The first and most famous was pretty much her introduction to the entire country as the soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice who could not define what a woman was because?

BECAUSE?

Not a biologist™.

Remember that time Kentaji Brown Jackson, now a Supreme Court Justice could not give a definition for "woman"

Good times 🤦‍♀️ pic.twitter.com/L1sh4a41rF

— Kat™ The Hammer ⚒️ (@KatTheHammer1) March 19, 2024

Ho, boy.

There have been some memorable stumbles since, but today?

Today, she has come close to eclipsing that moment in the sun.

The case being heard is a challenge to a Tennessee law that bars 'risky gender transition interventions for minors.' That's the key to the whole brouhaha right there - for minors. 

On December 4, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in one of the most significant cases of this term, United States v. Skrmetti. The question before the Court is whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which bars risky gender-transition interventions for minors, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Two years after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court is being asked to make up a constitutional rule to take another area of contentious policy away from the people and their elected representatives. The Court of the past sometimes could not resist taking that bait, but the current Court has a much better sense when it comes to legally baseless power grabs.

By its terms, SB1 prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.” Three minors, their parents, and a doctor challenged the law on substantive due process and equal protection theories. The district court held the law facially unconstitutional and preliminarily enjoined all but the surgical prohibition. A 2–1 panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed. In his panel opinion, Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton rejected both the equal protection and substantive due process claims. He noted that SB1 was based not on sex, but “on presumptively valid age and medical conditions,” and it “treat[ed] similarly situated individuals evenhandedly.” Under those circumstances, the law did not trigger heightened scrutiny.

Again, the Sixth Circuit ruled in its reversal that the law was based on valid age requirements and medical conditions, which treated all individuals equally.

We're talking about allowing children to be mutilated for life without being of an age where informed consent is possible, for a "condition" that is not life-threatening and, in many quarters, is considered to be a mental disease that these same children grow out of as raging hormones subside and brains mature.

John had a great rundown of some of the highlights of all the justices' comments today, but KBJ's, oooh.

I have to admit it caught my attention because it was so out to lunch on a comparative scale that I had to play it again.

Brown-Jackson somehow managed to conflate? Confuse? The permanent mutilation of a minor child's body to interracial marriage.

I am completely lost.

Yes, because banning a white person from marrying a black person is the same thing as cutting off a 10-year-old's gen*tals.

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) December 4, 2024

Admittedly, it was almost as if Sotomayor was playing warm-up for her.

I can't find "May surgically remove your genitals" on the aspirin warning label. 😳

— KennyB (@kenoba_d) December 4, 2024

Yes, two Bayer's are just like puberty blockers forever stunting your sexual development, or losing both breasts or your tiny, undeveloped testicles forever.

Same-same.

VURT IN THE ACTUAL FURK?

When you put the two together...I mean, your head hurts.

Sonia Sotomayor: "Using 'gender-affirming care on children is like taking aspirin!"

Ketanji Brown Jackson: "If you want to ban 'gender-affirming care' for kids, then you're like people who wanted to ban interracial marriage."

It's only funny until you remember that these… pic.twitter.com/ilbJuSZHjz

— Jeff Charles, Doni's St. Bernard🏴 (@jeffcharlesjr) December 4, 2024

...Ketanji Brown Jackson: "If you want to ban 'gender-affirming care' for kids, then you're like people who wanted to ban interracial marriage." 

It's only funny until you remember that these nutjobs have lifetime appointments on the highest court in the land.

Media is already moaning that SCOTUS appears to be leaning towards upholding the TN ban, and thank God, for the children's sake.

No such thing as a trans kid, just parents with mental problems

— Braeden (@BraedenSorbo) December 4, 2024

Let them make their own decisions about what to lop off when they're adult enough to know what it is they're going to lose.

What they will irreversibly lose if allowed to do this to themselves before they understand what it means.

Even then, they may not, but at least they will have lived life in the skin they were born in.

'Every day you'll stare in the mirror studying every shadow, every hint of your former face, convinced it is shining through. You'll try to hide it with makeup, long hair and more makeup.

But you'll always see him.

Your clothes won't fit right. You're too tall, too lanky.'

— Chad Felix Greene 🇮🇱 (@chadfelixg) December 4, 2024

In the meantime, marvel at what sits on the court and know it's only by the grace of God that they are not in the majority.

Man.

I need a handful of ibuprofen.