SCOTUS: Brutal Quotes From Alito And KJB From Hearing In Landmark Case

Clarence Thomas may get most of the attention from both right and left, but Samuel Alito is a huge hero to the right as well. And interactions like the ones we see here are a yet another example of why.

We’ve got examples from moments by both KJB and Samuel Alito that have gotten a lot of attention on the internet.

Simply put, Alito is from a school of legal thought that excludes judges from acting as activists and law-givers. The interpret the law as given, and point to gaps in the law. It finds the outer bounds of a person or entity’s lawful authority or right in a given situation. But the one thing it does not do is create legislation where none previously existed.

The Dem-appointed judges, at the other end of the spectrum, conceive of the law as having ‘evolutionary’ characteristics that can take on wildly different meanings or applications from anything indicated in the plain text of the document itself.

We recall KTB working very hard in her hearings to conceal the dogmatic views she had on questions of gender identity during her confirmation hearings using, in on notable exchange, the fact that she is ‘not a biologist’ and unable to respond to a senator’s question about what defines a woman. This is a remarkable fallback position seeing as the explicit job description for the position to which Biden appointed her was to make difficult distinctions under law, including about whether characteristics of one person or group were consistent with the triggering of a condition or clause under law. She wanted to present herself as ideological neutral on an issue of national import that, even then, was already winding its way through the courts.

Leaving aside the admittedly funny ‘cisginger’ flub, we see that now-Justice KTB no longer conceals the strong views about distinctions between sex and gender identity she carefully avoided discussing during her hearings.

🚨 Ketanji ‘I’m Not a Biologist’ Jackson: “For cisGINGER girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can’t.” pic.twitter.com/uCqSHR6nM2

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 13, 2026

Another quote from the hearings:

“This is, like, second-order discrimination. The first order is separating male from female. The second order is separating transgender women from cisgender women.” – Ketanji Brown Jackson

There was all kinds of pushback on her line of reasoning. Here are two samples:

Riley Gaines points out that sporting events are contests involving a contest between bodies per se, not between subjective identities.

“Cisgender women can compete according to their gender identity; transgender women cannot.” – KJB

Identities don’t play sports. Bodies do.

Does she think we should have categories for other identity factors? Religion? Color of skin? Ridiculous. pic.twitter.com/AGTOXwgay1

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) January 13, 2026

And another commenter raises the question of immutable characteristics.

KJB needs to look up the definition of “IMMUTABLE TRAITS”,

which are the legal justification for “protected class”.

Arguing that you can change your traits & should thus be protected,

is quite literally, the opposite of “immutable”.

Case Closed, and SCOTUS a will rule this… pic.twitter.com/FoJhXcAd1s

— Voice of Sanity (@HouseofElon) January 13, 2026

The clip from Samuel Alito has nothing to do with weighing into any such ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ levels of abstract speculation. He was asking specific and concrete questions, inviting the litigators to present their case for the rationale they feel should prevail on the very edge cases in which judges like himself are asked to render a judgment.

Oddly enough, the litigator did not seem to be expecting such a direct and fundamental question as the one he asked. Justice Alito was even helpful enough to include the rationale for why his question would logically require some sort of an answer.

Justice Alito: “What does it mean to be a man or woman?”

ACLU lawyer: “We do not have a definition for the Court.”

Justice Alito: “How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means?pic.twitter.com/ttCuVT70st

— CJ Pearson (@Cjpearson) January 13, 2026

“How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means?”

Interesting. Isn’t that almost exactly what KJB was asked in her hearings, and for the exact reason? And the same straightforward question that flummoxed so many gender experts in Matt Walsh’s infamous documentary? You might think an ACLU lawyer standing before SCOTUS might have gamed out a reply to a question that has long since penetrated the public consciousness as being the crux of the disagreement.

Now the same Biden Appointee who once professed under oath that she lacked the tools to differentiate between male and female is tasked with hearing a case whose outcome ultimately hinges on precisely that question.

Go figure.