ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court to weigh bans on puberty blockers, hormones for trans teens

If you believe that, no wonder you love this Court. There are 4 votes that are purely (MAGA) agenda driven here that gave very little with the argument you gave. This Court is anti-trans amongst other things. It’s a no-brainer how this case is going to be decided….6-3.
Doctors of Jurisprudence playing Doctors of Medicine. Out of their lane… way outta their league. Intellectual pigmies…but probably a good vacation in store for Justice Thomas.
I care about the Constitution and rule of law. I don't care about woke issues, or ignoring the law because of feelings. I think Gorsuch is the most true to original intent. Thomas and Alito love 1A and 2A, and hate 4A. Jackson has surprised me a few times by being more like Gorsuch than the other liberal Justices.

Double down on your thinking Joel. The outcome might very well end up as you predict, but there will be a legal basis for it, not medical. BTW, the liberal Justices won't have any more medical training than the conservative justices.

Please go back and read my other posts in this thread. I hate how the GOP tries to legislate their version of morality. Though I disagree with minors, especially pre-puberty, having their bodies altered, the state shouldn't interfere with the parents' rights unless it can be definitively shown there's harm to the child.
 
The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider for the first time whether states can ban certain gender transition medical treatments for young people — a closely watched case brought by three transgender teens, their parents and a doctor, all seeking to ensure health care access they say is critical.


Get the latest election news and results

At issue is a Tennessee law barring transgender minors from using puberty blockers and hormones, treatments the state characterizes as risky and unproven. Lawmakers said the state should instead encourage adolescents to “appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty.”
The court’s ruling might have implications for the more than 100,000 transgender adolescents living in Tennessee or one of the 23 other states that has banned using the drugs to treat minors with gender dysphoria. The question of whether and how to medically treat young people whose gender identity is different than their sex assigned at birth has become a polarizing issue, one President-elect Donald Trump seized on in advertisements targeting transgender people during his campaign.



Anti-trans bills have doubled since 2022. Our map shows where states stand.

End of carousel
The Supreme Court in 2020 extended employment protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers, but it has yet to rule on the constitutionality of lower court decisions involving bathroom access, athletes and medical treatment for transgender minors like 16-year-old L.W., one of the Tennessee teens behind the case at the high court. Her parents, Brian and Samantha Williams, now drive her five hours to receive care in North Carolina.
🧘
Follow Health & wellness
The teen started gender care treatments when she was 12 and said they have allowed her to “get to be myself a little bit more.”
“It took a huge stressor off my back,” L.W. said in an interview. “I have more friends now because I’m more confident, and I’m more able to socialize.”

The Biden administration and the American Civil Liberties Union are representing the parents and teens, who are referred to in court filings by their initials or a pseudonym to protect their identity. The families say the Tennessee law amounts to unconstitutional sex discrimination and a broad restriction on treatments that nearly every major medical association says are appropriate and effective for minors. ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, who is arguing on behalf of the families, will be the first openly transgender lawyer to present a case before the Supreme Court.


Tennessee’s attorney general Jonathan Skrmetti (R) says in court filings that states have long had the power to regulate medicine and that there is nothing unconstitutional about restricting the use of a drug for certain purposes, even when it can be used for treating other conditions, or imposing age limits for health treatments when the risks and rewards are too uncertain.
One potential wild card in the resolution of the case is the incoming Trump administration and the possibility that the next solicitor general will flip the federal government’s position to align with Tennessee’s view. If that were to happen, the court could allow the ACLU to continue challenging the law on its own, which would keep the justices on track to issue a ruling by the end of June.
Trump transition officials did not immediately respond to questions about the case before the court, but his team has said Trump intends to fulfill his campaign promises, which included a crackdown on gender transition care for minors.


Patients and lawmakers clash​

L.W. said she began to suspect she was trans in 2019, when she was 11. She’d long felt as if she were “drowning,” but she didn’t understand why. She wore baggy clothes to obscure her body, and she panicked the first time she saw a few facial hairs above her lip. She was so uncomfortable in boys bathrooms, she avoided ever using one at school. Eventually, she developed urinary tract infections.



