US Supreme Court thread - United States v Skrmetti December 4th

[fromorbit]

Big case on Wednesday. In theory it might be a big win for reality, but we can't underestimate the power of the idea of gender stereotypes have in the US and the money involved from the gender industry.

Decent Economist article covers the implications:

A big transgender-rights case heads to America’s Supreme Court
The justices take on paediatric gender medicine
A case to be heard by the Supreme Court on December 4th is set to reignite debate about one of the election’s most controversial issues: the rights of transgender people, and specifically the medical transitioning of minors. In 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which bans puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery for minors who identify as trans. It is one of 26 states that have done so. Now, in United States v Skrmetti, the federal government, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is suing Tennessee on behalf of the parents of three teenagers, claiming the ban violates the equal-protection clause of the constitution’s 14th Amendment.
https://archive.is/1ZIx0

The deeper story behind the case.

WoLF Files to SCOTUS in US v. Skrmetti to Protect Children from “Gender” Medicine
Today, WoLF filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Skrmetti, defending laws that ban the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and genital surgeries on minors for so-called “gender affirmation.”

WoLF argues that these procedures not only cause permanent harm, but also stem from an ideological movement that seeks to erase biological reality to the detriment of society’s most vulnerable—children, women, and LGB individuals. As this case heads to the Nation’s highest court, the stakes for children’s futures have never been higher.
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/wolf-files-to-scotus-in-us-v-skrmetti-to-protect-children-from-gender-medicine

Who’s Who in US v. Skrmetti
Drugged kids, a tacky gynecologist, and Miss Idaho
American lawsuits aren’t about ideas. They’re about people.
You might think Skrmetti, the case that’s scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, is about discrimination or pediatric gender medicine (PGM). But it’s actually about three kids who want to be the opposite sex, their eager moms, and a gynecologist whose YouTube channel is called Crotch Talk.
These plaintiffs are represented by the voluble trans activist Chase Strangio, who has joined forces with her friend Elizabeth Prelogar, the US Solicitor General, to battle the Attorney General of Tennessee, Jonathan Skrmetti, over whether his state’s ban on PGM violates the US Constitution.

https://badfacts.substack.com/p/whos-who-in-us-v-skrmetti

On the American Academy of Pediatrics' Faulty Brief to the Supreme Court About Gender-Care Bans
My breakdown of the amicus, or "friend-of-the-court", brief that the AAP and a roster of other medical societies submitted to the high court, which is riddled with flaws and remarkable omissions.

https://benryan.substack.com/p/on-the-american-academy-of-pediatrics

More Strangio highlights.

Strangio claims that being Trans is immutable then a bit later.

Alito: Are there individuals who are assigned male at birth who identify as female and later identify as male again?

Strangio: Yes.

Alito: Then it’s not immutable.

Strangio is wrecking trans rights.

I guess you could say that, but I think trans rights are wrecking trans rights since the arguments for gender identity being more important sex are SO flawed, Strangio would have to lie completely to make them work (in this case, claim that all trans people are the identity they said they were to begin with and never change).

Edited to say - I know you were posting somewhat tongue-in-cheek 😜

Crikey @RedToothBrush that’s really scary!

www.reuters.com/world/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-fatally-shot-ny-post-reports-2024-12-04/

Lots of GI aficionados seem to have a strange interpretation of the word immutable.

Like every other word, it must bend to the meaning which suits the TA currently using it, even if they mean the opposite.

Transimmutable?

Cismutable

The news reports I've read say they don't know why he was targeted. It could be entirely unrelated to his job.

Most initial news articles think the that Tennessee are going to win the case. While the three Liberal Justices were repeating TA points the conservatives were sceptical.

https://nypost.com/2024/12/04/us-news/supreme-court-signals-intent-to-uphold-tennessee-ban-on-trans-surgeries-for-minors-defer-to-states/

It really does make me, once again, thank whoever we should thank that our judiciary isn't political. Can you imagine having to uphold the entitlement of a 14yo to have her breasts mutilated because your political tribe demands it.

Just been listening - here is the link to the audio

https://www.youtube.com/live/f16u9CXdMwg?si=bMPqa4lvyNKSAkTr

https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/takeaways-from-the-supreme-court-arguments-on-transgender-health-care-ban-conservatives-skeptical/BOEJUDHWPVGPNIVB2AQHT7UTCY/

Takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments on transgender health care ban: Conservatives skeptical
The conservative-majority Supreme Court appeared likely to uphold Tennessee’s ban on transgender-affirming health care for minors as it heard the most high-profile case of its term on Wednesday

A young person who preferred not to give her name, cheers as supporters of transgender rights rally by the Supreme Court, Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2024, in Washington, while arguments are underway in a case regarding a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
By LINDSAY WHITEHURST – Associated Press
Updated 44 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court heard the most high-profile case of its term on Wednesday, weighing Tennessee's ban on transgender-affirming health care for minors.
Similar laws have been passed by other conservative-leaning states. Challengers say they deprive kids of treatment they need, while the states defend them as protecting minors from life-changing decisions.
The conservative-majority court appeared ready to uphold Tennessee's law. It comes against the backdrop of escalating pushback to transgender rights, notably from President-elect Donald Trump.
Here are some takeaways from the arguments:
What did key conservative justices say?
In the arguments on Wednesday, five of the court's six conservatives seemed skeptical of the argument that the ban on gender-affirming care for minors is discriminatory.
Two key conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, repeatedly challenged the arguments from lawyers challenging the ban.

