Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is again warning of a growing threat to the nation. In her lone dissent in Chiles v. Salazar, Jackson observed that “to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now.” The ominous tone stemmed from the fact that free speech had prevailed over state-imposed orthodoxy in a Colorado case. Eight justices, including her two liberal colleagues, ruled that Colorado could not prevent licensed counselors from “any practice or treatment” that “attempts or purports to change” a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The win for free speech was catastrophic for Jackson and many on the left. Allowing counselors to discuss the causes and basis for sexual orientation changes, Jackson maintained, would “open a can of worms.” It would be far better for the majority to simply silence such dissenting voices in the name of science.
The dissent in Chiles is only the latest example of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a pronounced dismissal of free speech values. Consider the holding of her colleagues that Jackson finds so horrific.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the First Amendment “reflects … a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth … any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”
What a nightmare.
Instead, Jackson would have declared the ban on anything deemed “conversion therapy” to be “conduct,” not speech. It is that easy. You simply impose an orthodoxy and then treat any dissenters as being regulated for their conduct, not their viewpoints.
Justice Elena Kagan could not withhold her frustration with her colleague, noting that “[b]ecause the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.” She added that Jackson’s view “rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”
Other countries have embraced Jackson’s permissive approach to speech curtailment. Recently, Malta failed to convict a man who was facing five months in prison for merely discussing his own abandonment of homosexuality due to a religious conversion.
Of course, we just went through a pandemic when censorship and orthodoxy were dressed up as science. Leading scientific figures were canceled and harassed. That was the case with Jay Bhattacharya, who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration and was a vocal critic of COVID-19 policies. Bhattacharya was targeted due to his dissenting views on health policy, including opposing wholesale shutdowns of schools and businesses.
He and other scientists were later vindicated. European allies that did not shut down their schools fared far better than we did, including avoiding a national mental health and learning crisis. We simply never had that debate.
He was recently honored with the prestigious “Intellectual Freedom” award from the American Academy of Sciences and Letters. He is also now the 18th director of the National Institutes of Health.
Yet, years ago, the courts, the media, and politicians joined in treating dissenting views as “conspiracy theories.”
Some argued that the virus’s origin was likely the Chinese research lab in Wuhan. That position was denounced by the Washington Post as a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli called any mention of the lab theory “racist.”
Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.
Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus — the government later recognized both positions.
Others questioned the six-foot rule, which shut down many businesses, as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci later admitted that the rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did it result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, but the media further ostracized dissenting critics.
For years, pundits portrayed those who questioned gender reassignment surgeries and treatments as bigots. Now, leading medical associations and European nations have decided that such procedures should not be generally allowed.
All of it was orthodoxy masquerading as science.
Yet, Jackson sees the protection of dissenting scientific and professional views as a “can of worms” that the courts should avoid in favor of state and assocational imposed truths. She wrote that allowing such opposing views “ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing.”
Keep in mind that counselors can still be sued for any harm that they cause due to malpractice or negligence. Indeed, recently in New York, a jury awarded $2 million to Fox Varian, 22, over the double mastectomy performed on her while she was a minor.
State associations can also publish positions on such therapy and seek to convince both professionals and the public on the best practices for children.
None of that was sufficient for Justice Jackson or Colorado. Ironically, Colorado has now succeeded in dramatically strengthening free speech in its repeated failures to curtail it. The Democratic legislators have made the state arguably the most hostile to free speech in the nation.
Colorado’s Supreme Court sought to bar President Donald Trump from the ballot. Notably, while many of us viewed Trump’s views on the 2020 election to be protected speech, Colorado treated it as conduct and advocacy of insurrection.
It was Colorado that sought to force bakers, photographers, and web designers to produce work in favor of same-sex marriages despite their religious objections. Each effort was supported by the Tenth Circuit and each failed in spectacular fashion before the Supreme Court.
As many of us celebrate this victory for free speech, these advocates are denouncing the ruling in apocalyptic terms.
What is most chilling is that Jackson is now routinely called the model for new nominees, including the push to pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority.
If so, Jackson’s radical views on constitutional interpretation could be replicated on a new packed Court. To paraphrase this decision, “to be completely frank, we know exactly what will happen then.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
This column appeared on Fox.com
Jackson’s only qualification is thar she has black skin, per Joe Biden. Other than that, she is the go to, guaranteed liberal vote for the “constitution is a living document” crowd.
The median IQ of American blacks is 70.
That used to be classified as marginally functional.
Studies of black children adopted into white families have shown that the IQ of those black children averaged several points above the median of 100. That is an indicator of something more than genetics.
In the early 20th century, Jews were found to have IQ’s below the median. Today they are high.
Everyone, get rid of race and religion, and focus on the individual. While some are lost creatures, and others from other countries, Americans believe or should believe, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
No unbiased study shows that.