After a cousin came out as trans, L.W. began researching on YouTube and Google. But she was scared, so she didn’t tell her parents she thought she was trans until just after Thanksgiving in 2020, more than a year after she’d first put a name to her feelings.
Brian and Samantha Williams both had gay friends, and they told L.W. they supported her, but neither felt comfortable immediately taking her to a doctor. L.W. was 12, and Brian worried the distress she felt might be normal puberty angst.
“It’s not like we took this thing lightly and just did it,” Brian said.
The family went to a progressive church, and the church had a therapist on staff who specialized in trans youth, so Samantha and Brian signed L.W. up for counseling. After roughly six months, the therapist diagnosed L.W. with gender dysphoria and recommended a team of doctors at Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital.





https://www.washingtonpost.com/reli...itid=mc_magnet-transkids_inline_collection_19

At Vanderbilt, L.W. underwent tests, then, in the summer of 2021, her doctors prescribed the drug Lupron to stop her body from going through male puberty. The medication, which has been used for at least 30 years on patients who start puberty too early, is largely reversible, but it can affect a young person’s bone density if taken long term without hormone therapy.
The teen said she felt instantly relieved. To her, the benefits “strongly outweighed” any side effects.
At the time, no state had banned trans adolescents from receiving the kind of care Vanderbilt’s team offered. Doctors nationwide had been treating a few thousand young people a year with hormones and puberty blockers, according to data compiled for Reuters — a tiny fraction of America’s adolescent population. They faced little pushback. Multiple peer-reviewed studies have found that a majority of trans adolescents experience “satisfaction,” “confidence” and “improvements in psychosocial functioning” after such treatment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/03/supreme-court-trans-minors-health-care/
That's not health care it's chemical mutilation
 
I care about the Constitution and rule of law. I don't care about woke issues, or ignoring the law because of feelings. I think Gorsuch is the most true to original intent. Thomas and Alito love 1A and 2A, and hate 4A. Jackson has surprised me a few times by being more like Gorsuch than the other liberal Justices.

Double down on your thinking Joel. The outcome might very well end up as you predict, but there will be a legal basis for it, not medical. BTW, the liberal Justices won't have any more medical training than the conservative justices.

Please go back and read my other posts in this thread. I hate how the GOP tries to legislate their version of morality. Though I disagree with minors, especially pre-puberty, having their bodies altered, the state shouldn't interfere with the parents' rights unless it can be definitively shown there's harm to the child.
What the phuque are “woke” issues? I wake up every morning and make my bed.
The “legal issues” used by the conservative think-tank will be some vague, wierd conflagration of “originalist thinking” That will support the MAGA philosophy of what America should be. (Similar to the rulings the Court made recently stating that the President has free play of the law as long as he maintains it was within his official duties as President)…even even these con phuque-heads aren’t stupid and understand how to cover their true intentions with legal bullshit. These guys got their training working for The Church during the Inquisition.
 
Last edited:
I care about the Constitution and rule of law. I don't care about woke issues, or ignoring the law because of feelings. I think Gorsuch is the most true to original intent. Thomas and Alito love 1A and 2A, and hate 4A. Jackson has surprised me a few times by being more like Gorsuch than the other liberal Justices.

Double down on your thinking Joel. The outcome might very well end up as you predict, but there will be a legal basis for it, not medical. BTW, the liberal Justices won't have any more medical training than the conservative justices.

Please go back and read my other posts in this thread. I hate how the GOP tries to legislate their version of morality. Though I disagree with minors, especially pre-puberty, having their bodies altered, the state shouldn't interfere with the parents' rights unless it can be definitively shown there's harm to the child.
The GOP doesn't support the rule of law. Period. End of discussion.
 
They don't need to be doctors. That's not what this case is about. It's about states rights vs individual rights, and if the state has a compelling reason to take away individual choice.
Precisely. And nor do legislators. But that doesn’t mean they can’t rules governing medicine
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
That's the thing though. We shouldn't know how any of the judges will rule. But now it's just a partisan shit show and rulings are meaningless because they will just be overruled at the first opportunity to replace a judge for someone with "the correct viewpoint". Precedence is pointless.
Are you actually this ignorant or do you use this forum as a form of warped entertainment?
 
