The Ben Shapiro Show - Biden’s Female SCOTUS Nominee Doesn’t Know What A Woman Is | Ep. 1459

00:00:00.000 Katonji Brown Jackson says she's a neutral arbiter of the law, but also refuses to define the word woman.

00:00:06.000 And the media object to senators asking Jackson very, very, very basic questions.

00:00:11.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:11.000 This is the Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:18.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.

00:00:21.000 Privacy is a right, not a privilege.

00:00:22.000 Defend your rights at expressvpn.com.

00:00:25.000 Slash Ben.

00:00:26.000 Get to all the news in just one moment.

00:00:27.000 First, inflation still out of control.

00:00:29.000 I know, that's a lot of Kitanji Brown Jackson talk right now.

00:00:32.000 But your wallet is still screaming. 0.99

00:00:33.000 And this is why you need to make sure you're not spending too much money on dumb nonsense. 0.86

00:00:37.000 Like, for example, that cell phone bill from Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. 0.92

00:00:40.000 You are paying for their thousands of retail stores across the country you never go to.

00:00:44.000 Stop paying for those added perks you never use.

00:00:45.000 Pure Talk won't charge you for any of that.

00:00:47.000 Instead, they give you killer 5G coverage on the same 5G network as one of the big guys for about half the cost.

00:00:53.000 The average family is saving over $800 a year.

00:00:55.000 So what exactly is your excuse?

00:00:57.000 I made the switch.

00:00:58.000 You can keep your number, keep your phone, or get huge discounts on the latest iPhones and Androids.

00:01:02.000 Get unlimited talk, text, 6 gigs of data for just $30 a month.

00:01:06.000 And hey, if you still want that unlimited data, you can get that, and you will still save a fortune over the other guys.

00:01:10.000 Head on over to PureTalk.com, shop for the plan that's right for you.

00:01:13.000 They have a 30-day risk-free guarantee, so you literally have nothing to lose.

00:01:16.000 Go to PureTalk.com, enter promo code SHAPIRO, you'll save 50% off your very first month of coverage.

00:01:22.000 That is PureTalk.com, promo code SHAPIRO.

00:01:24.000 PureTalk is simply smarter wireless.

00:01:27.000 Get the same great coverage, but you're gonna be saving hundreds of dollars a year.

00:01:29.000 PureTalk.com, promo code SHAPIRO.

00:01:32.000 Well, it seems that there are a lot of qualifications to be a Supreme Court nominee.

00:01:36.000 You have to have gone to, presumably, an Ivy League school or something like an Ivy League school.

00:01:40.000 You probably have to have been on law review, maybe clerked for a Supreme Court justice.

00:01:44.000 And also, you're supposed to be able to define basic words and also know basic logic.

00:01:48.000 So, if somebody in a Senate hearing were to ask you, what is 2 plus 2, and you, the nominee, were to say, I am no mathematician, I'm not.

00:01:56.000 I can't answer that question.

00:01:57.000 I am no mathematician.

00:01:58.000 This should be immediately disqualifying.

00:02:00.000 If somebody were to say to a Supreme Court nominee, the typical human being, how many fingers does the typical human being have?

00:02:07.000 And the person said, I can't answer that.

00:02:09.000 I am not a doctor.

00:02:10.000 I can't tell you how many fingers a typical human being has.

00:02:13.000 This would be automatically disqualifying because here should be the rule. 1.00

00:02:17.000 If a two-year-old could answer the question and you cannot, this means that you are either an idiot or you're being deliberately idiotic in order to pander to the political flavor of the month. 0.99

00:02:26.000 And this is what happened at the Supreme Court hearing for Katonji Brown-Jackson, who is historic because she is the first black female nominee. 1.00

00:02:34.000 We know that she's black because she's a black person. 0.98

00:02:36.000 We know that she's female because, well, As it turns out, we may not know that she's a female because she doesn't know that she's a female because, of course, she is not a biologist.

00:02:45.000 I bring this up because there is this widespread meme that has gained purchase on the left that Supreme Court nominees have to answer zero questions.

00:02:52.000 And in fact, the goal of a Supreme Court nomination hearing is to never answer a question.

00:02:56.000 This is true politically.

00:02:58.000 It is true that when you ask a Supreme Court nominee a question, ever since the Robert Bork hearings, the idea is that every nominee is going to evade and not answer questions and simply say, well, I can't say anything about that because that specific case has not come up before me.

00:03:11.000 And if they're asked about precedent, they're supposed to say, well, you know, that is precedent.

00:03:15.000 They're supposed to just describe things as they are, not as how they would rule on them.

00:03:19.000 And the reason for that is because they don't want anyone to recognize what it is they're going to do.

00:03:22.000 So every nominee is a stealth nominee, right and left.

00:03:25.000 They are all stealth nominees.

00:03:27.000 Unless you're on the left, here's the thing.

00:03:29.000 If you're on the left, you're not that much of a stealth nominee.

00:03:32.000 Because if you're on the left, the core assumption in our culture and in our jurisprudence is that we will simply allow you to do whatever the hell you want.

00:03:40.000 If you are a person on the right, and you are asked a simple question like, do you believe that Roe vs. Wade is a bad piece of jurisprudence?

00:03:47.000 You're never ever supposed to say, yes, it's a bad piece of jurisprudence, even though everyone right, left and center agrees. 0.52

00:03:53.000 If you've actually read the decision, it is a crap decision that has no basis in the Constitution, in the law or in biology.

00:03:58.000 But you're not supposed to say that because that might give away your position on what you're going to do with Roe versus Wade. 0.74

00:04:03.000 If you're on the left, however, you're supposed to just say flat out Roe versus Wade is not only a brilliant piece of jurisprudence, it is precedent.

00:04:09.000 It is binding precedent and it will never go away.

00:04:10.000 And this is considered de rigueur.

00:04:12.000 Well, this is the thing about being on the left.

00:04:14.000 You're a stealth candidate when it comes to an inordinate number of things that the right is also stealthy on, when it comes to how you'd rule on administrative law, when it comes to how you'd rule on 10 years ago gay marriage. 0.98

00:04:24.000 However, when it comes to the crucial issues of the day, if you're on the left, you can signal as much as you want because the media will just cover your ass and pretend that you're not supposed to answer questions on things like, what is a woman? 0.83

00:04:35.000 Okay, so, Ketanji Brown Jackson's hearing started off a couple of days ago. 0.78

00:04:38.000 And they start off with her as the stealth candidate.

00:04:40.000 She started off in the same way that every other nominee starts off by praising America and sounding frankly just like Amy Coney Barrett when she was given her nomination hearing.

00:04:48.000 So here's Ketanji Brown-Jackson talking about her family and the nation and sounding frankly indistinguishable from any conservative Republican on her family and the country.

00:04:57.000 When I was born here in Washington, my parents were public school teachers.

00:05:02.000 And to express both pride in their heritage and hope for the future, they gave me an African name, Kitanji Onyeka, which they were told means lovely one.

00:05:17.000 My parents taught me that unlike the many barriers that they had had to face growing up, my path was clearer.

00:05:26.000 So that if I worked hard and I believed in myself in America, I could do anything or be anything I wanted to be.

00:05:36.000 Like so many families in this country, they worked long hours and sacrificed to provide their children every opportunity to reach their God-given potential.

00:05:47.000 My parents have been married for almost 54 years, and they're here with me today.

00:05:52.000 I cannot possibly thank them enough for everything they've done for me.

00:05:57.000 I love you, Mom and Dad.

00:05:59.000 Okay, so again, every nominee gets—I mean, she sounds like a conservative Republican. 1.00

00:06:04.000 Only in a country like this one could somebody who looks like me become the person on the highest court in the land.

00:06:09.000 with my life story ends up with this kind of success. Which sounds indistinguishable from say Tim Scott or maybe Coney Barrett or from anybody else who has minority status in the United States who has gained extraordinary access to power. And then Jackson did what she is supposed to do, again this is all the self-candidate kind of stuff, where she says that she's going to be a neutral arbiter. Now remember, every democrat who's ever been appointed to the Supreme Court says they'll be a neutral arbiter and then they're a reliable vote for the left.

00:06:33.000 Katonji Brown-Jackson, who's backed by Demand Justice, will be a reliable vote for the left.

00:06:37.000 Everybody knows this, but she's not supposed to say it out loud because we're all supposed to pretend that our judiciary is filled with non-politically motivated people.

00:06:44.000 Here is Katonji Brown-Jackson at the beginning of her hearing a couple of days ago.

00:06:48.000 I decide cases from a neutral posture.

00:06:52.000 I evaluate the facts and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath.

00:07:06.000 That is without fear or favor, consistent with her judicial.

00:07:09.000 And not only that, she's going to stay in her lane and she is not going to overreach.

00:07:13.000 She is not going to read her feelings about what the law should be and what the law is.

00:07:18.000 She is going to be a reliable voice on behalf of the text of laws.

00:07:21.000 Again, everybody in their original sort of statements likes to sound like Samuel Alito or Justice Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

00:07:28.000 And then as we will see for the left, none of that means anything.

00:07:33.000 I am particularly mindful of not speaking to policy issues because I am so committed to staying in my lane of the system.

