Asked by Senator Marsha Blackburn during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s recent hearings whether she could define the word “woman,” Judge Katanji Brown Jackson replied, “Can I provide a definition? No, I can’t. I’m not a biologist.”

That's an interesting standard. Can Judge Jackson define a human being? Can she affirm that she is one? Apparently not. Only a biologist could do that — or a woke progressive liberal, and zie would be wrong. The Judge may possess certain credentials that would make her a worthy addition to the Court. Yet intellectual honesty, common sense, independence, and...

Asked by Senator Marsha Blackburn during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s recent hearings whether she could define the word “woman,” Judge Katanji Brown Jackson replied, “Can I provide a definition? No, I can’t. I’m not a biologist.”

That’s an interesting standard. Can Judge Jackson define a human being? Can she affirm that she is one? Apparently not. Only a biologist could do that — or a woke progressive liberal, and zie would be wrong. The Judge may possess certain credentials that would make her a worthy addition to the Court. Yet intellectual honesty, common sense, independence, and moral courage do not seem to be among them.

A few members of the press took notice of her idiotic response, as did a sizable number of the Twitterati. This flurry of disapproval having had approximately the lifespan of a mayfly; it did not reappear in the media the next day.

That is a disgrace to the press, to the American legal profession, and to the political class. Commentators have already noted that whomever the Senate confirms to the Court will be a black woman. That’s because President Biden promised during the 2020 campaign that no one failing to match that description would be considered qualified for the job — the new “no Irish need apply.” Additionally, because among the various cases making their way toward the Supreme Court are several having to do with the constitutionality of racial preferences in university admissions and hiring policies, one of the nine votes by the Court would be cast by a person who owed her seat to the facts of her color and her sex.

Since then, another identity politics issue has risen into the headlines, this one concerning the question of whether a man who has been surgically and chemically altered in the image of a woman and put into a sporting competition against women is really a woman at all. The stakes in resolving this question are enormously high, setting as they do progressive ideology against the sole institution — sports — that holds contemporary American society together.

Given the towering importance and significance of this issue, it is an absolute certainty that it will come before the Supreme Court sooner rather than later. And one of the nine people who will consider the case will be a woman who admits that she is unable to say — and, in fact, doesn’t know — what a woman really is.

The obvious conclusion is that Jackson is a fool, an ignoramus, or an ideologue — or all three. I suspect that she is neither of the first two, and knows full well how to define a woman. She is, then, simply a liar, a captive of the culture of progressive lies. Since she made her statement under oath, that makes her a perjurer as well.

So case closed. The Judiciary Committee now has a clear and obvious duty to perform, and it must perform it as soon as the hearing is adjourned.