In her column " Why couldn't Ketanji define word woman?" Roxane Salonen delivers some supposed reasons and a finger wagging admonishment of her reply "I'm not a biologist." I'd like to propose a possible explanation for Judge Brown-Jackson's response.
I did a quick search of "gotcha!" questions Amy, Brett and Neil went through. First thing I noticed was Amy, Brett, and Neil were seldom, if ever, addressed solely by their personal first name in articles like this. Whatever that means. I wonder if Judge Brown-Jackson also notices. I think it has something to do with some hidden code called a "cat-call" or something that gets a certain group all riled up. But I digress.
I applaud Brown-Jackson for maintaining her composure by taking a breath and pausing. Demonstrating thoughtful and measured discernment of what perhaps this particular question was really all about. And then responding with the most brief, yet truthful scientific response "I am not a biologist" knowing full well an answer to this particular group's satisfaction simply did not exist.
I respectfully invite Salonen to offer some definitions of "woman" that would have caused the committee to rise to their feet and burst out in applause.
At least Judge Brown-Jackson didn't lose her cool, burst, into tears and shout at the interview committee. Can you imagine a Supreme Court nominee doing that and how the nominating party would have reacted?
ADVERTISEMENT
Bernie Erickson lives in Fargo.
This letter does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.
The Trust Project
