![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/arbitration/23ycYH9B8ASrRHwGtL7rpqpc4JbUiSB9yWxMU8Lk9DZ7q9nox3862iGAyF5S8NezNyU9m.png)



When I first read through Ketanji Brown Jackson's background, I had positive impressions. I hated the cloud that Biden decided to forever cast over her confirmation by making it a clear move of affirmative action rather than a choice based out of pragmatism and merit; but, I found it refreshing to have a nominee who didn't have a "tough on crime" record.

The fact that she wouldn't define "woman" should be a disqualifier. Even if she's not a biologist, she should know what the word means in relation to the law. If the words that compose the law have no meaning, the law has no meaning. Liberals should be concerned that most of RBG's legacy will be held in jeopardy by Brown Jackson's inability to define basic words.

What's more, in a written response, she decided to balk on a question regarding her belief in natural rights. She said that she didn't have a position.

Now, I'll grant that the allusion to natural, inalienable rights was made in the Declaration of Independence and not The Constitution; but, the concept is foundational to our principles.

That also being said, I find the balk to be more worrisome than a clear dismissal of the concept of natural rights. I'm skeptical of the idea of natural rights myself; but, that doesn't mean that I don't believe in them. It's fine to question the foundations of ethics and be uncertain; but, people on the Supreme Court shouldn't feel free to punt on those questions. If she had denied the existence of natural rights and quoted Jeremy Bentham, at least we'd have some idea about where she's coming from.

Any victory won by this appointment is negated by multiple hard losses.