00:07:46.000 Because I'm just not willing to speak to issues that are properly in the province of this body.

00:07:55.000 She's going to stay in her lane. 1.00

00:07:56.000 Now, here's the thing.

00:07:57.000 She's not going to stay in her lane. 0.68

00:07:58.000 The reason we know she's not going to stay in her lane is because she is beholden to the far left. 0.83

00:08:02.000 She is, in fact, a member of the far left, as is indicated by pretty much everything that she has ever done or said.

00:08:10.000 In terms of issues where she could stray to the far left.

00:08:14.000 Anything in her social life where she could stray to the far left, she has.

00:08:17.000 Any issue where she could stray to the left, she has.

00:08:19.000 And this became very clear yesterday in this judicial hearing when Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee She asked Jackson to define the word woman.

00:08:30.000 And the reason she asked for this is because woman is a category in law. 1.00

00:08:33.000 It comes up a lot.

00:08:34.000 It comes up in the Civil Rights Act, for example, in Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

00:08:37.000 It comes up with regards to domestic violence.

00:08:39.000 It comes up all the time.

00:08:40.000 What is a woman? 1.00

00:08:41.000 Now, this is an incredibly simple question.

00:08:43.000 It's incredibly simple to answer this question.

00:08:45.000 On a biological level, women produce eggs and men produce small-sized gametes, right? 0.99

00:08:52.000 They produce sperm cells.

00:08:54.000 That is the difference between men and women on a biological level. 0.98

00:08:57.000 In terms of chromosomal composition, men have XY, women have XX.

00:09:02.000 There are certain peculiarities in which, for example, the SRY gene, which expresses gender, is somehow attached to an X gene sometimes during transmission.

00:09:11.000 That can end up with an intersex case, or you can have an XY man where the SRY gene is not expressed, in which you have a person develop secondary female sexual characteristics, but they are genetically chromosomally male.

00:09:22.000 That is intersex people.

00:09:23.000 That is not the same thing that is claimed by the left.

00:09:25.000 The left claims that a man who is XY and whose SRY gene is completely expressed is still possibly a woman because they complain that male and female anatomy have nothing to do with male and female anything.

00:09:37.000 That gender is completely disconnected from sex. 0.79

00:09:40.000 Now, when it comes to the law, there is no law in US history that has been written that says that a man who identifies as a woman is a woman.

00:09:49.000 It's an absurdity on its face.

00:09:50.000 It makes no sense.

00:09:52.000 Nobody in writing the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was thinking that a male who says he is a woman is in fact a female or that a woman who says she is a man is in fact a man. 0.86

00:10:02.000 This is newfangled garbage that has come up in the last two years in widespread fashion on the left.

00:10:07.000 It's gender theory going back to the 1960s, promulgated by a perverse piece of human dreck named John Money, whose gender theories ended with the suicidality of actual children under his care, and now it has been bibed wholesale by all of your cultural betters and elites. 0.96

00:10:24.000 If you say on Twitter, That a man is a man and a woman is a woman. 0.87

00:10:28.000 You may be banned.

00:10:29.000 The Babylon Bee was banned from Twitter for the great crime of stating that Rachel Levine, who is the Deputy Under Secretary of Health and Human Services and who is a biological man, is a man.

00:10:39.000 If you say that on Twitter, they will ban you.

00:10:40.000 If you say that Leah Thomas, who still has twig and berries, Is a man.

00:10:45.000 Twitter will ban you. 0.99

00:10:46.000 So all of our cultural elites have embraced this idiotic notion that it is impossible, literally impossible, to define woman. 1.00

00:10:52.000 You cannot do it. 0.99

00:10:53.000 You cannot define women or men.

00:10:54.000 But you can then say that Ketanji Brown Jackson is incredibly historic because she is a woman.

00:10:58.000 Kamala Harris is incredibly historic because she is a woman.

00:11:00.000 But if you ask either of these people to define the word woman, they will not do it.

00:11:04.000 Why?

00:11:04.000 Because they are beholden to the far left.

00:11:06.000 And they understand that if they were to say a woman is biologically, as I have described, Then they would immediately be cast out as lepers by their own colony. 0.71

00:11:17.000 Their own group, the people who love them most, would immediately suggest that they are bigots in some way, they are transphobic, because you have to understand that for the left, the final destruction of the gender binary, the final destruction of the distinctions that are perfectly natural and embedded in biology between men and women, if you can destroy that, you can destroy the entire fundamental basis of natural law, which undergirds all of natural rights and undergirds all of the systemic building of civilization over the course of millennia.

00:11:43.000 If everything just becomes arbitrary, and all terms just become arbitrary, then everything is power, which is precisely what the left wants.

00:11:49.000 Every natural obstacle to utopia for the left must be wiped away.

00:11:54.000 And this includes natural, normal, and factual distinctions between male and female.

00:11:59.000 This is a question that goes very deep.

00:12:01.000 Because you have to wonder, when a highly intelligent person like Etanji Brown-Jackson is asked, what is a woman?

00:12:06.000 And she can't answer.

00:12:07.000 You have to know she's lying.

00:12:09.000 Again, I have an 8-year-old, a 5-year-old, and a 2-year-old.

00:12:13.000 All of them know the difference between a boy and a girl. 0.51

00:12:15.000 That kid from kindergarten cop basically gets it right. 1.00

00:12:18.000 Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. 1.00

00:12:19.000 This is really, really not all that difficult. 1.00

00:12:22.000 I understand for the left, this seems to be difficult, but it's not really difficult for them either.

00:12:26.000 100% of Americans, including trans people, understand biological males are males.

00:12:30.000 Biological females are females. 1.00

00:12:32.000 They may not like that, they may not want to believe that, but that happens to be the reality.

00:12:38.000 And yet more than half the population at this point, at least half the population, is willing to go along to get along.

00:12:42.000 Why?

00:12:43.000 Because of the sort of niceness of it.

00:12:45.000 We never want to say to somebody who believes that they are a member of the opposite sex that they're just wrong, that it's not true.

00:12:51.000 It might make them feel bad.

00:12:51.000 We don't want to do that.

00:12:53.000 And so an enormous number of people in the middle in this country have been cuddled by the cultural elites.

00:12:58.000 into embracing the lie that men can be women and women can be men.

00:13:02.000 Originally out of niceness, and then out of a feeling of virtue signaling.

00:13:05.000 I'm so nice, I'm willing to say it.

00:13:07.000 Why aren't you nice too?

00:13:08.000 Here's a flag, a trans flag, in my profile.

00:13:10.000 In fact, I will even buy into the idea that sex is completely malleable by adding pronouns to my Twitter bio.

00:13:17.000 I mean, you know that I'm a man, and I know that I'm a man, but if I add he him To my Twitter bio, where there is no confusion, what I'm really saying is, if I wanted to be she-her, I could be.

00:13:28.000 I mean, these are very, very difficult questions.

00:13:30.000 Like, what is a woman? 1.00

00:13:32.000 Really, really difficult questions.

00:13:33.000 Other difficult questions, should you refi your mortgage?

00:13:35.000 The answer is, like, yes, right now.

00:13:37.000 Because we know that the Federal Reserve is going to be raising interest rates a bunch of times over the course of the next year, two years.

00:13:43.000 And this means interest rates on mortgages are likely to go up.

00:13:46.000 In fact, they already are.

00:13:47.000 So if you've been holding up in the hopes that they are going to go down again, no.

00:13:50.000 You need to get into the market right now.

00:13:52.000 The latest forecast again projects a few interest rate hikes this year alone that will make debt a lot more expensive.

00:13:57.000 Don't let that happen to you.

00:13:58.000 Pick up the phone right now.

00:13:59.000 Call American Financing.

00:14:01.000 Take advantage of a free no-obligation mortgage review where you will learn about custom loan options that can save you up to $1,000 a month.

00:14:07.000 That is right, every month.

00:14:08.000 From lower rates to shorter terms, even debt consolidation, they can do it all.

00:14:12.000 And they never charge up front or surprise you with hidden fees.

00:14:14.000 So why not see what they can do for you?

00:14:16.000 If you like what you hear, you can pre-qualify for free, possibly skip a couple of payments, and you might close in as fast as 10 days.

00:14:21.000 Just call 866-721-3300.

00:14:22.000 That is 866-721-3300.

00:14:22.000 Or visit AmericanFinancing.net.

00:14:24.000 NMLS 182334.

00:14:24.000 NMLSConsumerAccess.org.

00:14:26.000 Go check them out right now.

00:14:27.000 It's AmericanFinancing.net once more.

00:14:29.000 866-721-3300.

00:14:29.000 NMLS 182334 NMLS consumeraccess.org.

00:14:32.000 Go check them out right now.

00:14:33.000 It's American financing.net once more.

00:14:35.000 866-721-3300.

00:14:37.000 That is 866-721-3300.

00:14:40.000 So all of this is nonsense that is directed at tearing down fundamental institutions.

00:14:44.000 There's a lot packed into this question from Senator Marsha Blackburn.

00:14:48.000 So here was Katonji Brown-Jackson's answer to, again, a question so simple a two-year-old would know the answer.

