This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court this week ordered the Democrat majority in the Maine legislature to dissolve its "censure" of a Republican member whose was being punished for expressing her opinions about a boy being allowed on a girls athletic team in the state.
Justice Ketanji Jackson, who infamously could not, or would not, tell a Senate committee the definition of a "woman" during her confirmation hearing, opposed that move.
She claimed Laurel Libby, the state representative, has "not asserted that there are any significant votes scheduled in the coming weeks [or] that there are any upcoming votes in which Libby's participation would impact the outcome."
Now a commentary at the Daily Signal is pointing out her hypocrisy, as that expression didn't even align with Jackson's own earlier arguments.
"In other words, Libby's exclusion from voting in the Maine House of Representatives deserves emergency relief only if she can show that relief would change the result of a vote. As Justin Evan Smith writes at 'Ordered Liberty,' Jackson's reasoning implies that 'political participation is only meaningful if its outcome determinative,'" wrote GianCarlo Canaparo, a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese II Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
He pointed out, "Jackson may have a problem being consistent across cases when her politics align with one case but not another."
But Jackson's perspective is "deeply corrosive" "to our republican form of government because it would protect the outcomes of the representative process but not our right to participate in that process," he explained. "The Constitution very clearly protects our rights to participate in governance, even—especially—if we don't win."
Jackson's reasoning suggests her belief is that "minority voices don't count."
That, the commentary said, is wrong "according to Jackson herself."
In another case, where the politics aligned with Jackson's ideologies, Allen v. Milligan, a racial gerrymandering case, she took the other side.
In that fight, "black Alabamians argued that the Voting Rights Act required the state to create an additional majority-black congressional district."
Jackson at the time blasted the state of Alabama "for arguing that the Constitution requires the state to be colorblind when it creates congressional districts."
She said the 14th Amendment allows states to rely on race, and the Voting Rights Act actually "requires them to rely on race when they create districts because that's the only way to identify minorities 'who have less opportunity and less ability to participate' and to 'ensure that that's remedied.'"
The commentary pointed out Jackson's goal, "to protect" a minority group's" right to participate.
"What Jackson saw so clearly in Milligan, she lost sight of in Libby," the commentary said.
"When a minority in Maine—conservatives who oppose boys in girls' sports—asked Jackson to defend their right to participate in the political process, she said it wasn't important enough for the court's emergency docket. It would only be important enough if their representative would control the outcome of a particular vote."
