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

FBaggins

(28,551 posts)

6. The same one (Tennessee ban) the author mentions for the RW justices

Reply to LymphocyteLover (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 9, 2025, 06:43 AM

Oct 9

The author wants to claim hypocrisy for some justices voting seemingly in one direction last year and then in the opposite direction on this new case.

The problem is that KBJ is likely to do the same thing (in the other direction).

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