Nature not nurture determines IQ.
It’s an immutabe fact.
You can live with opinions that do not reflect the common consensus. That is your right, but the consensus is that nature and nurture contribute to IQ.
The IQ of the scotts went from Dramatcally below that of the English prior to the battle of Culloden to significantly higher a generation later.
The brilliant minds of the scottish enlightenment were nearly all born prior to Culloden, but all reach adulthood shortly after.
Please provide ANY explanation – natural or otherwise for that rapid change in a relatively small nation ?
Since the left is now fully nihilist, deep down, they are also completely morally insecure. The result is that the true leftist is terrified of hearing or reading any idea which clashes with their ideology. As a result Ms. Jackson fearfully worries that ‘…no one knows what will happen now.’ Wake up call for Ms. Jackson. In a free country, there is no compulsion for you to know what will happen in other people’s lives. Consider managing your own life and let other individuals manage theirs.
Or she votes with the internal caveat that to rile the left will keep her off Broadway stages.
She is a detriment to the Supreme Court and an abomination to this country. Doesn’t she realize that when everybody else is right and she’s wrong there might be something to it? If she can’t abide by the constitution, she does not Belongin that position.
Lin, are you sure you’re a lawyer? Because you don’t seem to understand the point of a dissent. Justice Jackson is well qualified to be on the Supreme Court. So many demonize or denigrate her because she is different. I mean do you even hear yourself sometimes? Didn’t you learn in law school that some of the most important decisions began with a lone dissenter?
Justice John Marshall Harlan was the sole dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), arguing against “separate but equal.” He was “wrong” according to his eight colleagues at the time, but history eventually proved him right in Brown v. Board of Education. Right?
A dissenter’s job is to highlight potential unintended consequences of a ruling, which is exactly what Jackson did.
She argued that by reclassifying medical advice as “pure speech,” the majority was actually changing the Constitution’s application to strip states of their traditional power to stop harmful practices like conversion therapy.
Justices Kagan and Sotomayor wrote a separate concurrence specifically to protect “one side of a debate.” They didn’t necessarily think Jackson’s legal theory was “an abomination”; they were worried that her “conduct” logic would allow red states to ban gender-affirming talk therapy.
Jackson’s dissent wasn’t an attack on free speech; it was a warning that treating an exam room like a “public park” would dismantle medical accountability.
You know for a lawyer you sure do miss a lot of important details and nuances.
Ironic, George wants criticizes: “Lin, are you sure you’re a lawyer?”.
But George/X IS NOT A LAWYER. No college degree, nuttin.
Just a BIG mouth clown.
Someone is intentionally imitating me with the logo/moniker (@11:55^) . THat is NOT ME.
Lin,
I picked up on that. Seems our annony’s are that desperate they have to resort to faking other people.
Thank you for noticing, my smart blog pal!
Justice Jackson has merged her judicial philosophy with progressive whims. That is not what a SC judge does. I suggest you learn the job of a Supreme Court Justice.
S. Meyer:
Someone is imitating me with the logo/moniker (@11:55^) . THat is NOT ME. Therefore, I will let that person respond.
Lin, don’t worry. This was directed to GSX, not you, but thank you for letting us know.
X/George: You were eager to jump in and criticize me but it backfired. I did not write the comment above @11:55.
Someone appears to be imitating me.
I regret that your attention to context, comprehension, and “syntax,” let alone the difference in logo/moniker. You read and respond to my posts more than Upstate Farmer, but he noticed it. What does that tell me about you?
Thanks, George/X
Lin, warning everyone that it is not you long after the alleged fake moniker “Lin” posted fooled everyone, including S. Meyer. It did seem a tiny bit odd that you would make such a crazy sounding comment, but…there’s always a one off that even you could make given the animosity towards Justice Jackson she seems to elicit among the ignorant and mildly bigoted.
My criticism towards you or the alleged fake “Lin” (are you sure it wasn’t an April fools prank?) is still valid.
clown. you made a fool of yourself and you try to blame her? Yeah, like she is capable of choosing the same color and figure shape -notice the legs- of image as hers! Wow, clown, maybe she is NOT a lawyer, maybe she is a IT graphics expert! Who knew, clown!
WRONG. S. Meyer did not fall for it. You lie so much.
Lin – I don’t mind a lone dissenter, as long as the dissenting opinion is reasonable. Wrong interpretations can still be reasonable. But when a justice dissents because she favored the social policy of the law at issue, and dispenses with the idea that the Constitution limits the power of the government to control speech – and in particular limits the government’s power to engage in viewpoint discrimination – that opinion is no longer reasonable. In that instance, you’re right that the justice does not belong on the highest court in the land.
Not.So.Old:
Someone appears to be imitating me with the logo/moniker (@11:55^) . THat is NOT ME. Therefore, I will let that person respond.
