Fox News panelists are delinquent in not discussing whether or not the Tennessee ban on transgender care for children is constitutional.

[johnwk]

On12/5/24 Fox News ‘Outnumbered’ panelists rambled on and on about their personal and obvious objections associated with so-called gender affirming care for children, while they totally ignored what the court is being asked to rule upon which is, whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Tennessee’s SB1, which regulates a medical procedure, “ . . . violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause because it discriminates on the basis of sex.” See: Landmark Supreme Court case weighs gender-affirming care for trans kids

The negligence exhibited by the panelists [not discussing what is actually being challenged] is one of the reasons our Constitution has been eroded over the years. Instead of our media actually discussing the constitutionality involved, they muddy the waters with their incidental objections and feelings against the effects of so-called gender affirming care for children, while the big lie, asserting the 14th Amendment prohibits a state to make distinctions based upon sex, is not addressed and lives on.

Our perverted sexual deviant crowd has long known the 14th Amendment does not prohibit distinctions in law based upon “sex”, and is the very reason why they have, for generations, worked to have the depraved “equal rights amendment” added to our Constitution. Adopting that amendment would in fact prohibit all female sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, and allow all the other perverted desires of our sexual deviant crowd which today are now on display, including grooming adolescent children into irreversible sex changing medical procedures.

Would it not be to the credit of Fox News to expose the big lie once and for all, that the 14th Amendment never was intended to, nor does it, prohibit distinctions in law based upon sex, and merely prohibits distinctions in law based up race, color or previous condition of slavery?

 

[1srelluc]

Kind of a moot point arguing it, that's up to SCOTUS to rule on.

 

[johnwk]

Kind of a moot point arguing it, that's up to SCOTUS to rule on.

You have a problem with the American people publicly discussing the defined and limited powers in their constitution?

 

[1srelluc]

You have a problem with the American people publicly discussing the defined and limited powers in their constitution?

No, but when it's already before SCOTUS it's just so much hot air.

 

[JoeMoma]

. . . violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause because it discriminates on the basis of sex.”

How does it discriminate on the basis of sex? It discriminates based on age.....i.e. Children vs. Adults.

 

[ReinyDays]

How does it discriminate on the basis of sex? It discriminates based on age.....i.e. Children vs. Adults.

The legal question is who has authority over the medical care for children ... since the children themselves don't have a constitutional right to decide medical care ... ask any two-year-old about shots ...

Here ... the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon has final say on what's best for a child ... and this is usually used to impose life-saving treatments over the parents objections ... or to save the child from deadly treatments these whack-o churches set up ...

The clause in the 14th Amendment is "equal protection under the law" ... so it matters what the law actually says ... has anyone bother to ask what Tennessee law allows gender-affirming medical treatments for children? ... I think you'll find there is none, thus refusing such treatments IS equal protection under the law ...

Driver's licenses are feminine ... never use the pronoun "it" for her, okay ... or maybe it's YOU who needs the gender-affirming drugs ...

 

[johnwk]

No, but when it's already before SCOTUS it's just so much hot air.

The "hot air" you mention was Fox News ‘Outnumbered’ panelists rambling on and on about their personal and obvious objections associated with so-called gender affirming care for children, while they totally ignored what the court is being asked to rule upon which is, whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Tennessee’s SB1, which regulates a medical procedure, “ . . . violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause because it discriminates on the basis of sex.” See: Landmark Supreme Court case weighs gender-affirming care for trans kids

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

 

[johnwk]

How does it discriminate on the basis of sex? It discriminates based on age.....i.e. Children vs. Adults.

What I actually wrote in context was ". . . while they totally ignored what the court is being asked to rule upon which is, whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Tennessee’s SB1, which regulates a medical procedure, “ . . . violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause because it discriminates on the basis of sex.” See: Landmark Supreme Court case weighs gender-affirming care for trans kids

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Change the channel. That’s what I do.

 

[johnwk]

The clause in the 14th Amendment is "equal protection under the law" ...