00:14:55.000 Can you provide a definition for the word woman?

00:15:00.000 Can I provide a definition?

00:15:02.000 Yeah.

00:15:03.000 I can't.

00:15:05.000 You can't?

00:15:08.000 Not in this context.

00:15:09.000 I'm not a biologist.

00:15:10.000 No, I can't.

00:15:10.000 No, I can't, she says.

00:15:10.000 The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me a definition?

00:15:17.000 No, I can't.

00:15:19.000 No, I can't, she says.

00:15:21.000 Why can't she?

00:15:23.000 Why not?

00:15:25.000 Why doesn't she ask, okay, in the context of what statute?

00:15:27.000 Because seriously, theoretically, she could say, are we talking about when a girl turns into a woman for purposes of, say, statutory rape? 0.87

00:15:36.000 That's a difference between minors and majors.

00:15:38.000 Is she talking about, can I define woman, difference between child and adult?

00:15:42.000 Or woman in terms of sexual harassment? 0.95

00:15:47.000 And sort of gender perceptions, right?

00:15:49.000 She could ask for clarification.

00:15:50.000 She doesn't.

00:15:51.000 She doesn't want to answer the question because the answer is too damned simple.

00:15:55.000 And then it gets even more simple.

00:15:56.000 So Marsha Blackburn asked her a very simple question.

00:15:59.000 Do you acknowledge that there are physical differences between men and women? 0.96

00:16:02.000 Again, any small child can tell you the answer to this because small children are apparently less moronic than people who have been Harvard Law educated. 0.85

00:16:10.000 Here is Katonji Brown-Jackson's answer. 0.52

00:16:14.000 Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?

00:16:24.000 Senator, respectfully, I am not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it's hard for me to comment as to whether or not.

00:16:36.000 Why exactly would it be hard to comment?

00:16:38.000 Why?

00:16:39.000 Seriously.

00:16:40.000 That's the quote.

00:16:40.000 The quote is, there are physical differences between men and women.

00:16:43.000 Wow.

00:16:44.000 Now, she just keeps relying on this idea.

00:16:46.000 That's because it's Angie Brown Jackson.

00:16:48.000 She can't comment on this stuff because it's a case either I don't know about or I do know.

00:16:51.000 See, these judicial nominees, because they're all playing the stealth nominee game, here's what they do.

00:16:56.000 If a case has been decided, they will say that it is precedent.

00:16:59.000 If a case has not been decided, they will say that they cannot comment on it because it has not been decided yet.

00:17:03.000 So you get no information from them.

00:17:05.000 But that wasn't the question.

00:17:06.000 The question is, what is a woman? 1.00

00:17:07.000 She's got no answer and she wants to sit on the nation's highest court. 1.00

00:17:09.000 Apparently, by the way, she says she's no biologist, so she can't tell you the difference between men and women.

00:17:14.000 I'm not an ornithologist, but I can tell you what a bird is.

00:17:18.000 I may not be a zookeeper, but I can tell you what a tiger is. 1.00

00:17:22.000 This is the most stupid thing. 1.00

00:17:24.000 It's ridiculous. 1.00

00:17:25.000 Not only is it ridiculous, by the way, it gives away the lie. 0.99

00:17:28.000 Because according to the left, you don't have to be a biologist to say what a woman is. 1.00

00:17:31.000 In fact, Exactly the opposite.

00:17:33.000 If you are a biologist, you cannot say what a woman is.

00:17:37.000 Because you may be entirely biologically male and still be a woman. 0.56

00:17:40.000 No biologist can tell you what a woman is. 1.00

00:17:43.000 So Katonji Brown-Jackson gives away the game there.

00:17:46.000 But of course, she's really just evading the question.

00:17:48.000 And here's the thing, the entire left evades this question.

00:17:50.000 We actually sent our very own Matt Walsh.

00:17:53.000 Let's just be clear about this.

00:17:54.000 The what is woman question did not come originally from Marsha Blackburn.

00:17:59.000 It is Matt Walsh's deal.

00:18:00.000 It's always been Matt Walsh's deal.

00:18:02.000 For several years, Matt Walsh has just been asking a very simple question to everybody on the left who tries to claim that they are both pro-feminist and also pro-trans.

00:18:11.000 And he says, what is a woman?

00:18:12.000 And none of them have an answer.

00:18:13.000 None of them.

00:18:14.000 So Matt went on a journey, a magical top secret journey all around the United States and abroad to determine if anyone on the left could identify what a woman is.

00:18:24.000 His documentary is called What is a Woman?

00:18:27.000 It is the most important question and film of 2022.

00:18:30.000 Here is a look at the incredible sneak peek.

00:18:32.000 It's going to be available only at Daily Wire.

00:18:35.000 I have traveled all over the world.

00:18:38.000 For the past year, asking one simple question.

00:18:43.000 What is a woman? 1.00

00:18:45.000 What is a woman? 1.00

00:18:52.000 What is it?

00:18:53.000 What is it?

00:18:53.000 I don't know.

00:18:55.000 People are laughing. 0.99

00:18:56.000 Is that a dumb question? 0.98

00:18:59.000 I've been asking everybody this, and almost nobody can answer it. 0.99

00:19:02.000 What is a woman? 1.00

00:19:03.000 What is a woman? 1.00

00:19:04.000 That's a great question!

00:19:08.000 If one person could tell me what a woman is. 0.99

00:19:09.000 Congressman, thank you for being here.

00:19:12.000 I think this interview is over.

00:19:13.000 Let's turn off the cameras.

00:19:14.000 I just wanted to know, what is a woman? 1.00

00:19:16.000 And you're not going to find out.

00:19:19.000 It's not a complicated question.

00:19:24.000 So we will be releasing that here at Daily Wire.

00:19:26.000 You need to become a subscriber today so that you can see what is a woman. 1.00

00:19:29.000 That is coming out in May.

00:19:31.000 It's fantastic.

00:19:32.000 And the reason it's fantastic is because when people refuse to answer extraordinarily simple questions like this, it means they are lying to you. 0.87

00:19:39.000 Everyone in America knows that this is Emperor New Clothes bulls**t. Everyone knows this. 0.87

00:19:44.000 Every single human knows this. 0.98

00:19:45.000 And yet we are all supposed to pretend that the Emperor is not naked, and that you're a bad person if you say that the Emperor is naked.

00:19:51.000 In fact, we will ban you from social media.

00:19:53.000 We won't let you on the Supreme Court if you say that the Emperor is naked. 0.99

00:19:57.000 In fact, even if you say that the Emperor is naked and he's showing his d**k, and that he's a man because he's the Emperor, not the Empress, and you know because his balls are hanging out, this would make you a bigot. 0.99

00:20:07.000 That is where we are in American society. 0.99

00:20:09.000 So Matt's documentary, What is a Woman?

00:20:11.000 is definitely worth the watch and you should head on over to dailywire.com right now and subscribe in preparation.

00:20:15.000 It's going to be the biggest documentary of the year and it requires explication.

00:20:19.000 But again, this goes back to the fact the wisest among us are the people who are least likely to tell you what a woman is.

00:20:25.000 These are not difficult questions.

00:20:26.000 This is a very, very easy question.

00:20:28.000 I answered it on a biological level because that we can we can uncover bodies from thousands of years ago and we can look at bone structure and we can determine from that if you are a woman or a male all of the people who claim that they are members of the opposite gender when they are buried and a thousand years from now they're dug up Biologists, as Ketanji Brown-Jackson says, will be able to tell whether they are a male or a female. 0.99

00:20:51.000 And it did not matter what they thought they were in their heads, because that's stupid. 0.97

00:20:54.000 It has nothing to do with reality. 0.99

00:20:56.000 But that is part of a broader left-wing agenda to rewrite reality so they can do whatever the hell they want, so there are no restrictions on what they do.

00:21:02.000 We'll get to more on this in just one second.

00:21:04.000 First, have you ever wanted to send your uncle a birthday greeting from one of his favorite conservative celebs?

00:21:09.000 Or have your favorite freedom-loving comedian roast that one liberal cousin nobody in the family really likes?

00:21:14.000 There's only one place to make that a reality.

00:21:16.000 It's a new app.

00:21:16.000 It is called ShoutOut.

00:21:18.000 The most popular personalities on the right are ready to make somebody's day with a personalized video just for you.

00:21:23.000 Download Shoutout Now on the App Store and Google Play to get 20% off your first customized shoutout video from the likes of Steven Crowder, The Hodge Twins, JP Sears, Jason Whitlock, and many more of your favorite conservatives.

00:21:34.000 Go check them out right now.

00:21:35.000 download Shoutout today at the App Store or Google Play.

00:21:38.000 Download that Shoutout app.

00:21:40.000 I promise it's gonna make somebody in your family super happy and will definitely make them laugh.

00:21:45.000 So if you've been waiting to get one of those personalized videos from a favorite like Crowder or JPCers or Whitlock or the Hodge Twins or any of these other conservative celebs, go check them out right now.

00:21:53.000 Get that Shoutout app today.

00:21:55.000 To understand how civilization works, you have to understand that civilization is built on three basic foundations.