Roberts questioned whether judges should be weighing in on a question of regulating medical procedures, an area usually left to state lawmakers. Barrett sounded skeptical of the administration’s argument that the law discriminates because of sex.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch was notably silent, asking no questions.
The court’s other three conservatives seemed to favor Tennessee. The three liberals largely backed the challengers, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighting the risks of suicide among kids with gender dysphoria.
What's the court's track record on the issue?
The litigation marked only the second time the high court has heard a case that represented a fundamental test of transgender rights.
In a case involving LGBTQ+ rights four years ago, two conservative justices, Roberts and Gorsuch, joined with its liberals to expand protections for transgender workers. Barrett wasn’t on the bench at the time and had no record on transgender rights.
Gorsuch wrote the opinion, which left open claims of discrimination in other situations.
What happens next?
The court isn’t expected to rule for several months. The decision could have direct effects in the 26 states that have passed versions of the bans.
Supporters of the measures argue the gender-affirming treatments are risky, and the laws protect kids from making decisions before they’re ready.
Challengers say many medical interventions come with some degree of risk, and families should be able to weigh those against the benefits. The arguments in favor of Tennessee’s ban could also be used to back federal restrictions, said Chase Strangio, the ACLU attorney who represented three families challenging the law.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said that his state’s arguments would still let each state set its own policy.

Credit: AP
Ben Appel, of New York, right, who describes himself as a gay man who is concerned that gender nonconformity is being medicalized, rallies with others who support a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2024, outside the Supreme Court in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

The images didn't copy over, but of course there's a "woman" TRA in the pic above the fold and the sex realists at the very end.

Very interesting that Gorsuch didn't say much, I imagine Kara Dansky will remark on that.

I'm no doubt being dense, but what is the significance of that? Is it because he had previously sided with the liberals to expand protections at work for people with identities?

Exactly that. The Bostock case was very different though and the TAs this time were made to look daft in court.

Gorsuch said this in 2020 which is interesting:
"They say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today but none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today."

Gorsuch will have noted the level of crazy stuff like in sports the issue which triggers men the most, in last few years. Plus the way the case was weak means he will probably side with conservatives.

Personally I think men should be allowed to wear dresses in many jobs, as long as it is an appropriate dress. That is what Bostock allowed. It wasn't about whether the man in question was a woman or not - it was about whether men can wear dresses really without losing their job. Some jobs may need a different dress code though.

What happens next? How long is this likely to be in court for and when is there likely to be a decision?

The Justices will deliberate. Expected result in June. Probably 6 - 3 or 5 -4 for Tennessee.

However the Trump Justice dept in Jan will switch sides. So they could, but probably won't, drop the case.

Jackson worries me in that she (and Sotomayor) have been very ‘on brand Liberal’ in refusing to even want to question the science or reasons behind paediatric transition. The Conservative judges have largely been asking for additional information and reasoning (in a way that reminds me of the UK Supreme Court judges), whereas the more Liberal judges seem to be accepting things on the face of the information given by Strangio & Co, they’re not displaying as much curiosity. Jackson is even trying to restrict her fellow justices’s questions, as per the NYP article:

”Almost halfway through oral arguments, Jackson conceded that she was “getting kind of nervous” about questions from her colleagues on the bench that were straying away from precedents used in handling such cases.

“I understood that … we don’t just kind of launch into an assessment of the evidence or why the state is saying that they’re doing this, or the scientific basis for it — that we’re looking at something else when we’re trying to determine is a classification, being made,” she fretted at one point.”

I find the lack of curiosity from Left-leaning Americans baffling.

Religion, innit. Progressiveness is their religion.

The thing is, as judges they aren't required to adhere to any tribe. They can't be kicked out because the Democrats or whomever don't like their decisions. And if they are not adhering to their role as judges or making good legal judgments, that's on them. No one is forcing them to do that.

Lisa Selin Davis

Yesterday, I got to be in the Supreme Court itself during the hearing—albeit sequestered behind a red velvet curtain, my view blocked. It was fascinating, but also dispiriting. It was clear that the conservative judges had read the amicus briefs, that they had considered the Cass Review, the systematic evidence reviews, the stories of detransitioners and desisters. It was clear the progressive judges had not given that evidence any credence. They repeated a lot of activist talking points, and made up some news ones, like testosterone has similar effects on males and females—beard growth, muscle mass—so why would we give it to boys but not girls? It was embarrassing. They did not seem to be the great minds of American law. We need term limits on Supreme Court judges.
Oh, and also—let's depoliticize this topic.

Six lies during the hearing

6 False Claims Backing ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ in Key Supreme Court Case
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/12/04/fact-checking-claims-gender-affirming-care-pivotal-supreme-court-case/

Whatever the results of this particular case a key takeway is legally the gender industry is screwed. They have nothing unless they can rig the court. They are going to lose the detrans cases.

Fallout continues:

ACLU Attorney Confesses: Transgender-Suicide Claim is a Myth
Arguing before the Supreme Court, Chase Strangio concedes that suicide is “thankfully and admittedly rare” among transgender-identifying people.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/aclu-attorney-confesses-transgender-suicide-claim-is-a-myth

I have since come to learn—through a source close to the movement with contacts at the ACLU—that suicide researchers supportive of LGBT rights are deeply concerned with how transgender activists like Strangio have bullied advocacy group leaders and manipulated the suicide issue to serve their own personal agendas. Strangio and other transgender activists are continuously undermining public trust in the ability of these groups to generate or endorse credible suicide prevention guidelines.
But the narrative is too politically useful for many of these activists to abandon. Shorn of any ability to persuade the public of their incoherent ideas about sex and gender, and unconcerned that their practices violate centuries of accumulated knowledge about healthy child development, transgender activists need the suicide narrative to be true—or at least believable. How else can they get parents to submit their kids to the cult of the scalpel and syringe?

That article gets right to the point.
These people are monsters.