The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for nearly two-and-a-half-hours Wednesday on what has become a hot-button issue in recent years: transitioning minor children from their sex at birth to the opposite sex.
At one end of the spectrum on the issue are those states permitting minors to undergo transitioning "therapy," even if one or both parents, object. At the other end are those that prohibit the procedure for minors, even with parental approval.
The issue in US v. Skrmetti was whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments to permit "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex," or to treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity," violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
To illustrate how insane the crazies are, ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, who argued for the crazies and is himself a transgender (a biological female), appeared on CNN the day before oral arguments and gave a preview of the case.
He claimed that the transgender "treatment" in the form of puberty blockers and surgery "provides critical benefits to adolescents who need it."
How young?
"These are young people who may have known since they were two years old exactly who they are, who suffered for six, seven years before they had any relief."
Tennessee, along with 25 other states, is among the "normals."
States like, the once golden state of California, and Minnesota are among the "crazies," and some of the high court’s members showed their crazy side as well.
High court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compared Tennessee’s ban on transgender drugs and surgery for minors to Loving v. Virginia, a 1967 Supreme Court decision that struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.
Trending Politics co-owner Collin Rugg thought it an odd comparison, "because banning a white person from marrying a black person is the same thing as cutting off a 10-year-old's genitals," he said.
An author and essayist who writes under the pseudonym Peachy Keenan thought Jackson was the wrong person to weigh in on matters of sex and gender.
"How can someone who doesn't know what a woman is rule on a case involving gender?" she asked.
During Jackson’s confirmation hearings, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked her to define the word "woman." Jackson said she couldn’t because she wasn’t a biologist.
Then there’s Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice asked during his argument "How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits?"
Sotomayor shot back, "Every medical treatment has risk. Even taking aspirin."
She’s comparing a tonsillectomy or taking over-the-counter pain relievers to irrevocably blocking a minor child’s puberty or surgically removing his genitals?
So much for the crazies. How about the “normal”? How about the intellectual heavyweights? How about Justice Clarence Thomas?
Roger Severino, Heritage Foundation vice president and former Justice Department Civil Rights trial lawyer observed that Thomas laid a trap upon the ACLU lawyer by getting him to admit that if he prevails in the lawsuit, children of different sexes would receive different treatment.
ACLU lawyer "Strangio said the plaintiff (a girl who identifies as a boy) would be allowed to get drugs for 'a typical male puberty' despite having a 'birth sex [of] female.'" noted Severino.
He continued, "That answer made clear that girls who identify as boys would get a right under the Constitution to testosterone, but boys who identify as boys would not, which is . . . sex discrimination! Genius."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh kept the issue simple, without taking sides.
"If the Constitution doesn't take sides, if there's strong, forceful, scientific policy arguments on both sides in a situation like this, why isn't it best to leave it to the democratic process?" Kavanaugh asked.
In other words, let each state decide for themselves — like on abortion.
Court followers agreed that the Supreme Court, in all likelihood, will uphold Tennessee’s ban on transgender treatment for minors, which didn’t set well with Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for The Nation.
"The Supreme Court’s Hearing on Trans Rights Was Bigotry Masquerading as Law," his headline said.
But all things considered, The Babylon Bee, a satirical "news" site with the motto "Fake News You Can Trust," may have made the most accurate call.
The Bee's headline said, "SCOTUS To Face Challenging Moral Dilemma Of Whether It's Okay To Slice Off Children's Body Parts With Giant Knife."
President-elect Donald J. Trump promised to make America great again during the next four years. He should also strive to make America normal again.
Our children deserve it, and it would vastly improve the moral health of the nation.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to Newsmax. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and a Second Amendment supporter. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.