00:22:01.000 One is the foundation of biology.

00:22:03.000 Biology just is what it is. 0.88

00:22:04.000 It is unchanging.

00:22:05.000 It is immutable.

00:22:06.000 It does not magically change.

00:22:08.000 The fact of evolutionary biology, it's so funny, the people who say they are big fans of science refuse to acknowledge the basic evolutionary biology here, which is all progeneration of the human species and all mammalian species are dependent on sexual dichotomy.

00:22:21.000 There is no controversy about this at any level in the scientific community.

00:22:25.000 There are just people who lie that there's controversy about it.

00:22:28.000 And they do so by fudging the lines.

00:22:30.000 They'll talk about, oh, well, you know, there are intersex, there are blowfish. 0.58

00:22:33.000 Are you a blowfish?

00:22:34.000 Are humans blowfish?

00:22:35.000 Can you magically change from one to the other?

00:22:37.000 Can you start producing babies if you're a man today?

00:22:40.000 Of course you cannot. 1.00

00:22:42.000 The whole thing is ridiculous. 0.94

00:22:44.000 Okay, so that is one source. 0.88

00:22:45.000 The other source is accepted wisdom of the past, which has been tried and found true over the course of millennia.

00:22:50.000 And you should not discard that for no apparent reason, just because you have decided you don't like it anymore.

00:22:56.000 It makes you a bad person to decide.

00:22:58.000 It really does.

00:22:58.000 It makes you a bad person to decide that the accepted wisdom of the past is no good any longer because you have decided on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that that accepted wisdom is bad.

00:23:09.000 You can't point to another culture where this has been successful.

00:23:11.000 You can't point to another place on earth Where people do not acknowledge the centrality of male-female duality.

00:23:18.000 It does not exist.

00:23:19.000 All of the attempts to suggest that there are people who don't fit into the boxes and therefore everyone could theoretically be either male or female.

00:23:25.000 That does not exist anywhere on earth.

00:23:27.000 You'll see in Matt's documentary he talks to some people in different places on earth.

00:23:31.000 So accepted wisdom is the second source.

00:23:32.000 And finally there is reason.

00:23:34.000 And reason again is connected to the other two sources.

00:23:36.000 Evolutionary biology and ancient wisdom.

00:23:39.000 If you come up with a rationale out of your head that men can be women and women can be men, this is illogical at a fundamental level.

00:23:44.000 These are either categories that exist or they do not exist.

00:23:46.000 The left wants them to both exist so they can claim sexism if you ask Ketanji Brown Jackson the question, and not to exist so Ketanji Brown Jackson can't actually answer the question.

00:23:55.000 So on the one hand, don't ask her the question, she's a woman, stop being sexist.

00:23:58.000 On the other hand, she can't answer what a woman is because that would make her a sexist. 1.00

00:24:03.000 Do you get the feeling this is all a power game?

00:24:05.000 That it's all a Michel Foucault post-modernist power game?

00:24:07.000 Because it's exactly what it is.

00:24:10.000 And again, this is not a surprise because for Ketanji Brown-Jackson, no matter how stealth the left wants to be, they can't be fully stealth in their viewpoints because they don't feel like they have to be fully stealth in their viewpoints.

00:24:23.000 So for example, Ketanji Brown-Jackson was asked about abortion.

00:24:27.000 She was asked about Roe vs. Wade.

00:24:29.000 Now, here is what any honest nominee would say.

00:24:33.000 No matter where you stand, Roe v. Wade is a bad piece of jurisprudence.

00:24:36.000 It is a bad case.

00:24:38.000 Everyone on the left in legal circles acknowledges Roe v. Wade is based on absolutely nothing.

00:24:42.000 They can agree with the outcome and still understand that it was a completely made-up, specious bit of nonsense.

00:24:48.000 But instead, we find out from Katonji Brown-Jackson, it is settled law.

00:24:52.000 Settled law.

00:24:53.000 Because the way that it works, by the way, according to the left, Everything I like is settled law.

00:24:57.000 Everything I don't like is bad precedent.

00:25:00.000 That's the way the precedent game works, according to the left.

00:25:02.000 So Lawrence v. Texas said that Bowers v. Hardwick was not precedent anymore.

00:25:06.000 It was bad law.

00:25:07.000 Bowers v. Hardwick said that states could outlaw sodomy.

00:25:09.000 Lawrence v. Texas said, no, people have a right to sodomy. 1.00

00:25:12.000 And it became bad law overnight.

00:25:14.000 And listen, there are lots of cases in American history where precedent was bad.

00:25:18.000 Plessy vs. Ferguson, Brown vs. Board of Education, for example.

00:25:21.000 So this notion that you are just adhering to precedent, you're going to have to explain why you're adhering to a particular precedent if you want me to believe that you believe in the precedent itself, as opposed to you just believe what it's saying.

00:25:32.000 Anyway, here's Kestanji Brown-Jackson paying homage to Roe vs. Wade, the full litmus test for the left.

00:25:38.000 I do agree with both Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett on this issue.

00:25:46.000 Roe and Casey are the settled law of The Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy.

00:25:59.000 It's settled law, guys.

00:26:00.000 Okay, so, Ben Jackson was asked another simple question.

00:26:02.000 She says she's a religious person.

00:26:03.000 Okay, and apparently, I know she's not a biologist, so she doesn't know what a woman is. 1.00

00:26:07.000 She apparently also doesn't know what a human life is.

00:26:09.000 So she was asked, when does life begin?

00:26:11.000 Now this is a rather crucial question.

00:26:13.000 It's a rather crucial question because if life begins at conception, then theoretically, 14th Amendment protections, equal protection, should apply to the unborn.

00:26:20.000 This has been the case made by the pro-life community for years and years and years and years.

00:26:24.000 And again, the simple answer as to what does a human life constitute is again biologically incredibly simple.

00:26:29.000 An individual member of the species Homo sapien.

00:26:33.000 Human life with potential, as Robert George puts it over at Princeton.

00:26:37.000 It begins at conception, as in its own independent DNA.

00:26:40.000 It will develop into a full-grown human.

00:26:43.000 It will develop into a full-grown baby.

00:26:44.000 It will develop from an embryo into a fetus.

00:26:47.000 A human life begins at conception.

00:26:49.000 But Katonji Brown-Jackson doesn't even want to offer any sort of answer.

00:26:52.000 Because if she offers an answer, she might be held to the answer.

00:26:54.000 So instead, Roe vs. Wade is good and settled law, based on bad science that no longer applies according to pretty much everybody.

00:27:01.000 Because it makes this trimester distinction that has no real basis with regard to fetal development.

00:27:06.000 But that's good law.

00:27:07.000 Meanwhile, Ketanji Brown-Jackson cannot answer either what a woman is or what human life is. 0.52

00:27:11.000 It seems to me like these should be preconditions to sitting on the nation's highest court.

00:27:13.000 Can you answer what a woman is or what human life is?

00:27:16.000 If not, I don't see why you should get to rule on major issues concerning both women and human life.

00:27:20.000 Here's Ketanji Brown-Jackson.

00:27:23.000 Do you have a personal belief, though, about when life begins?

00:27:27.000 I have a religious view.

00:27:28.000 Religious belief?

00:27:29.000 That I set aside when I am ruling on cases.

00:27:33.000 Okay.

00:27:36.000 When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?

00:27:42.000 Well, Senator, I believe that the Supreme Court... Actually, I actually don't know the answer to that question.

00:27:50.000 I'm sorry.

00:27:51.000 Oh, she doesn't know the answer.

00:27:52.000 She doesn't know.

00:27:54.000 See, here's the thing.

00:27:54.000 I think she does know, but I think she doesn't want to say.

00:27:58.000 Again, it's stealth when it's convenient to be stealth, and it's open when it's convenient to be open.

00:28:02.000 Now, what exactly do we know about Katonji Brown-Jackson?

00:28:05.000 Well, she knows that she does sit on the board of a school that is very, very far left in orientation.

00:28:10.000 According to FoxNews.com, Jackson's questionnaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee says she's been a board of trustees member at Georgetown Day School since 2019, and a member of the Georgetown Day School community for nearly a decade.

00:28:21.000 Jackson said, quote, since becoming part of the GDS community seven years ago, Patrick and I, as her husband, have witnessed the transformative power of a rigorous, progressive education that is dedicated to fostering critical thinking, independence, and social justice.

00:28:32.000 Now, let's just be clear about this.

00:28:33.000 If you sit on the board of a school, this means you have input into the curriculum of the school.

00:28:36.000 My wife sits on the board of a school, and that means that she has input into the curriculum of the board of the school.

00:28:41.000 And if ever the curriculum began to cut directly against the values in which we believe, we would drop from the board of the school and we'd move our kids.

00:28:48.000 Because that is what parents do.

00:28:49.000 So if she's sitting on a board of a school where she's progressing, she's praising the rigorous progressive education, you have to assume that she's greenlit at least the generalized orientation of the school.

00:28:59.000 Georgetown Day School's website indicates the board of trustees is involved with executing an anti-racism and action plan, which includes reviewing and revising current language around community expectations and reviewing anti-racist work to inform potential governance changes.

