This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An analysis of this week's Supreme Court arguments in a Maryland fight over a school's decision to teach sexually deviant behaviors to children and not allow parents to opt their kids out of those classes has concluded that Justice Ketanji Jackson is "either the dumbest or most evil member" on the court.
Dumbest might be in ascendance, as this was the same individual who, during her Senate confirmation hearing, was unable to tell inquiring senators what is a "woman."
A recording of her revealing her agenda was posted online:
An analysis at RedState explained that it should have been a "red flag."
On the court, she's reliably been a "left-wing vote," it said.
"There is no level of partisanship she won't stoop to in order to defend a Democrat viewpoint, and that was on display again in recent oral arguments surrounding parental rights," it said.
"While a majority of the court seemed to be leaning toward affirming that obvious right, Jackson showed she's either the dumbest or most evil member of the court," it said.
It pointed out that she wasn't even "aware" of the fact that the fight is over Montgomery County School District's actions, which "require" the books to be taught.
She argued that perhaps those books are just "sitting on the shelves," meaning that a temporary injunction to affirm the parents' rights would be inappropriate.
The analysis notes that Jackson does come across "as vapid and ill-equipped," … or "the other option is that she's just evil, and the rest is an act."
"Returning to the core issue, why is it this important for public schools to talk about topics that violate the religious principles of some parents?" the analysis noted. "Does LGBTQ ideology really trump religious liberty? It doesn't, but Jackson thinks it does, and that's a scary proposition. Imagine a court with a few more justices in her mold, and where that would leave the country."
It explained, "Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought some sanity to the discussion by pointing out how absurd Jackson's arguments were."
