The US Supreme Court and its decisions

Dekafox

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen

Chris Geidner (@[email protected])

BREAKING: The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 vote, holds that Colorado's law banning conversion therapy regulates speech based on viewpoint, subjecting it to strict scrutiny and likely rendering it unconstitutional when lower courts apply today's decision. Gorsuch writes for the court; Jackson...
journa.host journa.host

The opinion in question: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf

This one appears to be a double-edged sword, from another comment I saw:
Reading the syllabus, I ... think this was a positive outcome for the trans community?

Context: the therapist sued on 1A grounds saying the ban restricted therapy for folks w/ gender dysphoria, and the SCOTUS ruling is folks can receive therapy for gender dysphoria w/o the state having an opinion on it.
Click to expand...
 
Ungnome

Ungnome

Grand Empress of the Empire of One Square Foot.
Citizen
That's a heck of a silver lining, but conversion therapy is friggin' torture..... There is no way it should fall under free speech unless you are talking about the mildest forms of it.
 
MrBlud

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
The way I heard it explained was that it wasn’t illegal for a straight person struggling with their sexuality/gender to have the Therapist affirm their homosexuality/transgenderness but it *was* illegal for a gay/gender questioning person to have the Therapist affirm their straight/cisness.

The Court found that to be unfair.
 
Pocket

Pocket

jumbled pile of person
Citizen
MrBlud said:
it wasn’t illegal for a straight person struggling with their sexuality/gender to have the Therapist affirm their homosexuality/transgenderness
Click to expand...
For the same reason it's not illegal to keep a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater as a pet, or for a person to use pixie dust to air-skitch a passenger jet.
 
Ungnome

Ungnome

Grand Empress of the Empire of One Square Foot.
Citizen
MrBlud said:
The way I heard it explained was that it wasn’t illegal for a straight person struggling with their sexuality/gender to have the Therapist affirm their homosexuality/transgenderness but it *was* illegal for a gay/gender questioning person to have the Therapist affirm their straight/cisness.

The Court found that to be unfair.
Click to expand...
Except that's not what conversion therapy is. It's an attempt to force someone to adhere to a heterosexual, cisgender identity even if they are queer. Any therapists worth their salt would be helping their patient work through their identity. A lot of gender questioning people do turn out to be cisgender after all and therapy helps them realize that.
 
MrBlud

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
I don’t agree with the ruling but was just trying to explain how I heard the 8-1 reasoning best explained.
 
Ironbite4

Ironbite4

Well-known member
Citizen
Hey so how did Trump's solicitor general do in trying to explain why the Orange Piss Pot should be able to gut the Constitution on a whim?

bsky.app

The Popehat Fits Fine (@kenwhite.bsky.social)

Just so you understand, this is as if you prepared for argument in front of a panel that included Cookie Monster, and Cookie Monster asked you a question about cookies, and you had not thought about cookies in advance. [contains quote post or other embedded content]
bsky.app bsky.app

That good eh'?
 
The Mighty Mollusk

The Mighty Mollusk

Scream all you like, 'cause we're all mad here
Citizen
He never does. He blusters and threatens his way through things, and if that doesn't work, he gets huffy and storms off.
 
Rhinox

Rhinox

too old for this
Citizen
The whole 'Trump will intimidate them by sitting in the front row' was not as effective a strategy as he hoped it would be. Turns out being stared down by a geriatric with a poopy depends is not really scary.
 
Dekafox

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen

At a Q&A-style fireside chat among three influential Latinas and a crowd of around 1,700, Sotomayor articulated her view on the implications of the court’s frequent use of the emergency docket, also called the “shadow docket,” which allows the court to intervene in cases before they’re ripe for Supreme Court review.

“There’s a lot of controversy over this process,” she said, “because there’s a belief among some on my court — the majority — that whenever we stop the executive branch from doing something it wants to do, that’s irreparable harm to the government.”
Click to expand...
 
MrBlud

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
The filibuster (which isn’t even in the Constitution!) grinding Congress to a halt is responsible for a lot of that.

The only thing the executive branch is supposed to be doing is making sure the laws (passed by Congress) are executed. The President isn’t supposed to be issuing orders and decrees like a bloody King in the first place but almost nothing is getting done in Congress because it takes 60 votes now.
 
MrBlud

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
If requiring 60 votes for legislation was so important why didn’t the Founders make that the bar?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Top Bottom