00:29:14.000 The website says, We at Georgetown Day School have been engaging across the community to further define and deepen our commitments to being an anti-racist institution and staying true to our founding mission.

00:29:23.000 We have identified a path forward for the institution we want to transparently share how we have performed in meetings in meeting our commitments for the 2020-2021 school year and beyond.

00:29:33.000 Some anti-racist resources recommended by the school include Richard Delgado's Critical Race Theory, a video by Kimberly Crenshaw titled The Urgency of Intersectionality, and Peggy McIntosh's White Privilege, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.

00:29:45.000 Also on the list is Ibram X. Kendi's garbage book, How to Be an Anti-Racist.

00:29:49.000 Hey, so, yes, this is relevant.

00:29:52.000 She also has multiple times championed As reported by the Daily Wire, she moderated a Harvard Alumni Association webinar in October 2021.

00:30:01.000 The webinar discussed diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, in which Jackson asked how the university recruits and retains talented faculty of color.

00:30:13.000 She spoke at an award dinner for the Black Law Students Association at the University of Chicago in February 2021, where she lectured about how microaggressions are real, She gave a lecture in January 2020, in which she said she took inspiration from Derrick Bell, who is one of the godfathers of critical race theory.

00:30:31.000 And so she was asked about this.

00:30:32.000 Now, as we will see, the media get very angry that she was asked any of these questions.

00:30:35.000 Marsha Blackburn asked her, are you interested in injecting critical race theory into your jurisprudence?

00:30:42.000 It's funny because the left again likes to have it both ways.

00:30:44.000 The way that this works is that they will say, if you say critical race theory has been boiled down and weaponized in schools for small children, which is true, you'll say, no, no, no, it's a legal theory, guys.

00:30:55.000 It's a legal theory that they began.

00:30:56.000 It began at law schools.

00:30:57.000 It's a legal theory.

00:30:58.000 And then if March of Blackburn asks, are you going to apply this legal theory in any of your thinking?

00:31:03.000 That is also considered inappropriate.

00:31:04.000 So once again, it's all about power.

00:31:05.000 You can't ask this question and you also can't ask the converse question.

00:31:08.000 Here is Marsha Blackburn asking about critical race theory and SCOTUS jurisprudence.

00:31:14.000 You have praised the 1619 Project, which argues the U.S.

00:31:18.000 is a fundamentally racist country, and you have made clear that you believe judges must consider critical race theory when deciding how to sentence criminal defendants.

00:31:30.000 Is it your personal hidden agenda to incorporate critical race theory into our legal system?

00:31:38.000 These are answers that the American people need to know.

00:31:44.000 Well, yes.

00:31:45.000 Okay, and Ted Cruz also asked Katonji Brown-Jackson about critical race theory and her previous comments on it.

00:31:51.000 Here he was.

00:31:53.000 You described the job you do as a judge, and you said sentencing is just plain interesting because it melds together myriad types of law, criminal law, and of course constitutional law, critical race theory.

00:32:05.000 So you described in a speech to a law school what you were doing as critical race theory.

00:32:10.000 And so I guess I would ask, what did you mean by that when you gave that speech?

00:32:13.000 What I meant was that there are a number of, that slide does not show the entire laundry list of different academic disciplines that I said relate to sentencing policy.

00:32:29.000 Oh, it just relates to sentencing, but why does it relate to sentencing policy?

00:32:33.000 So yes, if the idea is these are factors that relate to sentencing policy, why is that a factor you should take into consideration?

00:32:40.000 Then, he was mocked, was Senator Cruz, for bringing up the fact that Ibram X. Kendi's book is assigned in the library over at the school where this particular judicial nominee is on the board.

00:32:52.000 An anti-racist baby, which is Ibram X. Kendi's indoctrination into critical race theory for small children.

00:32:59.000 Ibram X. Kendi, one of the great grifters and one of the least brilliant public figures of our time.

00:33:05.000 His book for small children, if you want to see my critique of that book, by the way, I believe I did one on YouTube maybe a year ago.

00:33:10.000 Here is Senator Cruz asking her about it and people on the left mock this.

00:33:14.000 Here's the rule for the left. 0.99

00:33:16.000 If you ask them a question about the dumb crap they're doing, you are the one who is mocked. 1.00

00:33:20.000 If they do dumb crap, that's just de rigueur. 1.00

00:33:22.000 If you ask them about it, this means you're bad. 1.00

00:33:24.000 Philip Bump, by the way, did the same thing at the Washington Post today.

00:33:26.000 Marsha Blackburn asked Ketanji Brown-Jackson, what is a woman? 1.00

00:33:29.000 She refuses to answer, and Philip Bump's answer is, that's a really bad question.

00:33:32.000 They do the same thing here.

00:33:34.000 So, she has, at the school, she is a board member, a book teaching small children that they are inherently racist.

00:33:41.000 And Ted Cruz asks her about it, and this means that he's asking a bad question, because how dare he?

00:33:47.000 They include a book called Anti-Racist Baby by Ibram Kendi and there are portions of this book that I find really quite remarkable.

00:34:01.000 One portion of the book says babies are taught to be racist or anti-racist.

00:34:08.000 There is no neutrality.

00:34:11.000 Another portion of the book They recommend that babies confess when being racist.

00:34:20.000 Now this is a book that is taught at Georgetown Day School to students in pre-K through second grade, so four through seven years old.

00:34:30.000 Do you agree with this book that is being taught with kids that babies are racist?

00:34:36.000 Senator, I do not believe that any child should be made to feel as though they are racist or though they are not valued or though they are less than, that they are victims, that they are oppressors.

00:35:02.000 I don't believe in any of that.

00:35:05.000 But what I will say is that when you Asked me whether or not this was taught in schools, critical race theory.

00:35:16.000 My understanding is that critical race theory as an academic theory is taught in law schools and To the extent that you were asking the question, I understood you to be addressing public schools.

00:35:29.000 Georgetown Day School, just like the religious school that Justice Barrett was on the board of, is a private school.

00:35:36.000 Okay, so apparently it's fine to teach it to private school students according to this justice.

00:35:40.000 By the way, that distinction makes no difference whatsoever between public and private when the question is, should this be taught to kids?

00:35:45.000 And for all the people on the left who are like, why is she being asked all these questions?

00:35:48.000 You'll remember that Amy Coney Barrett was asked a bunch of questions about being on the board of a private Christian school that held traditional values with regard to sexual activity.

00:35:57.000 Okay, so all of this was very bad.

00:36:00.000 In an irrational world, there is no way this person would be on the Supreme Court.

00:36:03.000 She has plenty of academic qualifications, that's fine. 0.76

00:36:06.000 She has zero qualifications to be on the Supreme Court, so long as you don't know what a woman is, believe that small children should be assigned things like anti-racist baby, and you inject critical race theory into education, and also believe, by the way, that you can't define human life. 0.93

00:36:21.000 These seem like pretty disqualifying characteristics, but I understand that's not how we do this game anymore.

00:36:25.000 The way we do this game is Democrats appoint radical Democrats, and Republicans appoint people who they think can get through.

00:36:30.000 That's pretty much all that happens at the Supreme Court level.

00:36:33.000 In a second, we'll get to what has become the most controversial portion of the questioning of Keitanji Brown-Jackson.

00:36:38.000 Believe it or not, not even her failure to announce what a woman is, despite being a historic woman.

00:36:43.000 We'll get to the accusations that she has been easy on sex offenders in her decisions for sentencing.

00:36:49.000 We'll get to that in just a moment.

00:36:51.000 So folks, if you haven't heard of my book club, now is your chance to sign up.

00:36:55.000 Last week, I took members through my analysis of A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens.

00:36:58.000 You can watch that right now at dailywire.com slash watch.

00:37:02.000 Remember, my third Thursday book club.

00:37:04.000 It's a live experience.

00:37:05.000 You get to engage with me in real time.

00:37:07.000 You can ask me questions.

00:37:08.000 You can comment on the book.

00:37:09.000 It is a blast.

00:37:10.000 We're going to be reading the best literature together.

00:37:12.000 I'm talking about everything from Russian literature to English literature to American literature.

00:37:16.000 When you sign up, you also get my notes, which is a cheat sheet to the important issues, themes, and lessons of books.

00:37:22.000 I will be sending my notes out today.

00:37:23.000 For this month's book, one of my very favorites, T.H.

00:37:26.000 White's The Once and Future King. 0.91

00:37:27.000 It's considered sort of the granddaddy of all fantasy novels.

00:37:30.000 The Once and Future King by T.H. White.

00:37:32.000 It's about Lancelot and Guinevere and Arthur.

00:37:35.000 It's just a fabulous, fabulous book.

00:37:37.000 It has a lot of really interesting lessons to it.

00:37:39.000 Sign up at thirdthursdaybookclub.com.

00:37:41.000 Get yourself a copy of The Once and Future King by T.H.

00:37:44.000 White and then sign up at thirdthursdaybookclub.com to join us and get my notes on the book.

00:37:47.000 You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:37:52.000 So, meanwhile, the other major issue that has arisen during the Katonji Brown-Jackson hearings is the issue of her record on child pornography and the sentences for child pornographers.

