Trump: If Judge Jackson Can’t Say What a Woman Is How Can She Say What the Constitution Is?

Donald Trump has blasted Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson saying if she is unable to provide the definition of a ‘woman’, she would not be able to interpret the plain language of the Constitution.

“How on earth can Judge Jackson say what the Constitution is if she can’t say what a woman is” he said

BYPASS THE CENSORS

You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

The former president made his comments while speaking to thousands of supporters during a ‘Save America’ rally in Commerce, Georgia on Saturday night

During his speech Trump added that “a party that’s unwilling to admit that men and women are biologically different in defiance of all scientific and human history is a party that should not be anywhere near the levers of power in the United States.”

Breitbart reports: Trump was reacting to Judge Jackson’s bizarre refusal to define the word “woman” in her confirmation hearings last week at the Senate Judiciary Committee to define the word “woman” when asked to do so by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

Though Judge Jackson claimed to be something of an originalist, who looks to the plain meaning of words in the Constitution and the law before making her own interpretation, her refusal to define a common word suggested otherwise.

Trump told his audience:

The left has become so extreme that we now have a justice being nominated to the Supreme Court who testified, under oath, that she cannot say what a woman is. If she can’t even say what a woman is, how on earth can she be trusted to say what the Constitution is?
[Applause]
And a party that’s unwilling to admit that men and women are biologically different, in defiance of all scientific and human history, is a party that should not be anywhere near the levers of power in the United States of America.
[Cheers]

Judge Jackson told Sen. Blackburn that she could not define “woman” because she is not a biologist, though the likelier reason was to preserve fluidity in her opinion in the event that she ruled on cases involving transgenderism.