Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

Chemical Bill

(2,970 posts)

2. My impression is...

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 8, 2025, 08:14 PM

Oct 8

that her vote will be based on supporting the wishes of the person most affected by the therapy. I don't see any contradiction in this. Perhaps the other Supremes will vote to take away individual choices which they don't want people to exercise. That might not be a contradiction for them either.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

With One Damning Question, Ketanji Brown Jackson Defined the Supreme Court's New Term [View all] mahatmakanejeeves Oct 8 OP

The problem for Stern here... FBaggins Oct 8 #1

My impression is... Chemical Bill Oct 8 #2

what earlier vote? LymphocyteLover Oct 9 #3

The same one (Tennessee ban) the author mentions for the RW justices FBaggins Oct 9 #6

However, the medical evidence supports allowing gender-affirming therapy, but not (sexuality) conversion therapy muriel_volestrangler Oct 9 #7

I think that's true (though I'm no expert), but it isn't really a constitutional argument FBaggins Oct 9 #8

I think there's a good case that this is about medical practice muriel_volestrangler Oct 9 #9

what is the exact question she asked? I don't see a question in quotes here. LymphocyteLover Oct 9 #4

You are correct. It was not a question. mahatmakanejeeves Oct 9 #5