It's now conventional wisdom that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is out of her depth sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Whether it's fair to call her a "DEI hire" is a matter of some perspective, but even a layman's observation of her opinions and dissents, as well as her bizarre questions during oral arguments betray a lack of professional gravitas that is impossible to overlook.
That could be how Brown-Jackson stumbled her way into making a point she surely didn't mean to make during oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
Tipping her hand that she sees little problem with using tax dollars to finance the teaching of unscientific gender ideology in public schools, Brown-Jackson dropped this verbal mess:
The parent can choose to put their kid elsewhere…You don't have to send your kid to public school…I'm struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with. You have a choice…You can homeschool them.
Most commentators and observers are, understandably, standing slack jawed at Brown-Jackson's apparent belief that teaching objectively false political propaganda (that a kid can change his/her gender just by wishing it so and playing dress-up) is the public school's prerogative.
Let's also note a few other things:
Never before have left-wingers believed that low-income parents can just access expensive private schools or make the decision to homeschool without extreme burden.
It is the height of logical inconsistency to believe that parents can and should just choose to go somewhere else when they encounter ideological opposition at a compulsory service like school, but that a gay couple shouldn't be asked to go somewhere else when they encounter ideological opposition at a voluntary service like a bakery.
All that said, I think it's important to acknowledge that Brown-Jackson's backwardness at least has signaled progressive retreat and submission to long-held conservative advocacy for school choice. It would have been a fascinating thing to be a fly on the wall of NEA headquarters, or AFT head Randi Weingarten's office when they heard one of their justices powerfully endorsing school choice as a blessing to America's pluralistic society.
Obviously, I don't entertain the delusion that Brown-Jackson will apply her arguments consistently and appropriately moving forward should a school choice case arrive on the Supreme Court docket.
Sadly, that's not how it works for ideologically driven activists in black robes, cosplaying as serious jurists.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Not the Bee or any of its affiliates.
