Thank you for the most complete and accurate explanation I’ve read to date of the Court’s outrageous ruling on the Tennessee ban on GAC for minors and how it recapitulates the pattern of 5-6 Right Wing Justices’ contorted reasoning supporting their political stance. They are doing as much long-lasting damage to our democracy as the lunatic-in-chief.
Yes to all of this, and one more thing: Because the majority opinion held, disingenuously, that the Tennessee statute did not discriminate on the basis of transgender status, the Court did not have a reason to decide whether transgender people should be considered a suspect class, which would mean that laws that discriminate against transgender people would be subject to a higher standard of review than the very deferential “rational basis” standard. Three Republican justices, led by Justice Barrett, nevertheless went out of their way to gratuitously let us know that they don’t think discrimination against transgender people should be subject to a higher standard of review, effectively giving the OK to explicit anti-trans legislation. So to a reviled and vulnerable minority, they say suck it. You’re on your own. Don’t expect any help from the federal courts — despite the fact that four federal appeals courts with jurisdiction over 23 states currently subject laws that discriminate based on transgender status to some form of heightened scrutiny.
They get what they want and are not the least bit embarrassed by the lies, distortion and ignorance used to get there. They are the living definition of bigotry.
I'm a paying subscriber of Public Notice and agree with almost everything argued here. For some reason this essay was a little off putting. I agree with the outrageous nature of the majority decisions. No problem there. But it just seemed s little too partisan to say that the Court exists only for one purpose or another .they handle an enormous amount of work of all sorts, the majority pretty tedious stuff. So the headline seemed a bit tabloidish.
Aaron, you've restored my faith in responsible journalism. I wrote my little note expecting a firestorm of criticism from all sides. It didn't materialize, thank goodness, but I do have skin like a rhino generally. But your fair minded reply was quite exceptional. Kudos to you and your publication.
Roberts and the other Repub appointees have changed our jurisprudence so that Trump, big corporations, and Christians of a certain sort can win in the face of precedent and positive law. Showing that in a single essay isn't possible. It has to be seen in the big picture of decisions across a wide range of cases.
Skrmetti is an excellent example. Dye mentions several others, including Dobbs and Shelby County. On rhe specific issue of protecting Trump, see Trump v. US, and, of course, the absurd shadow docket holding that Trump can export human beings to terrorist states.
All of these cases and many more are poorly reasoned, violate long-standing precedent, torture legislative language, and violate any rational sense of justice, all in pursuit of protecting Trump and other favored groups he calla hia friends. Ketanji Brown Jackson makes this point in several recent cases.
I'm sure it's unpleasant to think that a branch of government is openly and crudely anti-democratic. But you can see it for yourself if you read their words closely and with a sense of legal history. That's what I saw in this essay.
Quite agree. I've been following Court history since the early sixties and Gideon v. Wainwright. I am fairly knowledgeable of previous Courts and Justices (with a big gap from the Marshall court to the Taney) and I have a rather large private library on the same. Does that make me an expert? Emphatically NO!!! But at least I'm pretty sure I'm on sound footing when I criticize the current Court as one of the worst since the Lockner/Slaughterhouse era. They're definitely the worst since the McReynolds one. I do think they have set some kind of precedent for wrongly decided and poorly crafted decisions.
Gender anomalies are real, but they are also very rare. They are birth anomalies just like being born with only one ear, or being deaf, blind, or cognitively limited (e.g., Downs syndrome) at birth. In its most obvious case, transgender is exhibited externally in cases of hermaphroditism - having the external genitalia of both genders.
However, numerous medical journal papers have reported cases in which genital anomalies are only partially external or entirely internal. One case I read involved discovering during a surgical procedure that a person with male genitals had a partially-developed womb. I have seen photos of a vagina with gonads attached, and a partially developed vagina between a patient's anus and scrotum.
Nevertheless, transphobes continue to assert loudly that gender dysphoria is a matter of sinful choice - just like sexual orientation. As a psychologist, it seems logical to me that transphobia, like homophobia, is motivated by parental fear - what if one of my kids is born that way? What will people think? My kid will be a social lepper - a sinner - an embarrassment to me.
Not only did I get a headache reading all the convolutions that SCOTUS has used in Skrmetti, but reading about Roberts' underlying bigotry made me nauseous as well. In the last part of my life, I never thought I'd see my country backslide so horribly into restrictive, nonsensical, religiously-inspired stupidity.
What’s that game where people contort on spots? Same deal with SCOTUS and Skrmetti … AND Dobbs. Probably why it’s so comfortable with the shadow docket (and Trump’s imaginary emergencies) where explanation of an order is unnecessary.
Yes! That’s it! A child in the Fifties, I missed out on such “fun”. But back then, it was grand neighborhood games of Capture the Flag and Kick the Can that I enjoyed.
Hey, there! Fellow 50s kid here (1954), but my sisters were 60s models, so I had to humor them. And the neighborhood kids were mostly girls, so there wasn't any fun stuff like yours... mostly Barbies (eyeroll).
Oh boy, you missed out! But those were intramural games back then … and great fun. While the Fifties were loathsome socially - blandly accepted segregation and bigotry - there was no fear of violence, and we played until the streetlights went on.
Just as it is with reproductive rights, the courts have decided they are better equipped to handle private matters than the actual parties involved. Abortion and reproductive care should be strictly between a person and their doctor. For minors experiencing gender dysphoria, this is a private matter concerning the minor, the parents and medical professionals. Politicians and judges should not be involved except where a crime was committed.
Hopefully we'll get a take on yesterday's abominable unsigned (but we know...) decision to ship people off to any third country willing to accept them - even if it's a failed state in the midst of a civil war - if their home country won't accept them. The initial eight people selected for this treatment won't engender much sympathy but I guarantee you it won't be long until ordinary, non-criminal immigrants suddenly find themselves dumped into the middle of a violent conflict a continent away from their home country, unable to speak the language and with no means to escape.
It might be argued that the Trump Era has successfully done away with humanity AND grammar. Essentially a lazy man, his dominance encourages equal laziness … both intellectual and physical.
The core question is not the science, it is the power of a given state to decide what are allowable medical procedures in their state. It has already been decided by this court that states can make abortion procedures criminal. And to be fair, it has also been decided that 'Conversion therapy' can be made illegal. You make a decision inherently political by giving the choice to a political body.
As a matter of law, I suppose it is much easier to criminalize an action, than to force an action.
As a matter of law, it is also much trickier to disallow a medical procedure to an adult who can provide 'informed consent', than to a minor where we allow states to provide 'protections' to minors.
Our system of states, with significant powers granted to the states is inherently far from perfect, but that is part of the beauty of it, for different things can be tried in different states and people can decide which states they want to live in.
I expect families with children going through the difficulty of 'gender dysphoria' will find a state more tolerant to the treatment of it.
Roberts should have avoided making this an argument about the science, he was probably ashamed of his decision and was trying to cover it up with B.S..
Thank you for the most complete and accurate explanation I’ve read to date of the Court’s outrageous ruling on the Tennessee ban on GAC for minors and how it recapitulates the pattern of 5-6 Right Wing Justices’ contorted reasoning supporting their political stance. They are doing as much long-lasting damage to our democracy as the lunatic-in-chief.
Yes to all of this, and one more thing: Because the majority opinion held, disingenuously, that the Tennessee statute did not discriminate on the basis of transgender status, the Court did not have a reason to decide whether transgender people should be considered a suspect class, which would mean that laws that discriminate against transgender people would be subject to a higher standard of review than the very deferential “rational basis” standard. Three Republican justices, led by Justice Barrett, nevertheless went out of their way to gratuitously let us know that they don’t think discrimination against transgender people should be subject to a higher standard of review, effectively giving the OK to explicit anti-trans legislation. So to a reviled and vulnerable minority, they say suck it. You’re on your own. Don’t expect any help from the federal courts — despite the fact that four federal appeals courts with jurisdiction over 23 states currently subject laws that discriminate based on transgender status to some form of heightened scrutiny.
They get what they want and are not the least bit embarrassed by the lies, distortion and ignorance used to get there. They are the living definition of bigotry.
I'm a paying subscriber of Public Notice and agree with almost everything argued here. For some reason this essay was a little off putting. I agree with the outrageous nature of the majority decisions. No problem there. But it just seemed s little too partisan to say that the Court exists only for one purpose or another .they handle an enormous amount of work of all sorts, the majority pretty tedious stuff. So the headline seemed a bit tabloidish.
Just one reader's opinion...
Fair enough. Hopefully the piece backs up what we mean with that headline, but noted, and I always appreciate constructive criticism!
Aaron, you've restored my faith in responsible journalism. I wrote my little note expecting a firestorm of criticism from all sides. It didn't materialize, thank goodness, but I do have skin like a rhino generally. But your fair minded reply was quite exceptional. Kudos to you and your publication.
Roberts and the other Repub appointees have changed our jurisprudence so that Trump, big corporations, and Christians of a certain sort can win in the face of precedent and positive law. Showing that in a single essay isn't possible. It has to be seen in the big picture of decisions across a wide range of cases.
Skrmetti is an excellent example. Dye mentions several others, including Dobbs and Shelby County. On rhe specific issue of protecting Trump, see Trump v. US, and, of course, the absurd shadow docket holding that Trump can export human beings to terrorist states.
All of these cases and many more are poorly reasoned, violate long-standing precedent, torture legislative language, and violate any rational sense of justice, all in pursuit of protecting Trump and other favored groups he calla hia friends. Ketanji Brown Jackson makes this point in several recent cases.
I'm sure it's unpleasant to think that a branch of government is openly and crudely anti-democratic. But you can see it for yourself if you read their words closely and with a sense of legal history. That's what I saw in this essay.
