Letter: Supreme Court justice should be able to give definition of 'woman'

It is truly a sad day in this country when a nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States cannot answer a simple question. That question posed by Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, was: "Can you provide a definition for the word 'woman?'"

The nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, responded thusly: "Can I provide a definition? No. I can't. Not in this context, I'm not a biologist." Sen. Blackburn followed up, asking, "Do you believe the meaning of the word 'woman' is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me a definition?"

Judge Jackson replied: "Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law, and I decide."

Hypothetical courtroom situation: Defense counsel: "Officer, was it a man or a woman driving the getaway car?"

Police officer: "I am not a biologist, so I can't say."

If that wouldn't fly in a district court, why should it fly in a Senate confirmation hearing?

Lastly, if Judge Jackson is confirmed by the Senate and a Title IX case (which states, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.") comes before the Court, shouldn't her inability to decide who is and isn't a woman preclude her from participating in that case?

Joe H. Heater

Palatine