(Crankers) Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was mocked on social media as a “DEI hire” after she compared banning sex changes for children to banning interracial marriages. Obviously, a ban on a type of marriage is not even close to cutting off the genitals of a child, so the Internet went crazy on KBJ.
Here’s the video to watch, with the comments from many people below:
Greg Price started the conversation with this: Ketanji Brown Jackson just compared bans on sex changes for kids to bans on interracial marriage.
Followed by these comments that were very popular and to the point:
Me: This is what happens when you let DEI hires into the supreme court.
Salty Texan: There’s not a more ignorant or low IQ to have ever sat on that bench. What a dumb slob
Matt Gaetz: This is just embarrassing for the Court
Collin Rugg: Yes, because banning a white person from marrying a black person is the same thing as cutting off a 10-year-old’s gen*tals.
George: I suddenly believe in term limits for SCOTUS. EWWW
Bad Hombre: She’s not a biologist. She should recuse herself from this case.
Washingtons Ghost: This person has no business being a Supreme Court judge
Shawn Farash: How can she comment on this when she doesn’t know what a woman is due to not being a biologist?
Join the conversation on Greg Price’s post here or the comments below.
10 Comments
I think the comparison Justice Jackson made requires a deeper understanding of civil rights history to fully grasp. While the contexts are vastly different, the underlying principle might be about the protection of individual rights. Thoughts?
You’re on to something, CharlieD. The legal precedents regarding civil rights often encompass broader principles that might apply to both cases in a general sense. Interesting point.
Wow, didn’t expect to see a comparison like that. Not sure if it’s the same, but I get the point about fighting for rights, maybe?
This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard. Comparing apples and oranges much?
Right, because history will definitely view these two issues as absolutely identical. Can’t wait for that chapter in the textbooks.
Justice Jackson’s comparison illuminates the broader struggle for human rights. It’s a call to examine our societal biases and protect the vulnerable. Kudos for opening up a critical dialogue.
Interesting comparison from Justice Jackson. It’s worth dissecting further to understand the nuances of both issues. Not a black and white topic by any means.
Ah, another day, another controversial hot take. Let’s break out the popcorn and watch the internet lose its mind over this one.
Has anyone considered the philosophical implications of comparing these two issues? It begs the question of where we draw the line on personal autonomy and societal norms. Frank, can we delve deeper into this aspect?
An excellent point. It’s a nuanced conversation that involves ethics, law, and personal freedom. The balance is delicate and worth exploring.