Editorials & Other Articles

FBaggins

(28,551 posts)

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

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #7)

Thu Oct 9, 2025, 08:52 AM

Oct 9

There isn’t a requirement that states conform to the current consensus when setting policy. Ruling on that basis comes to close to “legislating from the bench”.

The issue in this case appears to come down to whether you think of the issue as primarily a medical procedure or in some way “speech”.

They might kill this one by saying that there’s enough speech involved that strict scrutiny should be applied - and then punt the case back to the lower courts to take a first whack at that.

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