00:38:09.000 So, Josh Hawley put out a bunch of statements in a case called U.S.

00:38:12.000 v. Hawkins, where she sentenced a sex offender in possession of over 600 images of child pornography to just three months in prison.

00:38:20.000 Sentencing guidelines apparently had suggested about 10 years.

00:38:23.000 She said, quote, I am willing to do that to some extent because I do think that the guideline factors are in many ways outdated and no longer adequately distinguish more serious child pornography offenders from the less serious child pornography offenders.

00:38:35.000 She said, although the guidelines charge you with having more than 600 images, the court notes that your collection at the time that you were caught was not actually as large as that seems because it consisted of 16 digital images and 17 digital movie files.

00:38:47.000 Well, no big deal. 0.60

00:38:47.000 I mean, if you just have 17 digital movies of people having sex with children, then obviously you're not that bad of a child pornographer. 0.60

00:38:54.000 That's not that big a deal.

00:38:55.000 Judge Jackson said, In your case in particular, I don't feel it is appropriate, necessarily, to increase the penalty on the basis of your use of a computer or the number of images or prepubescent victims as the guidelines require, because these circumstances exist in many cases, if not most, and don't signal an especially heinous or egregious child pornography offense.

00:39:13.000 Okay, so, Andy McCarthy has a piece over at National Review breaking this stuff down.

00:39:18.000 What he says is that this child pornography angle is actually Less of an angle than the generalized angle, which is the Ketanji Brown Jackson is super soft on crime generally.

00:39:28.000 And here's what Andrew McCarthy says to give it the sort of full fairness he's here.

00:39:32.000 He says.

00:39:34.000 I was a federal prosecutor for nearly 20 years, and ran a satellite U.S.

00:39:37.000 Attorney's Office for the last four of those in the Southern District of New York.

00:39:40.000 Child pornography increasingly became a priority for SDNY in the 90s, with the ascendancy of the internet, social media, and digital markets, which not only dramatically increased the volume of images, but made interstate facilities, over which the feds have jurisdiction, the dominant means of commerce in pornography and of soliciting minors for sexual purposes.

00:39:56.000 There is a wide variety of federal offenses gathered under the label sex offenses.

00:40:00.000 In his critique of Jackson last week, Josh Hawley tweeted he had noticed an alarming pattern when it comes to judge Jackson's treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on children.

00:40:08.000 This is a misleadingly broad claim.

00:40:10.000 Sex offenders who prey on children include deviants who rape children and those who force them into sexual acts for purposes that include prostitution and the production of pornography.

00:40:17.000 At the other end of the spectrum, sex offenders include people who have never put a hand on a child for sexual purposes, But are consumers of pornographic images, which they possess, transmit, or trade, sometimes for money, but often not?

00:40:28.000 To be sure, well-adjusted people, if they had to view these images as investigators do, would be sickened.

00:40:32.000 Still, when we talk about consumers, we are not talking about people engaged in the atrocious conduct that produced the images.

00:40:37.000 It is rational to criminalize consumption offenses because they contribute indirectly to the atrocious production of conduct.

00:40:42.000 If there were no market for the images, many fewer of them would be produced.

00:40:45.000 Yet the criminal law makes these kinds of distinctions all the time.

00:40:48.000 The offender who commits a gruesome murder is orders of magnitude more culpable And the associate who helps him get rid of the murder weapon.

00:40:55.000 So, the basic idea that McCarthy is saying is that there's been a lot of talk about the sentencing guidelines with regard to child pornography and treating somebody who sexually enslaves a child the same way as somebody who has child porn on their computer.

00:41:08.000 According to McCarthy, that's a pretty open debate within sort of legal circles.

00:41:14.000 He says, Judge Jackson's views on this matter are not only mainstream, they are correct, in my view.

00:41:21.000 Undoubtedly, Jackson is more sympathetic to criminals than I am.

00:41:24.000 If I were to judge, I'm sure I'd impose at least marginally more severe sentences than she has. 0.95

00:41:29.000 Contrary to Howley's suggestion, she appears to have followed the guidelines at the low end of the sentencing range.

00:41:33.000 But other than the fact that Congress wanted to look as though it was being tough on porn, there's no good reason for the mandatory minimum in question, and it's unjust in many cases.

00:41:39.000 Okay, so in any case, the basic idea here from McCarthy is that there's sort of kind of bipartisan need to rewrite these particular statutes.

00:41:49.000 Now, I disagree with all of that.

00:41:50.000 I think that, basically, if you want to penalize people for having images of small children in sexual positions on their computer, you go for it and you lock them up for life.

00:41:58.000 I don't care.

00:41:59.000 I really, really don't.

00:42:00.000 If you are involved in any way in the production or consumption of child pornography, you should not be in public.

00:42:08.000 You just should not.

00:42:11.000 Apparently, that is a more open debate, but the point that McCarthy makes is that Judge Jackson, her general take on criminal law is very, very loose.

00:42:22.000 He says that she's gone out of her way in order to loosen criminal statutes or in order to push loosening of criminal statutes.

00:42:29.000 In any case, Howley really pushed this a lot in the hearings.

00:42:32.000 And here is what he said.

00:42:33.000 He said, it's hard to argue the sentencing guidelines for child sex sentences are too harsh.

00:42:36.000 Now, it's true that there's been, again, bipartisan approval in terms of the child sex Sentencing for the sentencing guidelines from Republicans and Democrats to change the standards there.

00:42:47.000 But Howley, I think, correctly says, I'm not sure why that's bipartisan or why anybody should be in favor of it in the first place.

00:42:52.000 Here's a New York Times report from 2019.

00:42:55.000 I'm quoting now.

00:42:56.000 Last year, tech companies reported over 45 million online photos and videos of children being sexually abused, more than double what they found the previous year.

00:43:07.000 The report goes on to say this.

00:43:10.000 20 years ago, these online images were a problem.

00:43:12.000 Ten years ago they were an epidemic.

00:43:15.000 Now the crisis is at a breaking point.

00:43:17.000 I think it's difficult against this backdrop to argue that the sentencing guidelines are too harsh or outmoded or that we should be somehow treating child porn offenders more leniently than the guidelines recommend.

00:43:32.000 Okay, and then he starts asking her some pretty specific questions about her behavior with regard to sentencing in certain cases.

00:43:39.000 So, for example, there's one case where she apologized for giving a particular sentence to a pedophile, to a child pornography consumer.

00:43:47.000 You said to him, this is a truly difficult situation.

00:43:51.000 I appreciate that your family's in the audience.

00:43:53.000 I feel so sorry for them and for you.

00:43:56.000 And for the anguish this has caused all of you.

00:44:00.000 I feel terrible about the collateral consequences of this conviction.

00:44:08.000 And then you go on to say sex offenders are truly shunned in our society.

00:44:13.000 I'm just trying to figure out, Judge, is he the victim here, or are the victims the victims?

00:44:18.000 Okay, so Jackson answered this by talking about the sentencing guidelines, saying that the sentencing guidelines overall are too harsh.

00:44:23.000 She was talking to Lindsey Graham at the time.

00:44:26.000 On the internet, with one click, you can receive, you can distribute tens of thousands.

00:44:34.000 You can be doing this for 15 minutes, and all of a sudden, you are looking at 30, 40, 50 years in prison Good.

00:44:46.000 Good.

00:44:47.000 Absolutely good.

00:44:48.000 I hope you are.

00:44:50.000 Good.

00:44:50.000 Allow her to finish, please.

00:44:51.000 I hope you go to jail for 50 years if you're on the internet trolling for images of children and sexual exploitation. 0.72

00:44:59.000 See, you don't think that's a bad thing. 0.96

00:45:00.000 I think that's a horrible thing.

00:45:02.000 Well, I mean, he happens to be correct about all of that.

00:45:05.000 Okay, then Jackson was talking about another case in which a person got a lower sentence for possessing imagery of child pornography.

00:45:14.000 Here's her answer on that.

00:45:16.000 He presented all of his diplomas and certificates and the things that he had done and argued, consistent with what I was seeing in the record, that this particular defendant had gotten into this in a way that was, I thought, inconsistent with some of the other cases that I had seen.

00:45:39.000 Okay, so this is part of a broader In 2020, anarchists, rioters, and left-wing street militias raged across the country.

00:45:46.000 And murders increased at the fastest rate in history.

00:45:48.000 on crime. This is a point that Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas made in his questioning of Kitanji Brown-Jackson.

00:45:53.000 In 2020, anarchists, rioters, and left-wing street militias raged across the country, and murders increased at the fastest rate in history. And in the first year of the Biden administration, violent crime got even worse. It's no coincidence that this violence came as localities and states pushed to defund the police and reduce the punishment for criminals.

00:46:19.000 Thank you.

00:46:20.000 Career criminals are committing violent crimes and going free under the guise of a supposedly more equitable justice system.

00:46:30.000 Okay, now, Katonji Brown-Jackson, again, her history when it comes to criminal offenders is very, very weak.

00:46:35.000 So, for example, in one particular case, she sentenced some Black Hebrew Israelites by essentially calling them part of a vegan community.

