Tennessee isn’t the only state. There are 25 states with bans on certain “affirming care” for minors with gender dysphoria. Still with the Supreme Court decision in the United States vs. Skrmetti, I have to say that “It’s great to be a Tennessee Vol”. Proud of my state, as ever. Along with the Transgender Ban in the United States Military, common sense is making a comeback in our institutions and hopefully further damage to children will be allayed.
BUT OF COURSE IT WAS 6-3
The three? Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Repeal the 19th Amendment, Change my mind.
Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee’s Ban On Transgender Drugs For Children…
— The Stupid Shall Be Punished (@stupidpunished) June 18, 2025
The Supreme Court issued the 6-3 decision in the case of United States vs. Skrmetti and it went, as usual, along ideological and IQ lines. The majority upholding the ban and the smart ones are John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. The three dissenting but breathing justices are Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Roll Call wrote:
The 6-3 decision, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., found that states can regulate or even ban gender-affirming treatment as part of their powers over medical care without running afoul of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Roberts wrote that there are “fierce scientific and policy debates” about the safety, efficacy and proper use of medical treatments for gender-affirming care, which have been debated by both proponents and detractors.
“The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve those disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best,” the majority opinion said.
The role of the courts is not to judge the wisdom, fairness or logic of a policy, only to ensure that it doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment, Roberts wrote. “Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,” he wrote.
The Conservative Justices did not address the physical and psychological damage done by puberty blocking hormones. That’s probably not within their write, but it should be uppermost in the minds of those who love children. Justice John Roberts believes this ruling will leave the decision to the people of the jurisdiction and their lawmakers. June Grasso does not approve in this video:
June Grasso clearly approved of the breathing Sonia Sotomayor and her “heartfelt comments” during Oral Arguments. The percent of people with gender dysphoria who are of age can do with their bodies as they will do. We are concerned with the minor children and their possibly mentally ill parents.
Justice Sotomayor’s minority dissent took the form of disgust with majority. She took the unusual step of reading her dissent aloud to show her displeasure. According to the New k Times:
She took issue with the majority’s view that questions about such medical treatments should be resolved by “the people, their elected representatives and the democratic process.” In her 31-page dissent, she argued that “judicial scrutiny has long played an essential role” in guarding against efforts by lawmakers to “impose upon individuals the state’s views about how people of a particular sex (or race) should live or look or act.”
No, why have elected representative shape how people live when you can have judges do that. More:
Justice Sotomayor pointed to landmark Supreme Court cases that pushed back against discriminatory laws and policies. She cited United States v. Virginia, the 1996 case in which the court struck down Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy, along with Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that declared state laws prohibiting interracial marriage unconstitutional.
And finally:
Her dissent was joined fully by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and, in part, by Justice Elena Kagan.
Although justices often include “respectfully” in the essay explaining their dissents, Justice Sotomayor wrote only this: “In sadness, I dissent
The Conservative Justices of SCOTUS will hold her while she weeps her sadness. But wait, there’s more:
In her own words, Justice Sotomayor judges by emotion, not constitutionality.
She is not qualified to judge. https://t.co/IMImGDE2jg pic.twitter.com/1kza3BeJta
— Vernon (@TipsyPianoBar) June 18, 2025
Final Jeopardy: How can Justice Brown Jackson make any ruling about changing genders when she doesn’t know what a woman is?
Featured Image: Eden, Janine and Jim/Wikimedia Commons.org/cropped/Creative Commons 2.0
Cameron says: Leave the children alone, you goddamn degenerates. Wait until they are adults even though they won’t look as cute to you.
Really starting to yearn for the days when freaks like this were in the closet because they knew normal people would shun them and make their lives hell.
GWB says: The three dissenting but breathing justices
If only they were blonde….
June Grasso does not approve in this video
WHO?
She took the unusual step of reading her dissent aloud to show her displeasure.
Progressivism is a performative religion. She has to know that someone actually heard her cri de coeur, or it doesn’t count.
people of a particular sex (or race) should live or look or act
Two problems with that statement. First is that she’s actually wrong about that, unless she means actually discriminatory laws that only apply to one race or sex. Second is that this isn’t discriminatory at all, except in age, which has long been held (if it’s applied to minors vs adults) to be constitutional (see the 26th Amendment). The law applies to all races and both sexes, equally. So take your prejudicial bias and shove it, sweetcheeks.
Justice Sotomayor pointed to landmark Supreme Court cases that pushed back against discriminatory laws and policies.
But the whole point is that this is not in any possible way discriminatory.
And you don’t get to make up a wholly new category (make-believe genders, as opposed to actual sex) where it IS suddenly discriminatory. If you get to do that, we aren’t living in a society with Rule Of Law.
In sadness, I dissent
In sadness, we all dissent from your very presence on the court. Ugh, what a waste of flesh.
Final Jeopardy: How can Justice Brown Jackson make any ruling about changing genders when she doesn’t know what a woman is?
DING! Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
Tim says: The Wide Latina should resign from the Court and run for Congress if she wants to change policy. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
3 Comments