Attention Demtards: Be extremely careful here. You have already died on this hill once and you are still dumb enough to think that this will be a great issue to take into the midterms. It is not. It is a winning issue for pubs. Resist every progressive bone in your body to think otherwise. If you want to lose again and again, let your progressive wing lead you to slaughter. As we know, they are more than willing to do it. On the other hand, go for it. I don't mind the sight of blood at all. Supreme Court Case Compared to 'Dobbs-Style Earthquake' for Trans People On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case involving the rights of doctors to give puberty blockers and gender hormone drugs to transgender minors. As it involves prepubescent children, it has ignited enormous controversy and is likely to be one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of 2025, not least as the issue of transgender rights became a key factor in the presidential election. https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-co...th-hormone-puberty-blockers-tennessee-1994283 The case is U.S v. Jonathan Skrmetti. Skrmetti is the Tennessee attorney general and became a party in the case after parents and transgender-rights groups launched a legal challenge to a Tennessee law that bans transgender drugs for minors. https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-co...th-hormone-puberty-blockers-tennessee-1994283
100 years ago a college professor gave birth unnaturally to what was to become the deep state. Thing about intellectuals is they can easily rationalize any obscenity into law with their judges putting myopic logic ahead of common decency.
This is actually a specific medical rights case even more so than a transgender issues. Parents and minor have made a decision in discussion with their medical professional and the State wants to ban it. In Dobbs case the argument was protecting the rights of the unborn child. Here the child and parents have made the decision after consultation with a licensed medical professional.....who is the State protecting unless they can prove the procedure is harmful or damaging or against the will. Most of you can't see past the transgender issue but the State has no legitimate interest in placing a ban and has to prove to the Court that the ban serves a legitimate interest. Simply feeling transgender is wrong is not enough as both sides can present medical evidence showing both sides of the procedure. The simple scrutiny test will be used and the SC will either narrow the scope of the law or declare it as written as invalid. Simply banning a consensual medical dosage based purely on personal feelings sets a bad precedent eve this SC cannot authorize without looking for a more narrow construction. SC could indicate a law requiring 3 medical professionals signing off and a psychological consult before approving the procedure would withstand scrutiny but an outright ban without more and making it illegal across State lines is over reaching. Law even bans medical virtual consults...
Well, we know you enter it fully prepared to make the lefty argument. Out in the real world though, yes, the state is making an argument for the protection of minor children where the decision of the parents and the doctor might result in permanent harm to the child and not be in its best interest. And, yes, that is a case that the State must make and will have some pretty good arguments to go with it.....despite your glib attempt to toss it aside as something that "most of you cannot see past." As in Dobbs, the Court may decide that your argument has merit or my argument has merit but it is within the purview of the legislature to decide that. And not a right. For midterm election purposes though, Pubs should force all dems on to the record as to what their position is. That will cause many of them to commit political suicide and I am all in favor of that.
The whole issue of transgender surgery, ect for children is INSANE. What the hell is wrong with people.
you didnt make one legal argument and simply attacked me as a lefty......everyone here knows when you have nothing useful to add to the argument you drop to the bias argument. I made a valid legal point but you cannot see past the transgender. Legislation cannot simply enter into every single decision made by medical professionals and consenting parents and child. The medications themselves are not illegal, the question is whether they can be given to a minor. Dobbs address the action itsef as not protected and there was a legitimate interest to protect the unborn child. Permanent harm to the child is not in your biased view to make, it is up to the doctors, the parents and the child to make IF it is determined there is no harm. The law can easily mandate a psyche eval and a panel of doctors to make the legislation have a legimitate interest. To simply ban it outright is quite intrusive on the part of the legislation on a medical issue without any supporting facts (your opinion that the child needs protection). it is an opinion and not medical fact. Let the legislature allow fmailies to make informed decisions with medical profressionals and consent. This case is not similar to dobbs in any way as the SC made an argument that it is up to the states to decide and there is an interest of the unborn child to be protected. Well in this case minor children are being protected by the parents and trained medical professionals. SOmetimes you need to get out fo your basement and stop making lib v pub arguments...
Excuse but your entire post is out of order. I did not make legal argument because the attached article lays out the issues for both sides and I accept that that is what is before the court. Not sure why viewers want to see a rerun of that discussion when my original post went to the political ramifications of dems running with the issue (regardless of which side has the greater legal merit). And I caution dems again, don't run on that issue at midterm as they did with Dobbs because it is not a winning issue for them and they have already been trounced once for going near it. Even if they win at court, it is a losing issue for them at midterms. Try to stay with what my post was about. Not what you are interested in saying. You immediately jumped in with some dismissive comments saying "most of you cannot see past the transgender issues" which does not in any way counter what I said. Believe me the pubs will stick the transgender issues up the dems collective arses at midterms even though you think they should be off looking at the legal merits of their argument. You are damn right there will be no looking past the transgender issue. And you will get fucking clobbered at the polls- Again.
SC most likely will tell TEXAS they need to narrow the scope of the law and make reasonable restrictions... I was not in the election..I did not get clobbered in the polls... stop this bullshit everytime you run out of arguments.
And my post was clearly directed at Democrats...not just you. Look for the small signs such as when the post begins with "Attention Democrats." No one asked you to jump in on their behalf and when you do ........well......there is the appearance that you are with them in fact or spirit. Ya frigging think?
reread your posts .... you direct all your political attacks to me "you" "you dems" when speaking directly to me..... It is a court case, I jumped in with legal analysis...not one mention of dems or pubs...