Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was slammed on Wednesday after she compared a Tennessee law banning gender transitions for minors to past laws banning interracial marriage.
Jackson and the other justices heard over two hours of oral arguments during the U.S. v. Skrmetti case, which involves the constitutionality of state laws banning gender transition medical procedures for minors.
SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., called Jackson’s statements an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.
“How can someone who doesn’t know what a woman is rule on a case involving gender?”
“Supreme Court Mad Libs,” said Greg Scott, senior vice president of communications for Alliance Defending Freedom.
On Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson came under fire for drawing parallels between previous laws prohibiting interracial marriage and a Tennessee law that forbids gender transitions for minors.
Oral arguments were presented to Jackson and the other justices for more than two hours during the U. S. . v. The Skrmetti case concerns whether state laws prohibiting gender transition medical procedures for minors are constitutional.
U. A. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar contended that state laws amount to “sex discrimination,” since the gender of the minor plays a crucial role in deciding which medical treatments are appropriate for those who want to transition.
Jackson claimed to have noticed a “parallel” between U.S. and the other justices following Prelogar’s actions and conversations. S. v. Skrmetti and the historic case of Loving v. 1967 Virginia case.
Your reference to precedent caught my attention because it raises some interesting issues regarding decision-making authority, legislative prerogatives, and other issues. “They sound really familiar to me,” Jackson remarked. Regarding racial classifications and inconsistencies, they sound like the same arguments that were made in the 1950s and 1960s. I’m specifically considering Loving v. Virginia, and I’m curious if you considered the similarities, as I perceive one between the way this law functions and the way Virginia’s civil rights laws function. “.”.
Regarding side effects during oral arguments, Sotomayor contrasts transmedical “treatments” with ASPIRIN.
Additionally, Jackson questioned whether Virginia could have outlawed interracial marriage by adopting Tennessee’s logic, citing a “potential comparison” between the Loving case and Skrmetti.
Social media was enraged by Jackson’s remarks.
In the landmark case, the Supreme Court weighs transgender youth treatment.
Rep. Gaetz, R-Fla. described Jackson’s remarks as a disgrace to the Supreme Court.
Trending Politics co-owner Collin Rugg responded, “Yes, because prohibiting a white person from marrying a black person is the same thing as cutting off a 10-year-old’s gen*tals.”.
In reference to Jackson’s confirmation hearing, where she was asked to define what a woman is and failed to do so, one commenter asked, “How can someone who doesn’t know what a woman is rule on a case involving gender?”.
“Supreme Court Mad Libs,” Alliance Defending Freedom senior vice president of communications Greg Scott said. He went on to say, “We are living in unserious times,”.
