Tag: scotus

Justice Sotomayor Compares Risks of Transgender Hormone Therapy for Minors to “Taking Aspirin” as She and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Blast Bans as ‘Sexist’

Obama Justice Sonya Sotomayor made an idiotic and dangerous analogy during Supreme Court oral arguments on Wednesday in a case regarding the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that bars puberty blockers and hormone therapy for so-called transgender minors. 

Twenty-four states currently have laws similar to Tennessee’s dealing with ‘gender-affirming’ care for children. There is no meaningful push to bar adults from mutilating themselves at the moment.

A federal judge in Arkansas ruled last year for the Biden regime and its allies and struck down the Tennessee law. The judge claimed the law ‘discriminates based on sex and targets transgender people’ and that the ‘benefits’ of the health care outlawed by the law are ‘well-established.’

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit quickly reversed the lower court’s decision and allowed the law to go into effect, leading to the Supreme Court taking up the case.

The Supreme Court is expected to render a final decision on the case in June 2025.

During the hearing, Sotomayor likened the risk of irreparable harm, including mental and physical harm and the loss of fertility, from chemical castration on minors to that of “taking aspirin.”

“There is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that’s going to suffer a harm,” said Sotomayor while trying to make the point that children should be able to alter their biological and chemical makeup with synthetic hormones.

Sotomayor may almost be as dumb as Biden Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, who later piggybacked on Sotomayor’s claims that banning the use of hormones without a legitimate medical purpose is discriminatory on the basis of sex.

Keep reading

Biden Appointed Justice: Banning Child Sex Changes Is Like Banning Interracial Marriage 

Biden’s Supreme Court Justice pick, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the one who can’t describe what a woman is, has argued that banning sex changes on children is akin to banning interracial marriages.

The Supreme Court is currently addressing a case concerning the constitutionality of a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for ‘transgender’ identifying children that was enacted last year.

Jackson confronted Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice, who was defending the law, by citing an old case regarding the state of Virginia banning interracial marriage. She then argued that somehow this can be compared to gender reassignment surgery on kids. 

“The question was whether this was discriminatory because it applied to both races,” Jackson said.

“But as I read the statute here, I mean the case here, it states that Virginia is one of the states that punishes marriages on the basis of race,” she continued.

Keep reading

Justice Ketanji Jackson Makes a Fool of Herself During Oral Arguments

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, an extremely important case over state restrictions on medically unnecessary interventions, such as puberty blockers and hormone treatments, for minors experiencing gender confusion. 

At issue is the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that prohibits these procedures for gender-confused kids, though the outcome of this case will have implications for 24 other states enacting similar measures, as it could pave the way for more states to outlaw these practices on kids and potentially adults as well.

“The dispute is the first in which the justices will consider the constitutionality of state efforts to regulate medical interventions for transgender youth, but it comes as Republican-led states have enacted a slew of restrictions targeting transgender individuals, including policies on sports teams and restroom access,” reports CBS News. “President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to restrict medical treatments for transgender minors and bar transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports. And while the Biden administration will argue Wednesday that the Supreme Court should invalidate Tennessee’s law, the incoming Trump administration could reverse the government’s position once it is in power early next year.”

Oral arguments are ongoing, and we’ve already got a cringeworthy claim from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was nominated to the court by Joe Biden.

Keep reading

Food and Drug Administration Defends Refusal To Approve Flavored E-Cigarettes Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) appeal in Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC on Monday. The case concerns the FDA’s requirement for scientific studies to approve premarket tobacco applications (PMTAs) for flavored electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) manufacturers and distributors. The FDA’s requirement contradicts data and years of its own guidance for the end of reducing an exaggerated epidemic of underage nicotine use.

Concerns about rampant teen nicotine use are common. They are also commonly exaggerated. NPR originally claimed that “the percentage of high school kids who reported daily vaping of e-cigarettes jumped from 9.7% in 2014 to 30% in 2023.” (The outlet has since printed a correction.) What the FDA and CDC’s 2023 National Youth Tobacco Survey actually said was that 29.9 percent of high schoolers currently using e-cigarette were daily users; only 10 percent of all high schoolers were current users, (down from 14.1 percent in 2022), 90.3 percent of whom used flavored products. If “e-cigarettes have filled the vacuum” left by smoking, as former FDA deputy commissioner William Schultz says to NPR, the vacuum is not as large as people are led to believe.

