https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FIMPrN_eaE
No U.S. Supreme Court Justices have officially stated they
cannot define "woman" or "man" in a legal context, though Ketanji Brown Jackson famously declined a biological definition during her confirmation, deferring to the court's role in interpreting law rather than biology, highlighting that definitions in law often depend on context, not absolute biological consensus. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret statutes, like the Equality Act, not issue universal biological definitions, and rulings often focus on specific legal meanings within legislation, as seen in recent UK Supreme Court cases. Key points:
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated that she could not define "woman" in a specific context during her 2022 confirmation. She explained that her role is to interpret legal disputes.
- U.S. Supreme Court Justices interpret existing laws instead of defining biological terms.
- Legal definitions of "sex," "man," or "woman" vary by context and statute. Courts must clarify these definitions.
- The UK Supreme Court recently ruled on the definition of "woman" within the Equality Act. This shows that courts define terms within legal frameworks, not universally.
The question is about the scope of a judge's role in defining words versus interpreting statutes.
No comments:
Post a Comment