Connect with us

News

‘Middle Finger to Parental Rights’: SCOTUS Conservatives Scorched Over Trans Kids Ruling

Published

on

Legal experts, advocates for transgender youth, and the liberal justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are condemning SCOTUS’s 6–3 decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. All six conservative justices sided with the ban—some going further to disparage scientific expertise, dismiss the value of medical consensus, and signal that transgender Americans should not be granted protected class status.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion upholding the ban, known as SB1.

“An estimated 1.6 million Americans over the age of 13 identify as transgender, meaning that their gender identity does not align with their biological sex,” Justice Roberts wrote at the opening of his opinion, acknowledging that transgender youth exist. In his footnotes he also acknowledged their use of pronouns: “We use ‘transgender boy’ to refer to an individual whose biological sex is female but who identifies as male, and ‘transgender girl’ to refer to an individual whose biological sex is male but who identifies as female.”

Approximately 25 states across the country have some form of ban on medical care for transgender youth. Those bans—including puberty blockers—likely will now stay in place, affecting more than 100,000 transgender youth (as of 2023), according to the Williams Institute.

READ MORE: ‘It’s Biblical’: House Republican Defends His Support for Israel

Justice Amy Coney Barrett took extra steps to write that “transgender status” does not constitute “suspect,” class deserving of strict scrutiny, a higher level of judicial review.

“The Equal Protection Clause does not demand heightened judicial scrutiny of laws that classify based on transgender status,” she also wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas denigrated what he called “the expert class.”

“There are several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class,” he wrote. Justice Thomas added, “whether ‘major medical organizations’ agree with the result of Tennessee’s democratic process is irrelevant.”

“To hold otherwise would permit elite sentiment to distort and stifle democratic debate under the guise of scientific judgment, and would reduce judges to mere “spectators . . . in construing our Constitution.”

Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent is being praised by transgender advocates and trans-supporting legal experts. And in her dissent she directly opposed Justice Barrett’s claims.

“To give meaning to our Constitution’s bedrock equal protection guarantee, this Court has long subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny any law that treats people differently based on sex,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.

She said in her opinion that Tennessee’s law discriminates against transgender adolescents, and “expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status.” In its ruling, the Supreme Court, Sotomayor wrote, “abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.”

“Tennessee’s ban applies no matter what the minor’s parents and doctors think, with no regard for the severity of the minor’s mental health conditions or the extent to which treatment is medically necessary for an individual child,” she noted.

READ MORE: Dr Oz: Americans Must ‘Earn the Right’ to Be on Medicaid

“This case presents an easy question: whether SB1’s ban on certain medications, applicable only if used in a manner ‘inconsistent with . . . sex,’ contains a sex classification,” Justice Sotomayor concluded. “Because sex determines access to the covered medications, it clearly does. Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a cspade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it.”

“The Court’s willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.”

Attorney Andrew L. Seidel labeled Sotomayor’s dissent, “Clear, concise, and brilliant.”

Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, responding to the ruling, wrote: “Solidarity with trans people today, who are facing growing state oppression here and globally.”

Writer and former Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Charlotte Clymer wrote on the ruling: “The Supreme Court’s ruling prioritizes the discomfort and fear of some non-trans people over the health and wellbeing of trans youth. It disregards science and every major medical authority. It endorses the state controlling parents and doctors. Every resulting suicide is on the hands of these anti-trans justices.”

Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker, responding to news of the decision, wrote: “Illinois has enshrined protections to meet this very moment. In a time of increasing overreach and hateful rhetoric, it’s more important than ever to reaffirm our commitment to the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community. You have a home here always.”

Political scientist Dr. Norman Ornstein, a contributing editor to The Atlantic, declared: “In effect, the Supreme Court has given a middle finger to parental rights by accepting a Tennessee law banning gender- affirming care for youth. This is a decision that should be made within the family. They love parental rights when it fits right wing aims.

READ MORE: Tapper Tells Ex-Viewer Trump’s Behavior Is More About ‘Personality’ Than Cognitive Decline

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

 

 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Depraved’: Vance Scorched for ‘Reprehensible’ Joke About Military’s Deadly Boat Strikes

Published

on

Vice President JD Vance is under fire for joking about the U.S. Department of Defense’s deadly strikes on several boats the Trump administration insists were smuggling drugs headed for the United States, despite claims by their government to the contrary. Some have suggested the strikes might be illegal.

Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators and human rights groups have expressed concerns.

“Let us be clear — this may be an extrajudicial execution, which is murder,” Amnesty International’s Daphne Eviatar told NPR. “There is absolutely no legal justification for this military strike.”

But on Wednesday, the Vice President disregarded any concerns as he relayed a conversation with the Defense Secretary.

READ MORE: ‘We’re Literally Sitting in the Building’: House Democrat Shreds GOP’s Spin on Violence

“I was talking to Secretary Hegseth, and you know what he said? He said, ‘You know what, Mr. Vice President, we don’t see any of these drug boats coming into our country. They’ve completely stopped.'”

“And I said, ‘I know why. I would stop too. Hell, I wouldn’t go fishing right now in that area of the world.'”

The Vice President insisted that the killings of suspected drug smugglers are what should happen when “we just have our actual government fighting for the interests of Americans and nobody else.”

He claimed by doing so, “we can make this country safer, we can protect your jobs, we can make sure you’ve got the best wages anywhere in the world, and we can stop this terrible poison from coming into our country.”

Critics blasted the Vice President.

Veteran journalist John Harwood took the opportunity to call the Vice President “depraved.”

WUWM radio’s Joy Powers commented, “The Vice President of the United States is joking about murdering innocent people. Should someone call his employer?”

“There are actual fishermen in that area of world worried the United States is going to idiotically kill them,” noted Mother Jones’ Dan Friedman.

“Get it? The joke is that we might kill some totally innocent people! Haha that’s funny, right?” said attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick in a sarcastic remark.

READ MORE: Six D’s and an F: Latino Focus Group Members All Regret Their Votes for Trump

“Literally bragging that there’s a real chance we’re murdering innocent people,” wrote film producer Franklin Leonard.

“Nothing like a joke about US potentially murdering innocent people. Ha ha,” remarked Ron Filipkowski, an attorney and editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch News.

“Vance has a law degree, he will not be able to escape responsibility for this,” wrote former Republican and past trial lawyer John Jackson, calling Vance’s remarks “Sickening.”

“He thinks it’s funny that we threaten poor fisherman in a third-world country. This will be an exhibit in a court one day,” Jackson added.

“When JD Vance brags about the U.S. blowing up alleged drug boats and says, ‘I wouldn’t go fishing right now in that area of the world,’ he’s really saying: ‘We’re so reckless and dishonest that fishermen should worry that the U.S. will murder them and then falsely accuse them of drug trafficking,'” commented Mark Jacob, an author and former Chicago Tribune editor.

“In addition to everything else that’s reprehensible about this ‘joke’ about ‘accidentally’ murdering poor fishermen, don’t forget that Trump made this same ‘joke’ as well, so JD is also debasing himself by mindlessly mimicking Trump’s degeneracy,” remarked The New Republic’s Greg Sargent.

READ MORE: Navarro Demands Left Face ‘Accountability’ for MAGA’s Own Misdeeds—and Kirk Assassination

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘We’re Literally Sitting in the Building’: House Democrat Shreds GOP’s Spin on Violence

Published

on

A House Democratic lawmaker blasted the right’s narrative that extremist violence comes largely — or exclusively — from the left, a claim contradicted by evidence, including a Justice Department study recently scrubbed from its website. The motive and political ideology of the shooter remain largely unknown.

President Donald Trump has been leading the charge on the right in suggesting that left-wing violence is prevalent.

“For years,” Trump said in an address from the Oval Office the night of Charlie Kirk’s killing, “those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans, like Charlie, to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.”

READ MORE: Six D’s and an F: Latino Focus Group Members All Regret Their Votes for Trump

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller on Monday declared there is “a vast domestic terror movement,” CNBC reported, noting that he was specifically “speaking of left-wing political organizations.”

“With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people,” Miller also said. “It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday declared, “Yes, who killed Charlie [Kirk]? Left-wing radicals. And they will be held accountable.”

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz on Wednesday tore into House Republicans.

“I want to caution my colleagues on, you know, one-sided violence in this country,” the Florida Democrat began.

“We just heard that there were no riots on the right. We’re literally sitting in the building where there was a giant riot by supporters of the president, the right,” he said, referring to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which many have deemed an insurrection.