The 2024 National Youth Tobacco Survey shows that this figure has fallen even further: from 10 percent to 7.8 percent. E-cigarettes have become increasingly unpopular with middle school and high school students despite sales increasing 47 percent from 2019 to 2023. More than 80 percent of this is attributable to flavored products, according to data from the CDC Foundation and Truth, a nonprofit public health organization committed to preventing youth nicotine addiction.

E-cigarettes are not the only product inappropriate for consumption by middle schoolers and high schoolers, alcohol is too. Despite the popularity of Pink Whitney, Fireball, Mike’s Hard Lemonade, and other sugary, colorful alcoholic drinks among high schoolers, federal regulators allow these products to be manufactured and distributed. The prohibition of such goods to adults would be unwarranted, not to mention infeasible. Nonetheless, the paternalistic Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which grants the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco and nicotine products, restricts what kinds of tobacco products adults may consume.

The Act explicitly “prohibits a cigarette or any of its components from containing…any artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or any herb or spice (including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, and vanilla.” The law also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the FDA to establish the Center for Tobacco Products and to, among various responsibilities, “develop an action plan to enforce restrictions on the promotion and advertising of menthol and other cigarettes to youth.”

But the Act also “prohibits the secretary from: imposing unduly burdensome requirements” on manufacturers and importers. This provision is problematic for the FDA’s wholesale denial of PMTAs to flavored nicotine products. In the Fifth Circuit’s January 2024 opinion, Judge Andrew Oldham explains that the FDA “sent manufacturers of flavored e-cigarette products on a wild goose chase” by imposing new testing requirements after “promulgat[ing] hundreds of pages of guidance documents” between 2018 and 2020.

Keep reading

Parents Appeal To U.S. Supreme Court After Vermont Courts Ruled Schools Can Vaccinate Kids Against Parents’ Wishes

A Vermont family whose 6-year-old son was vaccinated with an experimental Covid-19 intervention against the family’s wishes has appealed a Vermont Supreme Court ruling. The Vermont court had ruled that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) prohibits such claims, granting immunity to school and government personnel when they mandate vaccinations.    

Stunningly, the Vermont Supreme Court did not even pay lip service to the constitutional liberties implicated, ruling against traditional protections of parental rights and informed consent. But the PREP Act is not above the Constitution’s supremacy clause; it’s the other way around.      

Parents’ rights are being chiseled away rapidly. In Vermont, minor children may obtain transgender hormones and birth control without parental consent, and a 2024 law bars parents from seeing which library books are checked out by their children 12 years and older. Yet these are examples where the child wants something against his parents’ wishes. In Vermont’s Covid-19 vaccination case, the child protested and was forced to be jabbed anyway.

Keep reading

J6 Prisoner Released After Landmark Supreme Court Overturns Obstruction Charge, His ONLY Charge — Watch This Emotional Family Reunion

Nick Ochs, a January 6 defendant and co-founder of the Hawaii chapter of the Proud Boys, has been released from prison after serving less than two years of a four-year sentence.

Ochs, who was convicted under the controversial 1512(c) statute, had his conviction vacated after the Supreme Court overturned the obstruction charge used to jail hundreds of January 6 defendants.

Ochs’s release marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battles faced by January 6 defendants, many of whom were charged under the same statute.

Speaking to The Gateway Pundit, Ochs shared the emotional experience of reuniting with his family.

“I just got released early from Butner Prison where I was a January 6th Hostage doing 4 years. I ended up doing a bit less than 2 total,” Ochs told The Gateway Pundit, adding, “I beat the whole case and am now innocent.”

“The only charge I had was 1512(c), a charge the Supreme Court threw out on June 28 as not a crime anymore—unless someone tampered with paper ballots, which no one did,” he continued.

He also highlighted the significance of his case for other January 6th defendants, many of whom remain behind bars under similar charges.

“I believe my co-defendant and I were among the first to be released, and others will now be citing my case in court,” Ochs noted, expressing hope that this marks a turning point for many innocent J6ers.

Ochs, who was initially threatened with up to 20 years in prison for his actions on January 6th, argued that he was targeted not for any violent act but “for filming the same events in the same place as mainstream media reporters – who were not arrested.”

Keep reading

Despite Supreme Court 1512 Ruling, DOJ Still Cracking Down On J6 Defendants Like Stephanie Baez — Demonstrating That Lawfare Won’t End Until President Trump Is Sworn In And Cleans Out Deep State

In June, the Supreme Court handed J6 defendants a long-awaited victory by effectively gutting the 1512 obstruction of justice statute.

Leading up to that decision, the DOJ had been using the statute in a context totally unrelated to its original intent and purpose.

The statute was enacted shortly after the Enron scandal of the early 2000s to provide oversight into fraud and corruption within the accounting industry.

The law’s originators never conceived of its use in a presidential certification process, much less against peaceful demonstrators who simply exercised their First Amendment rights to protest a contested election.

Nevertheless, radical lawyers within the DOJ, abetted by outside lawfare groups, took it upon themselves to completely pervert the statute’s meaning.

Rather than fighting accounting fraud, it was now being weaponized by vindictive, bad-faith actors within the DOJ to deny J6 political prisoners of fundamental rights, and in many cases, imprison them with cruel and unusually long sentences.

The statute’s vague wording that was the focus of much of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer had previously given the DOJ convenient cover to stretch its construction to absurd lengths.

This is how a statute enacted to limit the tampering of evidence to protect whistleblowers in a proceeding for accounting fraud became twisted and applied in a completely foreign area – namely, the context of punishing J6 defendants.

Keep reading

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor Dismisses Demands to Step Down and Allow Democrats to Fill Her SCOTUS Seat

Justice Sonia Sotomayor has rejected demands to step down and allow Democrats to try and appoint a replacement before Trump takes office in January.

According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, Sotomayor “has no plans to retire from the Supreme Court,” effectively ending plans to replace her.

“This is no time to lose her important voice on the court,” a person close to Sotomayor was quoted as saying. “She just turned 70 and takes better care of herself than anyone I know.”

Earlier this week, Politico reported that Democratic leaders were “agonizing” over whether to try and force Sotomayor out of the door before Trump takes back the White House.

The 70-year-old justice is known to suffer from diabetes and other health issues, creating the possibility that her seat may become open during his presidency.

The report explains:

For Democrats, this is a hair-on-fire moment. And though the discourse in the media is presently dominated by recriminations about how this all happened, another arguably more urgent conversation is blowing up largely outside of public view: whether to push for 70-year-old Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to step down while Dems still have the power to approve her replacement.

This isn’t simply some flight of fancy happening among progressive activists online. It’s a conversation members of the Senate are actively engaged in.

Keep reading

Dems Float Plan To Push Ailing Justice Sotomayor Off Supreme Court So Biden Can Replace Her Before Trump Is Sworn In

Democrats are reportedly having serious discussions about mounting a pressure campaign to force ailing Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to resign so Joe Biden can nominate a replacement before President-Elect Donald Trump is sworn in.

After losing their Senate majority to the GOP, Democrats are concerned that Republicans will be “revving up the old conveyor belt of conservative judicial nominees” as soon President-Elect Trump takes office, Politico reported.

For Democrats, this is a hair-on-fire moment. And though the discourse in the media is presently dominated by recriminations about how this all happened, another arguably more urgent conversation is blowing up largely outside of public view: whether to push for 70-year-old Supreme Court Justice SONIA SOTOMAYOR to step down while Dems still have the power to approve her replacement.

This isn’t simply some flight of fancy happening among progressive activists online. It’s a conversation members of the Senate are actively engaged in.

A Democrat senator told Politico that the topic of pushing Sotomayor off the Supreme Court “has come up repeatedly this week in talks with their colleagues.”

These “Beltway speculative conversations,” according to Politico, have inevitably hit roadblocks for two reasons:

(1) It’d be a risky play with the party already trying to figure out how to handle a crowded lame-duck session

(2) no senator seems to be offering to be the person to put his or her neck on their line publicly (or even privately) by pushing for Sotomayor to step aside.

When Democrats first floated the idea of jettisoning Sotomayor last year, they were accused of ableism and racism.

The names of possible replacements have been discussed, including the allegedly “moderate” D.C. Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs, who was reportedly on Joe Biden’s SCOTUS short list, and has already been vetted.

Another name floated on Friday was none other than Kamala Harris.

Keep reading

Desperate Dem’s Latest Far-Fetched Fantasy: Supreme Court Justice Kamala Harris – YES, REALLY!

Vice President Kamala Harris can now ride out her last months in office after being obliterated by President-Elect Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election. That’s not sitting well with some Democrats – they want her sitting on the United States Supreme Court. Yes, it’s stupid. Yes, it’s far-fetched. Yes, it’s a desperate attempt to breath relevance into an irrelevant politician. But, we’re talking about Democrats here.

They are not giving up.  

This would be courting disaster.

Kamala Harris was a terrible presidential candidate. She would also be a bad choice to sit on the highest court in the land. On the campaign trail, she showed us she is unable to answer simple questions or formulate an idea without lapsing into never ending word salads.

Keep reading