00:46:43.000 There was some sort of decision in which she called them part of a vegan community. 0.89

00:46:46.000 Now, I can safely say that the Black Hebrew Israelites are a wildly anti-Semitic group. 0.99

00:46:50.000 They call themselves the African Hebrew Israelites, but it's not a religious community.

00:46:54.000 And apparently they're mostly just a vegan community, according to Ketanji Brown-Jackson, or at least that seemed to be the implication of what she was saying.

00:47:01.000 They call themselves the African Hebrew Israelites, but it's not a religious community.

00:47:06.000 It's a cultural community around healthy living.

00:47:12.000 And they have created a restaurant and a series of restaurants here in the Washington, D.C.

00:47:19.000 area with menus involving really, I'm told, terrific vegan foods.

00:47:29.000 That's a weird take on the black Hebrew Israelites that are vegan community.

00:47:32.000 Okay, well, anyway, the media have determined that all of these questions, from her sentencing guideline questions, to critical race theory, to what is a woman, to when does human life begin, basic, basic questions.

00:47:45.000 All of this should have been off limits, which of course was the goal.

00:47:48.000 And Joe Biden declared that he was going to put a black woman on the Supreme Court.

00:47:53.000 And then he selected a black woman. 1.00

00:47:54.000 And then if you ask the black woman any questions, it's because you're a racist and a sexist. 1.00

00:47:57.000 We can all spot the game here. 1.00

00:47:59.000 The game here is pretty obvious.

00:48:00.000 The game is that I will put up somebody who is a particularly vulnerable minority.

00:48:05.000 And if you then ask a normal question to that person, it is because you are a racist and a sexist, even if that person cannot explain why you would be a sexist since women have no definition. 0.97

00:48:15.000 So Jeffrey Toobin, who should never ever be called upon to to talk about sexism in any way, considering that he knocked up a colleague's daughter, attempted to pay her to have an abortion, and then was caught in a Zoom call f***ing off. 0.77

00:48:29.000 This person seems like the least likely person to talk about the victimization of women, Jeffrey Toobin.

00:48:34.000 Nonetheless, there he is back on CNN, spreading his hot, sticky legal journalism everywhere, and talking about how questions being asked by Josh Hawley, this is actually connected to QAnon.

00:48:44.000 People are trying to apparently get Ketanji Brown-Jackson killed.

00:48:47.000 This is the going concern among members of the media. 0.94

00:48:50.000 If you ask a tough question to a Democrat, it's because you want them assassinated.

00:48:53.000 If, however, you accuse Justice Brett Kavanaugh with no evidence whatsoever of being a gang rapist, then that is just because you're doing your job as somebody trying to vet for the Supreme Court.

00:49:01.000 Here is Jeffrey Toobin, who has put it away, at least for this clip.

00:49:07.000 This is about appealing to the QAnon audience, this cult that is a big presence in Republican Party politics now, that is where Senator Hawley is trying to ingratiate himself with that group and run for president with their support.

00:49:26.000 Oh, that's what it is.

00:49:27.000 Meanwhile, an MSNBC guest did the same.

00:49:29.000 It's a dog whistle.

00:49:29.000 It's all dog whistling.

00:49:30.000 Dog whistles, whistles of the dog, dog whistly, McWhistleface. 0.89

00:49:35.000 That's so tiresome.

00:49:35.000 The entire media just sweeping into defense for Katonji Brown-Jackson, who again is not performing especially poorly for a Democratic nominee and also is not performing particularly well.

00:49:45.000 She's performing exactly as you would expect a woke Democrat to perform when asked to pretend to be a judge in front of a committee of people. 0.99

00:49:51.000 That is, or asked to pretend to be a judicial nominee for the Supreme Court.

00:49:56.000 A neutral arbiter in front of other senators.

00:50:00.000 Here is an MSNBC guest.

00:50:01.000 It's a dog whistle.

00:50:03.000 To hold up books that he claimed are part of the curriculum at Georgetown Day, I found to be a really deeply offensive line of questioning and clearly a dog whistle in terms of racial politics.

00:50:17.000 Oh, it's a dog whistle, don't you see?

00:50:19.000 So just to get this straight, asking Amy Coney Barrett about her religious beliefs, not a dog whistle. 0.99

00:50:25.000 Pretending Brett Kavanaugh is a gang rapist, not a dog whistle. 0.63

00:50:28.000 It's a dog whistle if you ask her about the books that appear at the school where she's a board member. 0.97

00:50:32.000 There's an editorial board piece today from the Washington Post.

00:50:35.000 It is titled, quote, Republicans boast they have not pulled a Kavanaugh.

00:50:38.000 In fact, they've treated Jackson worse.

00:50:43.000 Excuse me.

00:50:44.000 Are you kidding me?

00:50:45.000 They've treated Jackson worse?

00:50:47.000 I'm going to need an explanation.

00:50:49.000 Did somebody accuse her of drugging and raping somebody without any evidence?

00:50:54.000 And then did the entire media go on a search to find other people who could falsely accuse her of rape?

00:50:58.000 Did I miss that part?

00:51:00.000 Was she asked about boofing in her high school yearbook?

00:51:04.000 These people are so high on their own supply, it's absolutely unbelievable.

00:51:07.000 The echo chamber is so thick out there.

00:51:09.000 It's like Under the Dome by Stephen King, this echo chamber.

00:51:11.000 It's how thick that echo chamber is.

00:51:13.000 Nothing comes in and nothing comes out.

00:51:14.000 Here's CNN's Abby Phillip doing the same thing. 1.00

00:51:16.000 If you ask about critical race theory to Ketanji Brown-Jackson, who has lectured multiple times and made reference to critical race theorists, that's, you know, that is not, it's not even important.

00:51:25.000 Why are you even bothering to ask about these things?

00:51:27.000 So the left plays this game.

00:51:29.000 Number one, how dare you ask about it?

00:51:30.000 Number two, it's not even important.

00:51:32.000 It's not even important to find out whether she knows what a woman is, or when human life begins, or whether her legal theory is infused with the teachings of Derrick Bell. 0.68

00:51:39.000 None of that is important. 0.99

00:51:40.000 What's really important is that she's a black woman, damn it, even if she can't define woman. 0.99

00:51:44.000 That's the important thing. 1.00

00:51:45.000 So shut up and just confirm we're all ready. 0.98

00:51:48.000 How dare you ask a question, sir? 0.97

00:51:53.000 She answered all the questions, and at the end of the day, it was Ted Cruz holding up pictures of a picture book, and I think that in the context of a Supreme Court nomination, that just seems sort of below the line of what is important in the big scheme of things.

00:52:05.000 Oh yeah, it's not important at all if her critical race theory beliefs start to infuse her judicial beliefs. 1.00

00:52:10.000 No, no, no.

00:52:12.000 Meanwhile, NBC's Cynthia Allen went so far as to say, this woman is a pragmatist. 1.00

00:52:16.000 She is dead center of the political spectrum, which is exactly why Joe Biden would pick her because he's looking for centrist judges. 1.00

00:52:22.000 That's, I mean, that was the record for the person she's replacing, Stephen Breyer, who is a consistent Democratic vote, the least influential justice in modern American history.

00:52:31.000 Just a solid Democrat vote for pretty much everything, did not write a single important decision his entire career.

00:52:36.000 Ultimately, it doesn't really matter.

00:52:38.000 and is backed by Demand Justice, a radical left-wing group.

00:52:40.000 But don't worry, she's a pragmatist who is dead center according to, you know, this is why the entire Democratic Party has moved to the left, because they actually believe that wild leftism is dead center.

00:52:49.000 Ultimately, it doesn't really matter.

00:52:52.000 She's a pragmatist.

00:52:53.000 She's right smack dab in the middle. 1.00

00:52:55.000 And she was very effective in communicating that today.

00:52:57.000 Hmm.

00:52:59.000 Yeah, right in the center.

00:53:00.000 Wow.

00:53:01.000 And then, of course, we have Jimmy Kimmel, great legal theorist, the woke pope of our times, Jimmy Kimmel.

00:53:01.000 And she's effective.

00:53:07.000 And he just cannot believe that people would launch gratuitous attacks on Kitanji Brown-Jackson.

00:53:14.000 How dare any... I mean, Jimmy Kimmel, a man who's dressed in blackface, he has never launched gratuitous attacks on anyone.

00:53:22.000 It's not like his entire show is just a series of gratuitous attacks that make no sense.

00:53:26.000 But he is very offended when people make gratuitous attacks on judicial nominees.

00:53:29.000 Here we go.

00:53:31.000 Despite the gratuitous attacks, Judge Jackson's been very cool under pressure.

00:53:36.000 They don't have anything real to criticize her.

00:53:37.000 They've been trying to portray her as being soft on crime, which is interesting because she's been endorsed by both the International Association of Police Chiefs and the Fraternal Order of Police and the Band Police.

00:53:49.000 Even Sting is in her corner. 0.60

00:53:51.000 Wow.

00:53:52.000 That's some good joke right there.

00:53:54.000 Did you hear the joke where it was like the band police because of Sting?

00:53:57.000 Wow.

00:53:58.000 He's so good at dehumoring, man.

