I know it sounds crazy to say in our modern era, but the federal judiciary was little more than an afterthought to the Founding Fathers who designed our constitutional system.
Thomas Jefferson, the same guy who penned a fairly scorching list of grievances against unaccountable, tyrannical government, entitled the Declaration of Independence, called the federal judiciary the "least dangerous" branch.
Well, Thomas Jefferson never met Ketanji Brown Jackson or Sonia Sotomayor.
I'm assured that if he had, the third president might rethink his comfort level with unelected, black-robed lawyers, being able to operate as an oligarchy, legislating, vetoing, and dictating from the bench.
As dangerous as unaccountable judicial tyranny is in any era, there has at least always persisted the reassuring belief that those seated on the "highest court in the land" were intellectual, informed, and sensible. Obviously there have been questionable characters in the history of Supreme Court justices, but even those maintained a semblance of sagacity.
That simply cannot be said of either Jackson or Sotomayor who, despite carving out a reputation for talking nearly twice as much as their colleagues, have revealed themselves to be intellectual lightweights at best, imprudent ideologues at worst.
Yesterday's oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, the case where the Biden Administration is fighting to overturn Tennessee's ban on child mutilation and sex change surgeries, provided the latest evidence of the duo's impoverished understanding and acumen.
First, Justice Sotomayor, attempting to downplay the significance of mutilating the bodies of young people, likened the risk associated with such procedures to "taking an aspirin."
I'm assuming that the esteemed justice just got tongue tied towards the end of her statement there, given that it didn't make any sense. But before that, Justice Sotomayor made it very clear that she sees the "risk of harm" in permanently butchering a 14-year-old child's genitals to be no greater than the "risk of harm" in handing the same child an aspirin.
Not to be outdone, Justice Brown Jackson had a precious moment of her own, successfully tying the issue of race when she produced this race-baiting analysis:
Again, it defies belief, but here is a duly appointed and confirmed justice of the United States Supreme Court who apparently believes the act of banning a white person from marrying a black person is comparable to slicing off the private parts of 12-year-old girls. Of course, Brown-Jackson is the justice who was infamously unable, under questioning, to even offer a definition for what a woman is in the first place.
One can't identify a woman. The other believes treating children like a Mr. or Mrs. Potato Head is good practice.
I can't say this any other way. These are not competent minds. These are not serious people.
For her part, Justice Elena Kagan will likely vote along with Brown-Jackson and Sotomayor, having sworn allegiance to the progressive faith and all the macabre child mutilating fruit it produces. But credit Kagan for at least having the wherewithal to keep her mouth largely shut during oral arguments. She, unlike her liberal cohorts, knows how out of the mainstream her position is. She has likely read enough of the research literature to know that the whole transgender agenda is a self-conflicting, self-contradictory morass of gimmicky pseudoscience. It's one thing to vote for it. It's another to open your mouth and put yourself on the record saying incredibly ignorant things.
But that's where we are now thanks to Presidents Obama and Biden.
Just imagine if either had been presented with opportunities to fill additional vacancies on the Supreme Court.
