SCOTUS will take up state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender minors

[squistion 1,944]

Surprised none of the usual suspects started on a thread on this (may;be too busy looking for news on the latest trans murderer)

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1805238425701773596

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court will take up state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

 

 

 

[The Real timschochet 6,391]

Based on the Dobbs decision I have to believe these bans will be upheld. If the conservative majority rejects the idea of an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution then there’s no legal basis for them to overturn whatever states decide. 
 

Of course there IS a right to privacy in the Constitution but these conservatives reject that. Which is why we need to work at getting an eventual liberal majority back in the SC (not by packing it, just over time through elections). Then all this crap can be overturned. And in the meantime we need liberal majorities in the House and Senate in order to grant federal protections for these lost rights. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,828]

Liberals: Right to Privacy = Everything we ask for should fall under that. 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,693]

OP please change title of thread to “Supreme Court to hear case regarding mutilation of minors on demand”.  TIA.  

[seafoam1 2,798]

Just now, Tree of Knowledge said:

OP please change title of thread to “Supreme Court to hear case regarding mutilation of minors on demand”.  TIA.  

Amen. 

[Voltaire 5,181]

They’ve been incredibly slow dropping decisions for this session. Now they’re already looking to what to take up next time?

Somehow I got to 52 years of age and didn’t realize it was done this way.

I dunno. I just know they are usually out of session by the 4th of July and will need the legal equivalent of an enema to reach that mark this term.

[The Real timschochet 6,391]

1 minute ago, Voltaire said:

They’ve been incredibly slow dropping decisions for this session. Now they’re already looking to what to take up next time?

Somehow I got to 52 years of age and didn’t realize it was done this way.

I dunno. I just know they are usually out of session by the 4th of July and will need the legal equivalent of an enema to reach that mark this term.

They’re being deliberately slow on the Trump immunity decision in order to help him win the election if they can. Pretty sad state of affairs. 

[Cdub100 3,825]

Call it for what it is. Mental illness encouragement care.

They aren't trying to help or fix the problem instead they are encouraging it and trying to tell these sick people they aren't sick.

[Cdub100 3,825]

5 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

OP please change title of thread to “Supreme Court to hear case regarding mutilation of minors on demand”.  TIA.  

This right here.

[seafoam1 2,798]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

They’re being deliberately slow on the Trump immunity decision in order to help him win the election if they can. Pretty sad state of affairs. 

Yeah, the lady that doesn't know what a woman is, is trying to elect Trump. 

And California has a massive financial deficit even though it taxes it's citizens massively. 

Oh what mess. 

[jerryskids 6,550]

Without knowing the details of the case, I could see the court upholding the bans.  There is certainly precedent of laws specifically restricting behavior to minors.  And there is precedence of the government being involved in the medical care of minors (vaccine mandates for schools, for instance).  Finally, this court has shown through Dobbs a desire to put state legislators back in the legislature business, and getting the courts and executive branches out of the legislature business (no matter how much folks like @The Real timschochetthink we are better off with an activist court full of Sotomayors who will just support whatever feelz right that day).

[The Real timschochet 6,391]

33 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Without knowing the details of the case, I could see the court upholding the bans.  There is certainly precedent of laws specifically restricting behavior to minors.  And there is precedence of the government being involved in the medical care of minors (vaccine mandates for schools, for instance).  Finally, this court has shown through Dobbs a desire to put state legislators back in the legislature business, and getting the courts and executive branches out of the legislature business (no matter how much folks like @The Real timschochetthink we are better off with an activist court full of Sotomayors who will just support whatever feelz right that day).

If you’re going to quote me get it right: I do NOT believe in an activist court. I simply believe that there are more rights implicit in the Constitution than conservatives do. (Conservatives are hypocrites on this anyway- they keep finding rights hidden in the 2nd Amendment but refuse to find them anywhere else- they’re only for originalism when it suits them.) 

[cyclone24 1,912]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Based on the Dobbs decision I have to believe these bans will be upheld. If the conservative majority rejects the idea of an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution then there’s no legal basis for them to overturn whatever states decide. 
 

Of course there IS a right to privacy in the Constitution but these conservatives reject that. Which is why we need to work at getting an eventual liberal majority back in the SC (not by packing it, just over time through elections). Then all this crap can be overturned. And in the meantime we need liberal majorities in the House and Senate in order to grant federal protections for these lost rights. 

Just say you support child abuse, and mutilating kids. Other than the word salad you threw out about Supreme Court whatever.

 

JFC

[The Real timschochet 6,391]

6 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

Just say you support child abuse, and mutilating kids. Other than the word salad you threw out about Supreme Court whatever.

 

JFC

But that would be wrong because I don’t. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,236]

good sterilizing your kids should be grounds for JAIL and removal from the parents

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,236]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Based on the Dobbs decision I have to believe these bans will be upheld. If the conservative majority rejects the idea of an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution then there’s no legal basis for them to overturn whatever states decide. 
 

Of course there IS a right to privacy in the Constitution but these conservatives reject that. Which is why we need to work at getting an eventual liberal majority back in the SC (not by packing it, just over time through elections). Then all this crap can be overturned. And in the meantime we need liberal majorities in the House and Senate in order to grant federal protections for these lost rights. 

derp derp right to privacy, I should have a right to sterilize my kids derp derp

the cancer they get is a bonus!!!