00:54:00.000 He is such a humorist.

00:54:01.000 The humor and all.

00:54:03.000 The laughter.

00:54:05.000 What a comedic genius.

00:54:07.000 Here's the thing.

00:54:08.000 The reason that the left believes Ketanji Brown-Jackson is dead center is because they live in this little tiny bubble.

00:54:13.000 And in this little tiny bubble, everything that is the most radical is the mainstream opinion.

00:54:17.000 And this is why I take, for example, what's going on at Disney.

00:54:20.000 So Disney has had a walkout, okay?

00:54:23.000 And if you read the media, you would imagine that thousands upon thousands of Disney employees have been walking out of their places of employ.

00:54:30.000 There are 200,000 employees at Disney.

00:54:34.000 200,000.

00:54:35.000 Here's a little video of Disney employees walking around the block at their Burbank headquarters.

00:54:41.000 This is like 60 people, maybe. 0.96

00:54:47.000 Chanting, say gay in the middle of Burbank, California. 1.00

00:54:50.000 Yes. 0.99

00:54:51.000 Such heroism.

00:54:52.000 Wow. 0.99

00:54:54.000 Say gay. 0.94

00:54:55.000 First of all, not illegal to say gay in the state of Florida.

00:54:58.000 Second of all, not illegal to say gay in schools in the state of Florida.

00:55:01.000 Third of all, illegal to indoctrinate kids in sexual orientation and gender identity at the age of six in the state of Florida.

00:55:07.000 But, here is the point.

00:55:10.000 How many people do you think, if you read the media, how many people out of 200,000 do you think walked out during this massive Disney walkout?

00:55:16.000 Earth-shattering.

00:55:17.000 So earth-shattering that Bob Chapek at Disney had to run screaming from his own apolitical position on what particular states do with their educational systems.

00:55:25.000 By the way, bills that are widely approved by parents I mean, according to the poll data, I will just point out here, 60% of Disney's own employees, when told about what this bill includes, support the bill in Florida, which does not say anywhere in it the word gay and is not, in fact, a Don't Say Gay bill.

00:55:44.000 The Daily Wire, we did our own poll on this with a polling firm.

00:55:48.000 We found 67% of Americans said Disney was wrong to oppose the bill, and 60% of Disney's own consumers backed the legislation's main provisions.

00:55:55.000 So not a majority of Disney employees, a majority of their consumers. 1.00

00:55:58.000 So they're idiots. 1.00

00:55:59.000 Okay, Disney, for embracing this cause. 1.00

00:56:00.000 How many employees walked out?

00:56:02.000 Now you might imagine if 10,000 employees walked out.

00:56:05.000 That was still 10,000 employees.

00:56:10.000 It'd be about 5% of the entire Disney workforce.

00:56:12.000 Okay, not...

00:56:14.000 Not a huge percentage.

00:56:15.000 If 10,000 walked out. 0.89

00:56:18.000 And if they caved to those 10,000 employees, you might say, well, you know, stupid move, but you can sort of see why 5% is a fairly critical mass of your employee base.

00:56:28.000 And for every person who walked out, maybe there were two people who were sympathetic.

00:56:31.000 So maybe it's actually 30,000 people.

00:56:33.000 Okay.

00:56:34.000 How about if I told you that 70 people in Burbank walked out?

00:56:38.000 70.

00:56:39.000 And that across the nation, it was probably grand total, a few hundred, maybe 300.

00:56:44.000 If I told you that it was like, let's say, let's go high-end.

00:56:47.000 Let's say it was 500 employees.

00:56:51.000 Okay, 500 employees.

00:56:53.000 So, what would that amount to?

00:56:56.000 That would amount to, let's see, 0.25% of a percentage point.

00:57:02.000 Okay, that would amount to nothing.

00:57:05.000 It is a rounding error.

00:57:07.000 A rounding error in the Disney employment base.

00:57:10.000 And yet, they decided that they were going to cave to this.

00:57:15.000 Because again, in their bubble, this matters.

00:57:17.000 In their magical little bubble, where the media dictate terms, this matters.

00:57:22.000 And what's amazing is how many people are falling victim to this.

00:57:27.000 It really is incredible.

00:57:28.000 I mean, people in Republican states.

00:57:30.000 So for example, Utah's governor, Spencer Cox, he just refused to sign a bill that barred male athletes from playing with females.

00:57:41.000 This makes him the second Republican governor in two days to reject such legislation.

00:57:45.000 Republican legislators in Utah are going to override the veto.

00:57:48.000 Cox said in a statement that while politically it would be much easier and better for me to simply sign the bill, he chose to veto it because he tried to do what I feel is the right thing regardless of the consequences.

00:57:56.000 And on Monday, Governor Eric Holcomb of Indiana, a Republican, vetoed a similar bill, saying it would likely have been challenged in the court and would not have solved any pressing issue.

00:58:04.000 Okay, the actual reality here.

00:58:07.000 is that both of these governors are weak-kneed.

00:58:09.000 And because they are weak-kneed, they're not protecting girls and women in their state.

00:58:14.000 Period.

00:58:15.000 Because they have decided that they would rather be held hostage by a small group of people who are very, very loud than do what's in the interest of their own constituents.

00:58:24.000 And it is because of this sort of cowardice that you see things like the question of what is a woman bleeding up to the Supreme Court?

00:58:31.000 Remember, everything that happens at the Supreme Court level starts off in law schools.

00:58:36.000 Really interesting piece over at Barry Weiss's Substack by a guy named Aaron Sebarium.

00:58:42.000 Aaron Sebarium is a staff writer at the Washington Free Beacon, and he has a piece talking about the infusion of our entire legal education system with wokeness.

00:58:51.000 He says, In 2017, the super-lawyer David Boies was at a corporate retreat at the Ritz-Carlton in Key Biscayne, Florida, hosted by his law firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner.

00:59:00.000 Boies was a liberal legend.

00:59:01.000 He had represented Al Gore in Bush vs. Gore in 2003.

00:59:04.000 In 2013, he had successfully defended gay marriage in California.

00:59:08.000 On the last day of the retreat, Boies gave a talk in the hotel ballroom to 100 or so attorneys, according to a lawyer present.

00:59:13.000 Afterward, Boies' colleagues were invited to ask questions.

00:59:16.000 Many of the questions were yawners.

00:59:17.000 Then, an associate in her late 20s stood up.

00:59:20.000 She said there were lawyers at the firm who were uncomfortable with boys representing disgraced movie maker Harvey Weinstein, and she wanted to know whether boys would pay them severance so they could quit and focus on applying for jobs at other firms.

00:59:30.000 Boys said no.

00:59:33.000 When congressional Republicans used to attack attorneys for representing Gitmo detainees, the entire left rallied around them.

00:59:38.000 But that's not how the New Associates saw Boyd's choice to represent Weinstein.

00:59:41.000 They thought there were certain people you just did not represent, people so hateful and reprehensible that helping them made you complicit.

00:59:49.000 The adversarial legal system, in which both sides of a dispute are represented vigorously by attorneys with a vested interest in winning, is at the heart of the American constitutional order.

00:59:57.000 Since time immemorial, law schools have tried to prepare their students to take part in that system, says Aaron Siberian.

01:00:02.000 Not so much anymore.

01:00:03.000 Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality.

01:00:09.000 The imperatives of race, gender, and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law.

01:00:20.000 So, again, everything that you're seeing at the Supreme Court level with Ketanji Brown-Jackson has bled over to every area of America's culture, and all of these corporations, these woke corporations, are falling prey to it.

01:00:30.000 And so are Republican governors.

01:00:31.000 By the way, not in Florida, where Ron DeSantis recognized Emma Wyant as the winner of the NCAA Swimming Championship.

01:00:37.000 She, of course, is from Sarasota.

01:00:38.000 She won the silver.

01:00:39.000 He says she's the only actual woman who won.

01:00:41.000 Good for DeSantis. 1.00

01:00:43.000 All the rest of these people who decide to take the cowardly way out because they're afraid of small minorities of people who believe absolutely incredibly stupid garbage with no basis to support it. 1.00

01:00:52.000 All those people deserve what they get politically. 0.99

01:00:55.000 Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with an additional hour of content.

01:00:57.000 In the meantime, go check out The Michael Moll Show that's available right now.

01:01:00.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

01:01:00.000 Shapiro, this is the Ben Shapiro Show.

01:01:09.000 Executive Producer Jeremy Boring.

01:01:11.000 Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.

01:01:13.000 And our Production Manager is Paweł Łydowski.

01:01:16.000 Associate Producer Bradford Carrington.

01:01:18.000 Editing is by Adam Sajewicz.

01:01:20.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.

01:01:21.000 Hair and Makeup is by Fabiola Christina.

01:01:24.000 Production Assistant Jessica Crand.

01:01:25.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

01:01:27.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2022.

01:01:30.000 Supreme Court nominee Katonji Jackson praises the radical African Hebrew-Israelite cult, Joe Biden promotes a new world order, and Russia wants to take back Alaska.

The Ben Shapiro Show - March 24, 2022

Biden’s Female SCOTUS Nominee Doesn’t Know What A Woman Is | Ep. 1459

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript