newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
Let’s start with the easy part. After oral argument in United States v. Scrumetti on Wednesday, the court ruled that the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits sex discrimination, protects minors from altering their sexual characteristics (what some refer to as “gender”). I’m sure they’ll rule that it has nothing to do with the Tennessee law that protects them. Affirm care”). The justices most likely to form the majority, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, were not interested in the court becoming a medical expert overseeing various experimental procedures from a constitutional perspective.
That’s a good sign. But there were also surprises.
Most of the arguments reflected the justice’s typical impulses. A very well-prepared Justice Alito ruled that transgender surgery “directly and substantially” improves the welfare of transgender youth, given that the Kass report directly debunks it. He asked whether he believed the Biden administration’s own outlandish statement that “overwhelming evidence shows.” . (Yes, they support it.)
The Supreme Court appears to be divided over state bans on gender reassignment “treatment” for minors.
Judge Kavanaugh, ever the diplomat, gave a nod to the “very strong arguments” in favor of gender modification. (Sigh.) Justice Sotomayor argued that “only” 1% of children experience regret after having a body part removed. (Even the ACLU says this number is “only” 1%, applies after adolescence, and that at least 85% of minors who identify as transgender have such regrets.) ) and Justice Jackson said he felt the argument was “familiar.” ” I told her. Because it was the same as banning interracial marriage. (No, castration of a minor and interracial marriage are not similar.)
However, there was one big difference.
Justice Gorsuch did not speak. It’s like he didn’t say a word.
‘Overwhelming evidence’ of negative consequences of gender ‘treatment’ – focus of landmark Supreme Court case
This is strange in any scenario. Justice Gorsuch likes to argue in court and engage in candid conversations. But also, Judge Gorsuch is the reason this discussion is here in the first place. Judge Gorsuch, author of Bostock v. Clayton County, ruled that discrimination based on sex incorporates discrimination that is subtly related to sex, namely policies that uniquely impact transgender people. . The decision sparked a flurry of lawsuits asserting the rights of men who identify as transgender to enter women’s locker rooms, play sports and take cross-sex hormones. Will he explain the limitations and applicability of Bostock? Expanding its scope? silence.
When Justice Neil Gorsuch was asked about Roe v. Wade, he said, “Any good judge would think that this deserves to be treated like any other U.S. Supreme Court precedent.” (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
The second surprise was the answer to a series of questions I was expecting. What will happen to women’s sports? Judge Kavanaugh argued that if Tennessee’s law is subject to constitutional review, as the ACLU and the Biden administration hope, “despite the fairness and safety of competition, transgender athletes “Do women and girls have a constitutional right to play sports?” Problems so far raised my voice? ”
For more FOX News opinions, click here
I gasped at the answer. The Biden administration has made clear that the Constitution’s gender equality requirements already prohibit women’s sports unless women can demonstrate sufficient legitimacy. Biden’s lawyers simply shrugged and said that “cisgender women” could also assert their rights in court. The ACLU agreed.
Not one judge jumped out of his chair and said, “Forcing women to represent their interests in court is the end of women’s sports!!” But it will be.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
That’s my concern. I’m not sure the court understood what it meant to put a constitutional lens on any policy that treats men and women as equal but not the same, including the end of women’s sports, space, and privacy. do not have. Because even if the women were able to win the lawsuit, would they have the funds to challenge any city’s volleyball league?
We can expect a long battle ahead in the courts as courts slowly begin to wrestle with the left’s vast resources to erase the reality of sex.
