Ketanji Brown Jackson's tries to justify child abuse on equal protection grounds

 This is that same Dumbass that don't know what a woman is

It’s long been clear that Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a formidably stupid woman. And when I say stupid, I don’t just mean “leftist.” Justice Elana Kagan, for example, is a leftist, but she has an excellent brain hiding behind those bad values. Jackson, on the other hand, has a marginal intellect. She demonstrated this again today during oral arguments before the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that bans child mutilation.

Just a decade or so ago, this case would have been a no-brainer because children have always been protected as a special class. We recognize that children’s immature brains mean that they are incredibly bad at assessing risk and have no real understanding of long-term consequences. When they’re very young, they’re unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, which is why we have an entire culture built around Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Additionally, children’s fund of knowledge is remarkably small, which means they have no wisdom on which to draw. When they reach a conclusion, it’s based upon the information of that very second, combined with their emotional response.

We also recognize that, sadly, some children are unfortunate to fall into the clutches of stupid or evil adults. These adults can be their parents, relatives, teachers, or people selling goods and services for profit.

For these reasons, the law has always worked to protect children from their immaturity and lack of wisdom, and from their vulnerability to bad adults. To that end, we have all sorts of laws protecting children from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, pornography, tattooing, suntan parlors, executing contracts, consenting to sex, etc.

We also protect against physical child abuse, whether beating or starving a child. It’s very unlikely that a government would allow a child to have its foot bound in the ancient Chinese fashion, no matter the cultural arguments that an adult caregiver made.

The Supreme Court has recognized this special status. In 1982’s New York v. Ferber, the Court held that pornographers cannot hide behind the First Amendment when it comes to child pornography:

It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State's interest in "safeguarding the physical and psychological [458 U.S. 747, 757]   well-being of a minor" is "compelling." Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 607 (1982). "A democratic society rests, for its continuance, upon the healthy, well-rounded growth of young people into full maturity as citizens." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 168 (1944). Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected rights.

The Court held that this is especially true when it comes to sexual exploitation: “The prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of children constitutes a government objective of surpassing importance.” To the extent that children cannot reasonably consent to chemical and surgical mutilation aimed at destroying their core sexual being, that is a form of “sexual exploitation and abuse” that requires government protection.

Bottom line: Children are special. That’s why the Tennessee legislature passed a law saying that, within Tennessee’s borders, children cannot be given chemicals or hormones or have any type of surgery that will affect that child’s natural and biological sexual development.

Naturally, the so-called “transgender” lobby could not let the law stand. It sued (of course), and now the case is before the Supreme Court. Arguing on behalf of the child abusers and mutilators (because that is what they are) is an “it” person (a woman who’s taken hormones to give herself facial hair and may well have cut off her breasts). She contends that a two-year-old knows whether it’s “transgender”:

 

 

(Let me reiterate my contention that the most common-sense way to treat gender dysphoria is to give people hormones aligned with their biological sex. If estrogen makes a boy feel girlish, it should certainly make a girl feel girlish.)

Sadly, it’s not just the “transgender” crowd that’s departed from reality. Justice Jackson, the woman who famously declared that she had no idea what a woman is, has decided that there’s no difference between mutilating children (a very profitable business in the medical world) and adults marrying people with different skin colors. (And you’ll probably notice, as I did, that Jackson’s speech patterns are those of a dimwitted Valley Girl.)

(In the second tweet, I believe he meant “Jackson” doubles down.)

What Jackson is saying is complete nonsense, and throwing around legal phrases and case precedent and trying to pack child abuse into the garb of equal protection does not help. This is gibberish, which, ironically, makes it harder to challenge than would be the case if her argument had a logical universe in which it made sense. Suffice it to say that there is a difference between the horrors of racial discrimination and adults making decisions about their lives, on the one hand, and mutilating children’s bodies, on the other hand. 

Tennessee’s attorney made a valiant effort to oppose these Bizarro World arguments, but it’s always difficult for the sane to argue against the insane. They’re coming from two very different places. I do hope that, somewhere else, he got on the record the fact that (a) children are different from adults, making the standards different, and (b) there’s no such thing as transgenderism.

Thankfully, Justice Alito was there to provide some logic and sanity. (And let me say that he and Clarence Thomas must be saints to work with Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan.)

(Alito could also have added that leftists have suppressed evidence showing that these so-called “gender affirming” treatments don’t work.)

I think that the Supreme Court’s sane, constitutional justices will side with Tennessee, although Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the horrific Bostock decision, could be a wild card. However, the fact that this case even made it to the Supreme Court and that we must hold our breaths hoping for a good outcome, is one more reason to be grateful Trump is heading for the White House. If Harris had the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice, that person would be cut from the same cloth as Justice Jackson or, if possible, be even worse.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/12/ketanji_brown_jackson_s_tries_to_justify_child_abuse_on_equal_protection_grounds.html