-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, earlier this week, I gave some examples of how the media is covering for Judge Jackson's lackluster performance in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. I am not sure who they think they will persuade with these unhinged attacks, but what I do know is that the subtext has come through loud and clear for Tennesseans. It is: Sit down, shut up, stop questioning authority; and if you don't, we are going to come and get you.
That is what these headlines are basically saying.
Last night, I hosted a telephone townhall with more than 30,000 people across middle and east Tennessee, and they have rejected the message that they are seeing in these headlines. It is really pretty simple for them. The harder the media pushes and tries to shut them up, the more they are pushing for accountability, especially when it comes to protecting the future for their children and their grandchildren.
As I am sure many people will recall, during a line of questioning in Judge Jackson's confirmation hearing, I asked her a very simple question. All I wanted her to do was define the word ``woman.'' She told me she couldn't answer the question because she wasn't a biologist. If we had not been in the middle of a committee hearing, I would have thought that this was a joke. But we were in the middle of this committee hearing, and it wasn't. It was a very deliberate signal to a very specific group of individuals.
Of course, our friends in the media sensed this was going to backfire, as it did, so they flew into damage control mode. But I think it is safe to say they overplayed their hand on this one. According to this particular outlet, science says there is no simple answer to what a woman is. Don't question the science. That sounds familiar, doesn't it? We have heard that a lot lately. They went to great lengths to refute a simple fact that every single American learned in their grade school science class. Judge Jackson's answer and the media's panicked defense of it were both completely divorced from reality.
I have spoken at length about how Judge Jackson's total lack of a judicial philosophy causes these kinds of problems. But my Democratic colleagues and their activist friends still seem to be under the impression it is unreasonable to ask a Supreme Court nominee about her approach to interpreting the law. This makes no sense. Without that philosophy--without that basic standard--you cannot achieve stability or predictability, which are two things Judge Jackson repeatedly told us are important for a functioning judicial system.
I have serious questions about the nominee's refusal to engage us on this question. But what worries me more is her refusal to acknowledge that when it comes to law, not everything can or should be up for debate because political activists demand it. Our legal system is built on a foundation of definitions and rules, which are two equally important components.
In this case, if we concede that the definition of ``woman'' is too controversial to nail down, how can we demand equal justice under the law for victims of sex discrimination? Furthermore, how could the Supreme Court determine standing for any case regarding a gender-based rule? To take it even further, if words no longer matter, are the definitions of other protected classes up for debate? If so, which ones? And if not, then why not? Whose standard are we using here? Think about that.
I hear from Tennesseans every single day who feel like they are fighting a losing battle against the erosion of our basic values. Their government is drowning in debt. The crime rate has gone from bad to absolutely terrifying. And classrooms have become battlegrounds in the culture war between woke bureaucrats and parents who just want to rear their children as they see fit.
Slowly but surely, activists are forcing themselves between parents and their children, stripping words and institutions of their meaning and using their power to eliminate dissent. It is no way to run a classroom, and it is no way to run a country either. But right now, these parents I am talking to are looking at Washington and seeing the left use these same tactics to convince whoever gives credence to these unhinged headlines that reality is somehow up for debate.
They are not going to tolerate it anymore, not from Congress, not from the White House, and certainly not from the Supreme Court.
I think it bears repeating that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law, not to take up arms in a culture war. I cannot in good conscience give my endorsement to a Supreme Court nominee whose first instinct was to chip away at the very foundation of the law rather than challenge the expectations of radical political activists.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source