Letters to the Editor – March 25, 2022

The issue: Ketanji Brown Jackson’s refusal to define the word “woman” during her confirmation hearing.

It’s beyond disturbing Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson refused to define “woman” at her hearing (“‘Woman’ Trouble”, March 24).

As an apology for her refusal to respond, she explained, “I’m not a biologist.” Well, I’m not a podiatrist either, but I know what a foot is.

If confirmed, how can she decide cases of gender discrimination against women if she cannot define what a woman is?

Also worrying is their record of lenient sentences for the detainees possession of child pornography. Thousands of young children were sexually exploited to provide educational material to these mentally ill individuals, but Jackson repeatedly handed down sentences that met both federal guidelines and prosecutorial recommendations.

Judge Jackson has no place on the Supreme Court.

Kenneth Fitzgerald

Hicksville

President Biden’s nominee for the Supreme Court cannot define a woman on the grounds that she is not a biologist.

That makes them politically correct, bright and fraudulent — like many other Biden officials who find it convenient to simply deny reality when they believe it is to their advantage.

How can someone who refuses to distinguish between men and women be entrusted with far more subtle distinctions in legal issues that will shape the lives of Americans for decades to come?

David Rabinowitz

Brooklyn

Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked Jackson, “Can you give a definition of the word ‘woman’?”

“Can I give a definition? I can’t,” Jackson said. She tried to justify her non-response by saying she wasn’t a biologist.

She knows what a woman is but that tells you how she will rule things like men in women’s sports. She won’t stand up for women until the awakened left tells her it’s okay.

Democratic senators running for re-election in close races this year must defend their vote for their nomination after avoiding answering the simplest of questions.

Ed Buttimore

Cedar Grove, NJ

At a hearing on Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Stephen Breyer, Senator Blackburn asked her to “define woman.”

Jackson never knew how to answer that question — or she just didn’t want to answer it.

I’m nowhere near as intelligent and accomplished as Jackson. However, I could have answered that question very easily, having been a man for 73 years now.

The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson does not have the maturity or legal intellect at this point in her life to become a Supreme Court Justice.

She should definitely be looked at again, but only after at least 10 more years as a judge. I just don’t think Jackson is ready. She is way too young. She needs more legal experience.

Peter Gryzmolowicz

Orleans, Mass.

Americans rightly feel that Supreme Court justices should be excellent legal scholars and well-informed in other matters.

At Wednesday’s confirmation hearing, Jackson was asked to define a “woman.” Remarkably, she disagreed, saying she couldn’t define what a woman was because she wasn’t a biologist.

Maybe she can’t see the weather outside her window because she’s not a meteorologist?

The answer was bland. It was frightened, showing its fear of imperfection, and it was infantile. It exposed Jackson as shallow and unworthy of the nomination.

Biden should find a different perspective rather than pushing someone who isn’t ready for the big stage.

Reich Klitzberg

Boca Raton, Fla.

I think The Post got it wrong when it said Jackson refused to define “woman”.

She said she couldn’t because she was “not a biologist.” That’s why she thinks it’s a matter of biology. And what does biology say? XX and XY.

Andreas Rodriguez

Jackson, California

Want to weigh today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy and style.