Arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti are set to begin at 10 a.m. Dec. 4. Law Dork's Chris Geidner will be in the courtroom and will have full coverage after the arguments.
I thank God for the light you shine on horrors like this, and I'm a straight CIS Christian male - everyone should be paying attention, but not everyone can be paying attention at 10 am EST.
I am surprised that "parental rights" is not also an argument by those opposing the ban. Especially when it is the constant refrain of the right, e.g. Moms for Liberty pushing removing books from school libraries. Please comment.. Thank you
I wish I had one witty line to shine a discerning light … but I don’t. This is a SCOTUS that ignores findings of fact and precedents at will, that deems itself above ethics and seems to decide by religion or whim. Thomas hates all “liberal” laws (save Loving v. Virginia); Alito consults the New Testament and Witch Trial law; Gorsuch wants to be Chief Justice. I have low hopes here.
It frustrates me that they are only raising the equal protection argument. Even though I think it is strong, I assume the SCOTUS conservatives will find a way to say it doesn't apply here.
My question is: if SCOTUS allows the state law to stand in this case, is there any realistic chance a different lawsuit could get to SCOTUS later, challenging another state ban on the grounds that it violates the fundamental parental right to direct medical care for your own children?
As I've said in many contexts, the current legal climate is a heckler's veto. The "right" of the states to set abortion policy means Alabama can ban abortion but Connecticut can't favor it. Parental "rights" means the right to deny gender affirming care for children, but not to provide gender affirming care for children.
I thank God for the light you shine on horrors like this, and I'm a straight CIS Christian male - everyone should be paying attention, but not everyone can be paying attention at 10 am EST.
I am "looking forward" to both yours and Erin's coverage on this... I wish I could be optimistic about this...
Mr. Geidner:
I am surprised that "parental rights" is not also an argument by those opposing the ban. Especially when it is the constant refrain of the right, e.g. Moms for Liberty pushing removing books from school libraries. Please comment.. Thank you
I wish I had one witty line to shine a discerning light … but I don’t. This is a SCOTUS that ignores findings of fact and precedents at will, that deems itself above ethics and seems to decide by religion or whim. Thomas hates all “liberal” laws (save Loving v. Virginia); Alito consults the New Testament and Witch Trial law; Gorsuch wants to be Chief Justice. I have low hopes here.
It frustrates me that they are only raising the equal protection argument. Even though I think it is strong, I assume the SCOTUS conservatives will find a way to say it doesn't apply here.
My question is: if SCOTUS allows the state law to stand in this case, is there any realistic chance a different lawsuit could get to SCOTUS later, challenging another state ban on the grounds that it violates the fundamental parental right to direct medical care for your own children?
As I've said in many contexts, the current legal climate is a heckler's veto. The "right" of the states to set abortion policy means Alabama can ban abortion but Connecticut can't favor it. Parental "rights" means the right to deny gender affirming care for children, but not to provide gender affirming care for children.