Apparently the supreme court pick can’t define a woman because she’s not a biologist. I would have followed up with, You’ve stated you’re a black woman, but just said you can’t define what a woman is, please explain why you are a woman.
Are you really going to say that only a vet can define what a dog is? That only a contractor can define what a house is? Peak idiocy.
How can you define something as complex as the constitution when you can’t even define something as basic as what is a woman?
And honestly, that wasn’t the only issue, perhaps most buzz worthy, but all the answers were just… what? But she’s… – (Wait! I’m not a biologist!) – *IT’S going to be the next SCJ because… reasons. Move over Sotomayor, you’ve got competition for most clueless SCJ.
If only the Supreme Court stuck to their charge and simply interpreted the constitution and threw back anything not explicitly defined back to Congress and force them to pass legislation. Instead they are, in many ways, our true (unelected) rulers. Not the way it was designed and the first deviation from the charge should have ended in impeachment and removal. If only an explicit path to removal had been written into the constitution and not just the vague “good behaviour” clause.
