Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compares transgender surgeries on children to interracial marriage at Supreme Court arguments

[Votto]

US. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued Wednesday that bans on transgender surgeries for children are similar to bans on interracial marriage.

Jackson argued that one of the state bans on child transgender surgeries appeared to depend on an argument of classification that seemed similar to that used by states in the past on interracial marriage. The court is hearing arguments about transgender surgeries after the Biden Department of Justice sued Tennessee for banning the practice in March 2023.

"The question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn't necessarily invidious or whatever, but as I read the statute here, asking the case here, the court starts off by saying that Virginia is now one of 16 states which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications," said Jackson.

"And when you look at the structure of that law, it looks in terms of you can't do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It's sort of the same thing," she added. "So it's interesting to me that we now have this different argument, and I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten away with what they did here by just making a classification argument the way that Tennessee is in this case."

If children are not old enough to have sex then they should not be changing their sex.

What is wrong with these people?

The same arguments they are using for allowing children to change their sex could bed used to advocate for them to engage in sexual activity.

 

[whitehall]

What do you expect from a lawyer who disregards genetic science and refused to define the word "woman"?

 

[Votto]

SCOTUS To Face Challenging Moral Dilemma Of Whether It's Okay To Slice Off Children's Body Parts With Giant Knife
U.S.·Dec 4, 2024 · BabylonBee.com
Click here to view this article with reduced ads.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court of the United States is bringing its many decades of collective legal experience to bear as it carefully considers whether a guy slicing body parts off of children with a giant knife is bad.

Legal scholars have submitted thousands of pages of amicus briefs for review as justices wrestle with the nuances of the morality of drugging children and sterilizing them.

"Should you take a three-year-old, drug him, lay him down on a table, and use a sharp knife to cut off his body parts? Hmm, that's a toughie," said Justice Sotomayor. "Really a mind twister, this one. Cutting off children's genitals for cash... a lot of complex ethical issues to unpack here."

The Supreme Court will hear testimony from children who had body parts cut off, and later grew up and wish they still had their body parts. "So, you're saying that's bad?" asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "I'm having a hard time understanding this. You're saying when you were seven years old, you weren't old enough to be violently sterilized? I am thoroughly confused."

At publishing time, the Court had also agreed to hear arguments about whether stopping a guy about to commit murder on a subway is bad.

The comedy writes itself.

 

[Votto]

Ok, who is going to explain to Justice Brown what a woman is?

That may be where we need to start.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There's an existing thread on this