Are you actually this ignorant or do you use this forum as a form of warped entertainment?
LOL. Look in the mirror, pal. If you can't see the partisanship that drives this court then that's on you. Talk about ignorance, holy shit!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ICHerky
What the phuque are “woke” issues? I wake up every morning and make my bed.
The “legal issues” used by the conservative think-tank will be some vague, wierd conflagration of “originalist thinking” That will support the MAGA philosophy of what America should be. (Similar to the rulings the Court made recently stating that the President has free play of the law as long as he maintains it was within his official duties as President)…even even these con phuque-heads aren’t stupid and understand how to cover their true intentions with legal bullshit. These guys got their training working for The Church during the Inquisition.
You should sit this ne out. You're gonna have a stroke,
 
Oh, I see. We're just going to go with the "Let's pretend these are honorable people" approach. The emperor has no clothes and you are naked too.
Get over yourself. You don't even pretend to know about the actual legal arguments. All you care about is defending the Trans movement for children. The issue isn't SCOTUS, it's the state legislature. I recomend reading the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
 
Living in a representative government is obviously a real hardship for you.
But it isn't representative. Two of those judges are in stolen seats and should not be there. It is not representative of the electorate at all. The people who can't stand living in a representative government are the conservatives. They have lost 4 of the last 6 popular votes yet dominate the legal system.
 
But it isn't representative. Two of those judges are in stolen seats and should not be there. It is not representative of the electorate at all. The people who can't stand living in a representative government are the conservatives. They have lost 4 of the last 6 popular votes yet dominate the legal system.
To be fair, I would argue only one was ultimately stolen. Had they followed Mitch’s rule; Barrett shouldn’t have gotten hearings. Or if they’d confirmed Garland, we’d have ended up with Barrett anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BioHawk
To be fair, I would argue only one was ultimately stolen. Had they followed Mitch’s rule; Barrett shouldn’t have gotten hearings. Or if they’d confirmed Garland, we’d have ended up with Barrett anyways.
I know it's nice to decry "politics" but one can't simply wish them away. Mitch took a risk and won. Left justice, right justice, they're all well qualified, and "reflecting" the populace is irrelevant at the court. that's what the legislature is for.

And as I said elsewhere (and particularly listening to the tone of the argument), the justices that Trump appointed may be the least of the plaintiffs' concerns.
 
I know it's nice to decry "politics" but one can't simply wish them away. Mitch took a risk and won. Left justice, right justice, they're all well qualified, and "reflecting" the populace is irrelevant at the court. that's what the legislature is for.

And as I said elsewhere (and particularly listening to the tone of the argument), the justices that Trump appointed may be the least of the plaintiffs' concerns.
I take your point, tho it’s debatable imo whether they were well qualified for the SC.

I hated what Mitch did tho I understand why as you mentioned.

Disagree to an extent that the justices are the least of the concerns for plaintiffs…the problem we’re going to have for the next couple decades is that the 3 appointed by Trump in particular have been fairly predictable, to the point that 90% of the time it currently seems like we know what the general outcome of a case is likely to be, with only the specifics up for grabs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gohawks50
That's the thing though. We shouldn't know how any of the judges will rule. But now it's just a partisan shit show and rulings are meaningless because they will just be overruled at the first opportunity to replace a judge for someone with "the correct viewpoint". Precedence is pointless.

You are an idiot if you believe this is new. The conservative justices break rank and go to the liberal side FAR more than the other way.

We always know how the liberal justices will vote. ALWAYS! The liberals are and always have been the most partisan. Only a fool doesn’t recognize this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoWokeBloke
You are an idiot if you believe this is new. The conservative justices break rank and go to the liberal side FAR more than the other way.

We always know how the liberal justices will vote. ALWAYS! The liberals are and always have been the most partisan. Only a fool doesn’t recognize this.
Then why did both Barrett and Kavanaugh state that Roe vs Wade was legal precedent and then vote to overturn it?
 
The bots are going strong on X attacking the questioning by the "liberal" justices.
my only beef with the questioning of the liberal justices is that Justice Sotomayor doesn't allow the counsel to answer the question. But that just makes it "wednesday".

They were very effective, imo (and particularly Jackson's question about analogies to race cases), at gutting the argument that somehow this is not a case about sex at all. Where they fell down a bit, imo, is they didn't move past that. (Also relevant to that is Barrett's question about other TG laws, the answer to which may allow them to avoid "creating" a new protected class.) So, while I doubt this case will be resolved on rational basis review, I'm not sure it's a win for the plaintiffs here. But, maybe more importantly, if it does end up a rational basis case, it's a huge loss for TG advocates.

Interesting side note: not a single question from Gorsuch that I detected.
 
You are an idiot if you believe this is new. The conservative justices break rank and go to the liberal side FAR more than the other way.

We always know how the liberal justices will vote. ALWAYS! The liberals are and always have been the most partisan. Only a fool doesn’t recognize this.
that's not 'quite' true. both kagan and jackson have broken to 'conservative" decisions from time to time.

But Soto is about as likely to break right than Alito is to break left.
 
Then why did both Barrett and Kavanaugh state that Roe vs Wade was legal precedent and then vote to overturn it?
I don’t w, maybe because at the time they were asked it was legal precedent.
that's not 'quite' true. both kagan and jackson have broken to 'conservative" decisions from time to time.

But Soto is about as likely to break right than Alito is to break left.
I didn’t say never. You’d know better than me but I’d be willing to bet the conservatives break rank at a far greater amount then do the liberals. Especially on the high profile cases.
 
my only beef with the questioning of the liberal justices is that Justice Sotomayor doesn't allow the counsel to answer the question. But that just makes it "wednesday".

They were very effective, imo (and particularly Jackson's question about analogies to race cases), at gutting the argument that somehow this is not a case about sex at all. Where they fell down a bit, imo, is they didn't move past that. (Also relevant to that is Barrett's question about other TG laws, the answer to which may allow them to avoid "creating" a new protected class.) So, while I doubt this case will be resolved on rational basis review, I'm not sure it's a win for the plaintiffs here. But, maybe more importantly, if it does end up a rational basis case, it's a huge loss for TG advocates.

Interesting side note: not a single question from Gorsuch that I detected.
There you go again posting over my head.

This is what I got from your post.

Sotomayor interrupts a lot. The liberal judges asked some good questions, but didn't go far enough. Barrett asked a relevant question pertaining to creating a new protected class.

Then you started talking about rational basis and you lost me!
 
I don’t w, maybe because at the time they were asked it was legal precedent.

I didn’t say never. You’d know better than me but I’d be willing to bet the conservatives break rank at a far greater amount then do the liberals. Especially on the high profile cases.
They lied to get confirmed. Had they not mouthed those platitudes about Roe being precedent, Collin’s and murkowski would have voted no. Their legal histories were pretty clear about their personal positions on abortion.
 
There you go again posting over my head.

This is what I got from your post.

Sotomayor interrupts a lot. The liberal judges asked some good questions, but didn't go far enough. Barrett asked a relevant question pertaining to creating a new protected class.

Then you started talking about rational basis and you lost me!
Some people call a JD a "degree". I call it an affliction.

More granularly:
1. Soto's interruptions are materially bad to the point that counsel doesn't get to say much of anything. Even worse than Alito imo.
2. It's not just that they asked 'good' questions, but that they asked the most imortant questions that I suspect will prevent the biggest "loss". Going back to a prior post, the combination of Jackson and the response to Barrett's question will result in the case 'not' being decided based on rational basis review (ie, it will be decided under the intermediate review standard previously described)
 
Some people call a JD a "degree". I call it an affliction.

More granularly:
1. Soto's interruptions are materially bad to the point that counsel doesn't get to say much of anything. Even worse than Alito imo.
2. It's not just that they asked 'good' questions, but that they asked the most imortant questions that I suspect will prevent the biggest "loss". Going back to a prior post, the combination of Jackson and the response to Barrett's question will result in the case 'not' being decided based on rational basis review (ie, it will be decided under the intermediate review standard previously described)
So what kind of outcome do you predict for this case? (And seriously explain it to me like I'm 5!)
 
Ann Marimow

The Supreme Court appeared deeply divided along ideological lines Wednesday in a historic case involving gender transition care for transgender minors, with key conservative justices expressing concern about courts intervening in an evolving nationwide debate over access to treatments for young people.

A majority of justices seemed likely to uphold a lower-court decision that allows Tennessee to ban young people from using hormones and puberty blockers for gender transition care that most leading medical organizations say are safe and effective, but that the state characterizes as risky and unproven. The high court’s ruling will have implications for the thousands of transgender young people who live in one of 23 other states that have banned similar treatments in recent years.


Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh repeatedly suggested that medical policies involving gender transition care for minors should be left to the states.

“There are risks both ways,” Kavanaugh said of the outcomes for transgender minors in states that have banned or permitted such care. “Why isn’t that a choice for policymakers?”

Roberts suggested that the court should “leave this to the medical community” because of conflicting reports about the health treatments.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who authored the court’s first major decision protecting gay and transgender employees from workplace discrimination in 2020, asked no questions. And another conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, suggested that the Tennessee law could still be challenged at a later date based on different arguments not before the court Wednesday.

The court’s three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — were united in their skepticism of Tennessee’s defense of its law. They expressed agreement with the Biden administration and the American Civil Liberties Union that the ban discriminates based on sex because it allows minors who are not transgender to use the same medical treatments for other purposes.

Kagan told the state’s lawyer that Tennessee’s ban is “utterly and entirely about sex.” She suggested that the state’s purpose for passing the ban was not based on medical concerns, but instead about wanting “boys to be boys and girls to be girls.”

In a sign of the significance of the case, the court’s argument lasted more than two hours and touched on issues involving transgender athletes, access to bathrooms and interracial marriage.

 
  • Haha
Reactions: GenderIsAstrologyYo
So what kind of outcome do you predict for this case? (And seriously explain it to me like I'm 5!)
Sitting here today, I think that:
1. The court will say that the law does make classifications based on sex (ie, the fact that it applies to both males and females doesn't make it "not" a sex-based law). [SS, EK, KBJ, NG, ACB, maybe JR]
2. Because of that, the court will find that intermediate scrutiny will apply, meaning that the state has to show its law serves an important state interest and is tailored substantially to address that interest.
3. From there, I'd say:
a. There's a 1 in 3 chance they simply remand it to the Sixth Circuit for the sixth circuit to consider whether the law satisfies the intermediate scrutiny test, since the Sixth circuit resolved the case under the more deferential rational basis standard and the Court often gives the lower court the 'first bite at the apple' on issues that hadn't been previously decided under the correct standard. [NOTE: I'd consider this a win for the plaintiffs, as they'd get another bit at the apple, and to my ear, at scotus, the state didn't do a great job articulating its interests/tailoring that well]. If this happens, I'd see a line up along the lines of: JR, SS, EK, BK, NG, KBJ.
b. But if (2 in 3) the court instead goes ahead and decides that question itself (on the theory that the record provides the necessary information for them to do so), I could see a majority that says some things to water down 'intermediate scrutiny' a bit (eg, when considering states' characterization of their interests/tailoring, courts should defer to the policy judgments of legislatures, even if they may entail technical or medical matters), and ultimately decides that the state law satisfies the intermediate scrutiny test. If that happens, it's probably JR, CT, SA, BK, and ACB. I don't think Gorsuch, and ACB could actually be close (writing separately). This would obviously be a net loss for the plaintiffs, but not nearly as bad as if they said it's not a sex-based law and thus subject to rational basis review.
 
They lied to get confirmed. Had they not mouthed those platitudes about Roe being precedent, Collin’s and murkowski would have voted no. Their legal histories were pretty clear about their personal positions on abortion.
Don’t be dumb, they never lied. They answered the same way every single person I’ve ever watched go through the process.
 
Don’t be dumb, they never lied. They answered the same way every single person I’ve ever watched go through the process.
They most certainly were not being honest based on their professional history where they were openly critical of Roe. It was very clear they didn’t consider it as something that would stand if they got the opportunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT