focus on applying for jobs at other firms.
Boys said no.
When congressional Republicans used to attack attorneys for representing Gitmo detainees, the entire left rallied around them.
But that's not how the New Associates saw Boyd's choice to represent Weinstein.
They thought there were certain people you just did not represent, people so hateful and reprehensible that helping them made you complicit.
The adversarial legal system, in which both sides of a dispute are represented vigorously by attorneys with a vested interest in winning, is at the heart of the American constitutional order.
Since time immemorial, law schools have tried to prepare their students to take part in that system, says Aaron Siberian.
Not so much anymore.
Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality.
The imperatives of race, gender, and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law.
So, again, everything that you're seeing at the Supreme Court level with Ketanji Brown-Jackson has bled over to every area of America's culture, and all of these corporations, these woke corporations, are falling prey to it.
And so are Republican governors.
By the way, not in Florida, where Ron DeSantis recognized Emma Wyant as the winner of the NCAA Swimming Championship.
She, of course, is from Sarasota.
She won the silver.
He says she's the only actual woman who won.
Good for DeSantis.
All the rest of these people who decide to take the cowardly way out because they're afraid of small minorities of people who believe absolutely incredibly stupid garbage with no basis to support it.
All those people deserve what they get politically.
Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with an additional hour of content.
In the meantime, go check out The Michael Moll Show that's available right now.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
Shapiro, this is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Executive Producer Jeremy Boring.
Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
And our Production Manager is Paweł Łydowski.
Associate Producer Bradford Carrington.
Editing is by Adam Sajewicz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and Makeup is by Fabiola Christina.
Production Assistant Jessica Crand.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Supreme Court nominee Katonji Jackson praises the radical African Hebrew-Israelite cult, Joe Biden promotes a new world order, and Russia wants to take back Alaska.