Just a note for clarity. The actually wording of the clause in question is

"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This wording simply commands that whatever a state’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal application of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And, keep in mind, the Fourteenth Amendment’s objectives were eloquently summarized by one of its supporters as follows:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[JoeMoma]

What I actually wrote in context was ". . . while they totally ignored what the court is being asked to rule upon which is, whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Tennessee’s SB1, which regulates a medical procedure, “ . . . violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause because it discriminates on the basis of sex.” See: Landmark Supreme Court case weighs gender-affirming care for trans kids

And in context..... because it discriminates on the basis of sex! How does it discriminate on the basis of sex?

 

[johnwk]

And in context..... because it discriminates on the basis of sex! How does it discriminate on the basis of sex?

Why are you asking me that question?

 

[JoeMoma]

The legal question is who has authority over the medical care for children ... since the children themselves don't have a constitutional right to decide medical care ... ask any two-year-old about shots ...

Here ... the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon has final say on what's best for a child ... and this is usually used to impose life-saving treatments over the parents objections ... or to save the child from deadly treatments these whack-o churches set up ...

The clause in the 14th Amendment is "equal protection under the law" ... so it matters what the law actually says ... has anyone bother to ask what Tennessee law allows gender-affirming medical treatments for children? ... I think you'll find there is none, thus refusing such treatments IS equal protection under the law ...

Driver's licenses are feminine ... never use the pronoun "it" for her, okay ... or maybe it's YOU who needs the gender-affirming drugs ...

My question was based on the wording of the OP.

. violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause because it discriminates on the basis of sex.”

So once again, in what way does it discriminate on the basis of sex?

 

[Blaster]

The mutilation of children is wrong.

 

[johnwk]

My question was based on the wording of the OP.


So once again, in what way does it discriminate on the basis of sex?

You should ask the petitioners who allege Tennessee’s SB1, discriminates on the bases of sex.

 

[JoeMoma]

Why are you asking me that question?

Because of what you have in your opening post. I quoted it.

That said, from rereading your posts on this thread, I think you would agree with me that the law does not discriminate based on sex. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

 

[johnwk]

Because of what you have in your opening post. I quoted it.

The petitioners allege Tennessee’s SB1, discriminates on the bases of sex. Not me. So why do you ask me that question?

 

[DGS49]

The Tennessee law in question treats males and females the same.

The Constitutional issue is bullshit, and the Court will rule accordingly.

The wisdom of the law is being discussed, but it is irrelevant. The Tennessee legislature has the power to do stupid things (although this particular thing is proper and appropriate).

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

Lol I dunno why it's so hard for some people to just stop grooming and abusing kids. Just don't! Lol, it's that easy!

 

[johnwk]

Supreme Court focuses on effects and feelings associated with so-called “gender affirming care”. Ignores our rule of law, our Constitution.​

What is most disturbing to me is, during Strangio’s argument before the Court, there was little to nothing offered to the Court defending the petitioner’s argument alleging Tennessee’s SB1, discriminates on the bases of sex, and is therefore forbidden by the 14th Amendment. The oral arguments, almost exclusively, focused on the effects and feelings associated with so-called “gender affirming care”. Even the Justices focused on everything but the fundamental question of whether or not the 14th Amendment prohibits Tennessee’s SB1.

All the emotionally stated effects and feelings associated with “gender affirming care” are irrelevant with respect to Tennessee’s constitutionally protected authority to regulate those “. . . objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Seems to me our constitutional system of a rule of law, and the division of power commanded by the Tenth Amendment, are subtilty being replaced by the whims and fancies of those which our Constitution was explicitly designed to control and regulate by a written constitution.

So, why is the fundamental question not being argued before the Supreme Court which is, does Tennessee’s SB1, violate the 14th amendment as the petitioners allege?

Why are the Courts Justices focusing on all the emotionally stated effects and feelings associated with “gender affirming care” rather than focusing on the rule of law which is our Constitution?

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?