Marjorie Taylor Greene was loudly booed by onlookers as she once again raged against transgender rights at a rally outside the US Supreme Court.
The legal battle, brought to the Supreme Court in June, will set a legal precedent for state bans on gender-affirming care by dictating whether a ban implemented by Tennessee is constitutional.
Supreme Court justices heard arguments from various representatives on Wednesday, including Chase Strangio — the first trans attorney to speak before the Supreme Court.
The Republican was seemingly taken aback by a wave of boos that followed her remarks, predominantly coming from the Freedom to Be Ourselves rally, which stood in support of trans rights.
US Supreme Court hears oral arguments on US v Skrmetti Despite Marjorie Taylor Greene’s objections, the US Supreme Court heard testimony from a handful of pro-trans attorneys and activists over the course of the court hearing on Wednesday.
During a rally outside the US Supreme Court, Marjorie Taylor Greene once again raged against transgender rights, to the loud jeering of onlookers.
Ahead of the oral arguments in the US v. Skrmetti case on Wednesday, December 4, the Georgia Republican, who is well-known for her rhetoric that is full of conspiracy theories and gender criticism, was heckled while speaking outside the Supreme Court.
By determining whether a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care is constitutional, the June case will establish a precedent for state bans on this type of care.
Chase Strangio, the first transgender lawyer to appear before the Supreme Court, was among the representatives who made arguments to the justices on Wednesday.
Several right-wing commentators, including self-described theocratic fascist Matt Walsh, stood on a podium outside the courts prior to the hearing to shout more derogatory and inaccurate statements about transgender people.
During her tirade, Greene complained once more about conspiracy theories that transgender youth are getting gender-affirming surgery “before they’re old enough to join the military,” which is generally untrue.
After her comments, the Republican appeared surprised by a barrage of jeers, most of which came from the trans rights-supporting Freedom to Be Ourselves rally.
Greene’s supporters were rapidly dwindling in the area, as evidenced by independent journalist Talia Jane’s social media reports stating that the crowd was “roughly 4:1 pro-trans rights vs anti.”.
She nevertheless persisted in her transphobic rhetoric, claiming that “God created male and female, in his image, he created us.”. “”.
She went on to say, “What you’re hearing is the cry of the demons and those who worship evil who are mistreating our children and brainwashing them to believe the lies that come straight from Satan.”.
Oral arguments in US v. Skrmetti are being heard by the US Supreme Court.
A few pro-trans lawyers and activists testified before the US Supreme Court during the hearing on Wednesday, despite Marjorie Taylor Greene’s protests.
In his arguments, Chase Strangio claimed that Tennessee, which is still determined to enforce the ban, was depriving trans children of the “only treatment that relieved years of suffering.”.
Meanwhile, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar backed Strangio’s claims, stating that the prohibition is incompatible with the state’s regulations regarding puberty blockers for non-trans people.
“Only when medical care is given to produce physical effects that are inconsistent with birth sex is it restricted by law,” she stated. “Medication to live as a male is granted to a male assigned at birth, but not to a female assigned at birth. The outcome changes if the individual sex is altered. Without a doubt, that is a facial sex classification, and such a law cannot be upheld by simple reason. “”.
Long regarded as a conservative, Chief Justice John Roberts responded to the argument by stating that the case was unique among sex discrimination rulings due to its medical implications.
As for the plaintiffs, Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice contended that there “must be a medical purpose for these drugs” and that they were “conflating different medical purposes.”. “”.
The case was “imbued with sex,” said Justice Elena Kagan in response. She added: “You may have reasons for believing that this is a suitable regulation, and those reasons should be tested and respected, but it’s a dodge to say that this is not based on sex [and that] it’s based on medical purpose when the medical purpose is completely and totally about sex.”. “.”.
