Definitions Matter
"A Culture of Confusion"
In a time when the U.S. Supreme Court is issuing rulings that shape the moral and legal fabric of our nation—from religious liberty to gender identity, from parental rights to the definition of citizenship—one moment from a recent confirmation hearing continues to echo with unsettling resonance.
When asked by Senator Marsha Blackburn to define the word “woman,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson replied, “I’m not a biologist.” That answer, delivered during her 2022 confirmation hearing, was more than a dodge—it was a philosophical pivot that revealed a deeper crisis: if a Supreme Court justice cannot or will not define something as foundational as “woman,” how can we trust that justice to adjudicate the complex moral and constitutional questions that hinge on such definitions?
The Court’s Role in a Confused Culture
The Supreme Court is not merely a legal body—it is a cultural compass. Its decisions ripple through every classroom, courtroom, and church pew in America. In recent months, the Court has ruled on:
- Whether parents can opt their children out of LGBTQ+ curriculum in public schools.
- Whether states can require age verification for pornographic websites.
- Whether transgender minors can receive gender-affirming medical treatments.
- Whether birthright citizenship can be limited by executive order.
Each of these cases touches on the very nature of identity, morality, and human dignity. And yet, if the justices themselves are unwilling to define the terms at the heart of these debates, how can they render judgments that are coherent, let alone just?
Definitions Are Not Optional
To say “I’m not a biologist” is to abdicate the responsibility of reason. The law depends on definitions. Without them, statutes become riddles and rights become abstractions. If the Court cannot define woman, how can it protect women’s sports, women’s privacy, or women’s rights? This is not about biology alone—it’s about clarity.
Sadly, our culture has decided that long-standing definitions are inaccurate, so for the last half of a century there has been a movement to 'redefine' what has already been defined. How one defines 'normal' seems to drive a wedge into our culture? How one defines 'truth', 'morality,' 'right-wrong,' 'good-evil', as well as 'marriage' are all 'hot-topics' because of the desire to redefine what has already been defined.
The High Court could bring some closure to this if it can speak with both moral and intellectual integrity in an age of confusion.
In the aftermath of the public verbal sparring between our President and the Chief Justice, I sent this letter to Justice Roberts calling for Him - Well - read for yourself -
The Foundation Is Cracking
Like it or not, our Founding Fathers were deeper thinkers than anyone in leadership today. It is frightening to think of the outcome if we had need to develop a Constitution from ‘scratch’ today. The fear would be that the writers (our leaders) would be unable to penned a document that ‘cost them everything so that the country could have everything,’ but possible would write one that ‘gave them everything regardless of the cost to the nation.’
It appears that we now have people in critical place of authority who do not understand the basic tenants of what made this country great. The underlying, foundational beliefs that made it possible for us to grow this experiment we call ‘Democracy’ into a World power are being abandoned at a breakneck pace, and it’s on OUR WATCH!
Justice Jackson’s response may have been intended to avoid controversy, but it revealed a deeper fracture: a reluctance to affirm objective truth in favor of cultural appeasement. And that fracture is now visible in the Court’s rulings, where the lines between rights and ideologies are increasingly blurred.
When the Court upholds a parent’s right to opt their child out of certain curriculum, it affirms religious liberty—but when it refuses to define the terms that curriculum is built on, it leaves the door open for future erosion. This is only one example of the Courts missing their opportunity to help right the ship of this culture to objective, authentic, and unchanging truth.
When the Court rules on gender-based medical care, it must wrestle with what gender is—and if that question is off-limits, then the ruling is built on sand.
A Call for Courage
The American people deserve justices who are not only brilliant legal minds but also courageous moral voices. We need leaders who will not flinch when asked to define reality. Because if the Court cannot define a woman, it cannot defend one. And if it cannot defend one, it cannot defend us all.
Comments
Post a Comment