Quite agree. I've been following Court history since the early sixties and Gideon v. Wainwright. I am fairly knowledgeable of previous Courts and Justices (with a big gap from the Marshall court to the Taney) and I have a rather large private library on the same. Does that make me an expert? Emphatically NO!!! But at least I'm pretty sure I'm on sound footing when I criticize the current Court as one of the worst since the Lockner/Slaughterhouse era. They're definitely the worst since the McReynolds one. I do think they have set some kind of precedent for wrongly decided and poorly crafted decisions.
Gender anomalies are real, but they are also very rare. They are birth anomalies just like being born with only one ear, or being deaf, blind, or cognitively limited (e.g., Downs syndrome) at birth. In its most obvious case, transgender is exhibited externally in cases of hermaphroditism - having the external genitalia of both genders.
However, numerous medical journal papers have reported cases in which genital anomalies are only partially external or entirely internal. One case I read involved discovering during a surgical procedure that a person with male genitals had a partially-developed womb. I have seen photos of a vagina with gonads attached, and a partially developed vagina between a patient's anus and scrotum.
Nevertheless, transphobes continue to assert loudly that gender dysphoria is a matter of sinful choice - just like sexual orientation. As a psychologist, it seems logical to me that transphobia, like homophobia, is motivated by parental fear - what if one of my kids is born that way? What will people think? My kid will be a social lepper - a sinner - an embarrassment to me.
Not only did I get a headache reading all the convolutions that SCOTUS has used in Skrmetti, but reading about Roberts' underlying bigotry made me nauseous as well. In the last part of my life, I never thought I'd see my country backslide so horribly into restrictive, nonsensical, religiously-inspired stupidity.
What’s that game where people contort on spots? Same deal with SCOTUS and Skrmetti … AND Dobbs. Probably why it’s so comfortable with the shadow docket (and Trump’s imaginary emergencies) where explanation of an order is unnecessary.
TWISTER!!! Being congenitally clumsy, I tried to play once and ended up losing quite quickly, lol!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twister_(game)
Yes! That’s it! A child in the Fifties, I missed out on such “fun”. But back then, it was grand neighborhood games of Capture the Flag and Kick the Can that I enjoyed.
Hey, there! Fellow 50s kid here (1954), but my sisters were 60s models, so I had to humor them. And the neighborhood kids were mostly girls, so there wasn't any fun stuff like yours... mostly Barbies (eyeroll).
;)
Oh boy, you missed out! But those were intramural games back then … and great fun. While the Fifties were loathsome socially - blandly accepted segregation and bigotry - there was no fear of violence, and we played until the streetlights went on.
“When someone else's safety and acceptance in society is on the line, your personal discomfort comes in a very distant second.”
― Courtney Milan
That’s been the republican goal since civil rights laws were passed.
Yep. Roberts worked in the Ronny “Welfare Queen!” Raygun DoJ.
Just as it is with reproductive rights, the courts have decided they are better equipped to handle private matters than the actual parties involved. Abortion and reproductive care should be strictly between a person and their doctor. For minors experiencing gender dysphoria, this is a private matter concerning the minor, the parents and medical professionals. Politicians and judges should not be involved except where a crime was committed.
Hopefully we'll get a take on yesterday's abominable unsigned (but we know...) decision to ship people off to any third country willing to accept them - even if it's a failed state in the midst of a civil war - if their home country won't accept them. The initial eight people selected for this treatment won't engender much sympathy but I guarantee you it won't be long until ordinary, non-criminal immigrants suddenly find themselves dumped into the middle of a violent conflict a continent away from their home country, unable to speak the language and with no means to escape.
And Thomas’s concurrence! He complains about “the elite” while being propped up by same.
We are calling the Robert's court decision on immigrants T4.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/euthanasia-program
Bigots? These are sociopaths.
It might be argued that the Trump Era has successfully done away with humanity AND grammar. Essentially a lazy man, his dominance encourages equal laziness … both intellectual and physical.
As I recall, after his inauguration/pre-coronation speech, Trump was seen thanking Roberts … perhaps he was grateful for his future crown.
The core question is not the science, it is the power of a given state to decide what are allowable medical procedures in their state. It has already been decided by this court that states can make abortion procedures criminal. And to be fair, it has also been decided that 'Conversion therapy' can be made illegal. You make a decision inherently political by giving the choice to a political body.
As a matter of law, I suppose it is much easier to criminalize an action, than to force an action.
As a matter of law, it is also much trickier to disallow a medical procedure to an adult who can provide 'informed consent', than to a minor where we allow states to provide 'protections' to minors.
Our system of states, with significant powers granted to the states is inherently far from perfect, but that is part of the beauty of it, for different things can be tried in different states and people can decide which states they want to live in.
I expect families with children going through the difficulty of 'gender dysphoria' will find a state more tolerant to the treatment of it.
Roberts should have avoided making this an argument about the science, he was probably ashamed of his decision and was trying to cover it up with B.S..