Law schools fall to revolutionaries

Here’s a very, very powerful addition to my conservative appeasement danger post.

Writing on Bari Weiss’ valuable Substack, Aaron Sibarium details the corruption of the American legal profession by the revival. It’s a five-alarm situation. Excerpts:

Read everything. Seriously, every word. As scholar Eric Kaufmann said over the weekend (see my link in the first graf), conservative voters and politicians must make the fight against Awakening in the Culture War their #1 priority. If they don’t, we will lose our freedom. It’s that simple.

The people who lived under totalitarianism in the Soviet bloc were the first to understand the true nature of the changes that have swept America over the past decade. I tell their story in Don’t live by lies, and share their tips for resisting it. If you ever thought the idea of ​​“soft totalitarianism” was unduly alarmist, I urge you to read the Sibarium report and reconsider. If you’re the kind of person who thinks awakening is a fad among young people, and that they’ll eventually get through it, not only are you wrong, but you dangerously wrong.

This week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appears before the Senate in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Two years ago, at a lecture at law school, she discussed critical race theorists who have influenced her thinking. Here is a link to the text of the conference. She also praised the fraudulent 1619 project. Well, the critical race theory came up during an interrogation yesterday:

But it was the question of whether the infants were racist or not that drew the first detectable sign of exasperation from Judge Jackson, who sits on the board of trustees at Georgetown Day School, a private school in Washington. where the city’s elite – both conservative and liberal – send their children.

Handling a stack of children’s books, Sen. Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, asked an aide to display several large color photos of a children’s book titled “Antiracist Baby” by Ibrahim X. Kendi.

“It’s a book that’s taught at Georgetown Day School to students in kindergarten through second grade,” Cruz said from the stage. “Do you agree with this book that teaches children that babies are racist?”

Judge Jackson sighed audibly before leaning into the microphone.

“Senator,” she said, “I don’t believe a child should feel like they’re racist, or that they’re not valued, or that they’re inferior, that they “He’s a victim, he’s an oppressor. I don’t believe in any of that.”

During his 30-minute interrogation, Mr. Cruz asked Judge Jackson about her views on race, racism and critical race theory. Critical race theory is a field of law school study that argues that laws and institutions can incorporate structural racial biases, but Republicans have used the term as a way to critique teaching materials that describe racial biases. ideas of racism, racial privilege or inequality.

After finishing with “Antiracist Baby,” Mr. Cruz asked Judge Jackson whether or not she had read any of the children’s books. And she continued to tell the senator that she wasn’t sure about the connection between children’s books and her job as a judge.

“I haven’t reviewed any of these books, any of these ideas,” Judge Jackson said. “They are not my job as a judge, which I am respectfully here to address.”

Earlier in his interrogation process, Mr. Cruz cited Judge Jackson’s praise for Georgetown Day’s “rigorous progressive education that is dedicated to fostering critical thinking, independence and social justice.” Judge Jackson responded that the school was private and that each “parent who joins the community does so voluntarily, knowing that they are joining a community designed to ensure that every child is valued”.

That’s a good set of questions. Someone who was against the tenets of critical race theory should have been eager to criticize the school’s racist policies. Moreover, it should have been easy for the judge to give Senator Marsha Blackburn the definition she was asking for:

“Do you interpret the meaning of Justice Ginsburg’s men and women as men and women?” Blackburn in a hurry. Jackson has not commented on this.

“Can you give a definition of the word ‘woman?’ asked the senator.

“Can I give a definition? No,” Jackson replied. “I can not.”

” You can not ? Blackburn asked.

“Not in this context, I’m not a biologist,” the judge replied.

“Do you believe that the meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you cannot give me a definition? Blackburn in a hurry.

“Senator, in my job as a judge, what I do is settle disputes. If there’s a dispute over a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide,” Jackson said.

It’s completely hypocritical. Judge Brown is well aware that judges like her are required to make these decisions in cases involving transgender civil rights claims. His refusal to answer the question simply tells us what we need to know.

Judge Jackson is both a radical and a liberal of 2022, in the sense that Aaron Sibarium means in his article. In other words, she would clearly be a reliable vehicle for Supreme Court deliberations of the kind of culture war radicalism that has consumed law schools. I take a relatively broad view of SCOTUS nominations, thinking that chairpersons should generally have their nominees confirmed without a serious reason not to. In these times, however, and with the grave threat that gender ideology and the CRT pose to the fundamental social and constitutional order, I would not vote to confirm a judicial candidate who was not explicitly opposed to both. It is too important for the present and the future of the country.

UPDATE: Check it out – here’s the clip. It is morally insane. No need to be a biologist to answer this question. The fact that Judge Jackson can’t — or rather, won’t — tells us everything we need to know about her. I would vote against his nomination for that reason alone. A potential Supreme Court justice who refuses to define “woman” is not suited for that position.

About the Author

Rod Dreher is editor at The American Conservative. A veteran of three decades of magazine and newspaper journalism, he has also written three New York Times bestsellers—Don’t live by lies, The Benedict optionand The Little Path by Ruthie Lemingas well as Crunchy Disadvantages and How Dante can save your life. Dreher lives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

last articles

Thelma J. Longworth