Joe Biden’s Supreme court nominee has been in confirmational hearings for the past three days, during which time she has a) refused to state when life begins; b) demonstrated herself incapable of providing a defintion for the word woman ; c) defended her soft sentencing record for such heinous, egregious crimes as pedophilia and the publication and possession of child pornography; d) expressed sympathy for the racist, anti-semitic cult known as the Black Israelites; d) revealed herself to be a supporter of Critical Race Theory, the 1618 Project falsehoods, and the Marxist organization BLM. She is either an incredibly incompetant equity hire, or the most radical nominee to the Supreme Court in its entire history. Yet her glib refusal to respond to pertinent political and cultural questions is jarring to the general public, which is why the Democrat senators of the most radical administration in America’s history are racing to stop up the hemorrage of unadulterated ideology put forth by this candidate.

During a questioning by Repubblican Senator Ted Cruz, who illustrated that Ms Jackson’s sentencing record for pedophiles was significantly lower than even the minimum standards established by government guidlines, Senator Dick Durban did not want to permit the judicial nominee to answer, repeatedly interupting Senator Cruz and speaking loudly over both Senator Cruz and the nominee. Never has there been a case of a judicial chairman NOT permitting the response of a judicial nominee.

The following video, which has gone viral, perfectly illustrates that it is Senator Durman who is refusing to allow Ms. Jackson the possibility of responding, while it is Senator Crux insisting that she respond.

Considering that Joe Biden declared that his pick of judicial nominee would be a black woman – to the exclusion of 94% of the American population, as the Black community is roughly 12%, it is ironic that the nominee herself refuses to define what a woman is.

“I cannot define woman. I am not a biologist.” Clearly the gender issue has become one of today’s defining cultural issues, as we observe the tragic battlefield of what was once womens’ sports, or the access of fully-grown men – often pedophiles – to women’s bathrooms, but this WOMAN has obviously been instructed to dodge questions so dear to Left-wing radicals, despite her chromosomes screaming “XX: I am an immutable characteristic!”

While describing some of the cases she has heard as a judge, Katanji Jackson warmly praised the radical cult known as the ‘African Hebrew Israelites’, claiming that it is not a religious community, but rather a cultural movement promoting veganism and a healthy lifestyle. This does not correspond to the more appropriate description of the worldwide phenomenon called the African Hebrew Israelites, or the Black Israelites, which is a group of black nationalists who believe that the Jews are not the true Israelites, but rather that Blacks are the actual Jews (the Chosen People of God) described in the Bible. They can usually be caught on video in New York or D.C. hurling racist and anti-Semitic epithets, as well as sexual slurs, at passersby, and have been immortalized in numerous videos in which they maligned and insulted the Covington kids present at the 2020 March for Life. It does seem unusual that a Supreme Court candidate would provide glowing descriptions of such a bizarre and controversial community, claiming that there is no religious basis to their movement, because the community to which she refered makes explicitly known on their homepage that they are an organization of a religious nature, and that they are the true Israelites, driven out of the Holy Land. Is Katanji Jackson completely ignorant of the cases she has heard as a judge? Or is she lying to everyone? Is it not perhaps that she is truly a dyed-in-the-wool radical ideologue?

Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence against this nominee remains her poor track record of providing soft sentences against pedophiles and kiddy-porn users, reflective of the tendency of radical progressives to go soft on crime at the behest of their sponsor, George Soros. She fell into an expertly-laid trap by providing an apologia for what she claims is a sub-category of ‘infrequent sexual deviants’, passionately arguing that someone may gain access to the Internet only once, or occasionally, downloading thousands of images ‘accidentally’, and still be obliged to serve a lengthy sentence (which was not the case in the cases brought before her). To which Senator Lindsey Graham responded: “Good. Good! I hope you go to jail for 50 years , if you’re on the Internet trolling for images of children in circumstances of sexual exploitation! So you don’t think that’s a bad thing? I think it’s a horrible thing!” Doesn’t she want child-pornographers to be sentenced to jail for long periods of time? It seems not.

This is because she is clearly an ideologue who believes that criminals in general should face much lighter sentences, that there is an over-incarceration problem, that criminal justice reform is much needed, that it is society’s fault, etc., and if this includes some of the perpetrators of the more heinous categories of crime, so be it.