“We also heard that only leftists have said that Trump is a ‘Nazi.’ In 2016, the current Vice President of the United States said, ‘Trump is either a cynical a– or he’s America’s Hitler’.”

READ MORE: Navarro Demands Left Face ‘Accountability’ for MAGA’s Own Misdeeds—and Kirk Assassination

Moskowitz lamented having to “say this garbage. But you want me to sit here and get painted with one brush—the whole left. No, no, there are extremes on the left, and there are extremes on the right. And we collectively should tackle that.”

“But to come here and just look at us and say, ‘we all support what’s going on in the extremes,’ is why we can’t solve anything in this building.”

On Wednesday, NBC News reported that Miller’s “suggestion that a secret network of violent left-wing extremists was behind the killing” of Charlie Kirk, “stands in contrast to the evidence that law enforcement officials presented on Tuesday in Utah, where Kirk was fatally shot. There was no indication presented Tuesday that the suspect, Tyler Robinson, was a member of a group or that he fell under the sway of a particular leader. The investigation is ongoing.”

On Monday, as The New York Times reported, President Trump, “who has downplayed violence from right-wing or other supporters, said that he would like to designate a range of groups, including the loosely affiliated group of far-left anti-fascism activists, known as ‘antifa,’ as domestic terrorists and bring racketeering cases against people funding protests.”

The Times added that “other officials, from Vice President JD Vance on down, made it clear on Monday that they believed that political violence was a liberal problem and not a conservative one,” and announced “that they would be cracking down on what they called leftist nongovernmental organizations, and that they would use every available lever of the federal government to do so.”

READ MORE: ‘This Isn’t a Close Call’: Dem Floats Shutdown After Trump’s Reporter Threat

Continue Reading

News

Six D’s and an F: Latino Focus Group Members All Regret Their Votes for Trump

Published

on

Many of the Latino voters who ran to Donald Trump, helping him win the 2024 election, now say they regret their vote. Trump’s approval rating among Latino and Hispanic voters is now underwater by 23 points, according to a poll by Somos Votantes and the Global Strategy Group, and he is “bleeding” Latino voters, according to The Bulwark, which hosted a focus group last week.

Newsweek reported that the poll results “closely mirrored a CNN survey last week showing similar declines in Trump’s approval among Hispanic voters. The latest Cygnal survey, conducted August 7-9 also showed Trump’s favorability with Hispanics has dropped significantly over the summer.”

The Bulwark reported that for their focus group members, “Every single one of the seven participants said they regretted voting for Trump.”

READ MORE: Navarro Demands Left Face ‘Accountability’ for MAGA’s Own Misdeeds—and Kirk Assassination

“The participants said they were angry over the state of the economy and frustrated by Trump’s handling of immigration and deportations,” The Bulwark’s Adrian Carrasquillo reported. “Asked to give the president a letter grade for his term thus far, six gave him D’s and one gave an F. Asked later about her grade, one participant who gave a D said she was just trying to be nice.”

While the tangible, measurable effects of the Trump economy appear to weigh heavily on some of the participants, several “painted a picture of a nation struggling to grapple with a darker blend of politics and open divisiveness from its leaders.”

“I think a lot of people are a lot more hateful, they feel they can be a lot more open about it, because they see it everywhere so much that no one is really trying to be nice and get along and respect differences,” a participant, from Colorado said. “They think it’s okay to pass their judgments and stereotypes willy-nilly because no one does anything about it, because they see the people in control doing it.”

Another participant said, “I live in America, I don’t want to be in a dictatorship. I still want to be in a democratic nation that has rules, has regulations. . . . This is America, we gotta treat people with respect and dignity and I think a lot of that has gone out the window.”

READ MORE: ‘This Isn’t a Close Call’: Dem Floats Shutdown After Trump’s Reporter Threat

Still another called Trump “super-extremist” and accused him of “ignoring history.”

“He’s taking down government history websites, he’s changing [the Department of Defense] to the Department of War. It seems that power has taken control of his mind where he thinks he can change the Constitution and control the entire country by himself.”

But the participants’ anti-Trump sentiment should not lead Democratic supporters to rejoice.

“While every single member of the focus group said they regretted their vote, none said they would back Kamala Harris in a hypothetical election rerun. Instead, they all said they would support a third party candidate or stay home.”

READ MORE: ‘You Have a Lot of Hate’: Trump Threatens Reporter After Hate Speech Question

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.