Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE
Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings have ended and she is all but certain to ascend to the high court, but she is still receiving written questions from senators and one of her answers concerning Natural Rights is getting a lot of attention.
As Jackson was measured for her black robes, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) sent her a written question that cuts to the heart of American freedoms. That question followed one other on the subject.
“Please explain, in your own words, the theory prevalent among members of the Founding Fathers’ generation that humans possess Natural Rights that are inherent or inalienable,” one question asked the nominee.
“The theory that humans possess inherent or inalienable rights is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which states: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,’” she responded merely reciting the founding document, not answering in her own words as directed.
Next up, was Cruz’s query, “Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess Natural Rights, yes or no?”
Brown Jackson tellingly responded, “I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess Natural Rights.”
“If yes, what is your position?” was the second part of the question.
“Please see my response to Question 16,” she replied.
Here's the link to KBJ's written responses: https://t.co/2vlzV3WzY9
Her statement that she has no position on whether individuals possess natural rights is on 79th page (in answer to question 16 from Senator Cruz).
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) April 1, 2022
Many see these responses as disqualifying in regard to sitting on the Supreme Court but the answer got virtually no press time.
A number of conservatives were incensed by it, however:
I find this more disturbing than her refusal to define what a woman is. If everything is ‘fluid’, including our most basic rights, then there is no truth except the truth people in power determine ‘for’ us. Scary times.
— Rochelle Wentz (@rochellewentz) April 2, 2022
That’s disqualifying.
— America First (@America00983474) April 1, 2022
An instant no vote. Right here. Argue her poor sentencing record all you want, but having no position on rights being natural? Keep this woman far, far away from SCOTUS. https://t.co/TLvT8phMJl
— The🐰FOO (@PolitiBunny) April 2, 2022
Every junior high student knows “that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.”
— Dan Roth (@Dan12R) April 2, 2022
WTF???? And she (but I am not a biologist) is supposed to defend the Constitution https://t.co/FIFIZXEffi
— USMC3048 (@drabyUSMC) April 2, 2022
The entire foundation of our system of government is the existence of natural rights. That’s why we have a Bill of Rights.
How the hell can a judge who doesn’t hold that truth be to self-evident possibly serve on a Supreme Court that adjudicates those rights? https://t.co/MQhN7WIQAD
— Hammerjack (@MarcGiller) April 2, 2022
How do you enforce the bill of rights if you don’t know if natural rights exist. https://t.co/o9eiYqWckI
— Kween Josie of all the Liberty (@KweenJosie) April 2, 2022
direct contradiction of the Founding Fathers
— Matthew S (@MattyBoySwag143) April 1, 2022
So she doesn’t like the Declaration of Independence.
— Always winter never baseball (@BenzDh) April 2, 2022
I really wonder if she has ever read our Constitution. Even just a brief perusal.
— Juff (@juff719) April 2, 2022
Question 15 – Explain in your own words. Then she answers by citing the declaration of independance. She did not understand the question and made no effort to give a thought out answer.
— Chris Tanner (@ctannerza) April 2, 2022
She is a Radical Socialist. This what happens when choose a candidate based on race and not actual qualifications.
— Real me Ron (@hewholikesjuggs) April 2, 2022
This answer indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of our nation’s founding principles and the constitution, which she would be tasked to interpret as a SCOTUS justice. NO indeed. NO NO NO NO NO.
— pete1258 (@pete1258) April 2, 2022
Judge Jackson doesn’t believe in our Constitution, cannot define what is a woman, and doesn’t know when life begins. She is not qualified to hold the position. The Senate must vote NO.
— Teresa Lowell (@LowellTeresa) April 2, 2022
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Trump blasts Maggie Haberman for spreading fake narrative involving Melania: ‘Not angry at all’ - November 10, 2022
- Tiffany Trump ‘flipping out’, stuck inside evacuated Mar-a-Lago as hurricane changes wedding plans: report - November 10, 2022
- Transgender influencer livid after being thrown in Miami jail with male inmates: ‘Disturbing and dangerous’ - November 10, 2022
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