(p.s. I wonder if you wore a T-shirt that said OMFK, you would be denied entrance to any school!?)
I wonder if you wore a T-shirt that said OMFK, you would be denied entrance to any school?
LOL !!
Apparently this decision, that supports free speech, is very troublesome, upsetting and disgusting to some of the commenters here. I speak primarily of the one anonymous and X. They are lucky that Professor Turley and the administrator of this blog allows them the freedom to express themselves in a way that they would not allow others, if they were in control. As much as I try to skim by their comments, they still upset me in the uncivilized manner in which they attack people. However, Thank you Professor Turley for allowing them the privilege of speaking their mind here on your site.
richard
Richard, well said. The irony is hard to miss. The same folks who are furious that the Court won’t let Colorado silence one side of a professional conversation are exercising exactly the kind of robust, sometimes ugly, free speech they would happily deny to others if they had the power. That is why places like this blog matter. You do not protect free speech by allowing only the civil or agreeable voices. You protect it by refusing to give the most thin‑skinned or most powerful speaker a veto over everyone else.
Olly, please tell your qualification to criticize SCOTUS decisions. Any college degree? A law license? professional experience? Anything?
Hi, Olly, why don’t you tell Richard that you use an anonymous name (The Lurker) to attack commenters. Please, your hypocrisy is ….
Olly,
As the old saying goes ” If the shoe fits wear it” which has been verified by the comments below (12:42, 12:44, 1:10 and 1:12). With history repeating itself, the shoe will be worn out and a new one or pair will appear to reject what has been proven to withstand the test of time, 250 years of our constitution.
Keep crying you manchild.
Hi, Olly, why don’t you tell Richard that you use an anonymous name (The Lurker) to attack commenters. Please, your hypocrisy is ….
Most voters forgive most leaders for mistakes, if those mistakes put the nation first and were made in good faith.
In contrast, one could make a strong argument that those controlling all 3 branches of the federal government are NOT putting the nation’s interests first and are NOT acting in good faith.
Trump officials know full well their Oath of Office grants them “0” authority to defy the U.S. Constitution [a wartime governing charter] – that’s not in good faith. Many of these officials are enriching themselves and oligarchs, while harming average working class Americans (inflating crude oil prices).
At least this Supreme Court jurist is acting in good faith and placing the nation first, even if she made a mistake doing so.
Putting the nation first? No, putting her own political ideology first, above what the Constitution commands, which is viewpoint neutrality by the government. Even Kagan and Sotomayor recognized that.
Jackson’s desire is to enact her policy goals even if that means silencing the speech of those who disagree with her and destroys 1A’s protections in the process. That is the opposite of putting the nation first.
What is most chilling is that Jackson is now routinely called the model for new nominees, including the push to pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority.
Which is why the Keep-9 Amendment is needed, now more than ever.
https://www.keepnineonthesupremecourt.org/
Dear Mr. Turley, I would like to offer an apology to “Ollie” regarding the terrible comment left to him by Anonymous at 9:20 a.m. This comment leveled at him is a perfect example of the emptiness of the left’s arguments. Keep on writing “Ollie”!
Ya know what guys, if ya wanna know the dirty about the latest SCUTUS descion, don’t bother with these idiot clowns here. Just a bunch of big mouths talkoing out of their…
Go to https://www.scotusblog.com/ for the real deal. Get smart!
@seanmdav
I’ve never wanted cameras in the court more than I do right now. Actually just one camera. On Trump. The Donald J. Trump CourtCam. We deserve to see his facial expressions every time the special needs justice speaks.
“I just don’t understand” 😂😂😂
Don’t miss Federalist article: “Trust The Gender Science, Says SCOTUS Justice Who Doesn’t Know What A Woman Is”
Justice Kagan also said, “It would, however, be less so if the law under review was content-based but viewpoint neutral.”
Seems that “viewpoint neutral” thing is something of an anathema to the left.
As to Jackson’s “Before now, licensed medical professionals had to adhere to standards when treating patients: They could neither do nor say whatever they want.”
Yes. There are standards.
However, as Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority, “every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.” As we saw with COVID, had we not free speech to think and speak freely, we would of never discovered the truth and to this day would still be in lockdowns, wearing masks, arbitrary “six foot rule,” and all those other things that were once “settled science,” that turned out to be false.
Seems this is more about adherence to a single orthodoxy than it is to science. Most certainly attempts to silence dissent from that orthodoxy.
I’m curious what qualifies you – education, certification, experience etc – to analyze and critique SC decisions?
You must have regressed to an 11 year old.
Common sense. When the dust and debris is cleared away what’s left is common sense.
Common sense? Over rated man. That comment is full other’s quotes, not you.
Upstate, very good comment.
If Justice Jackson is going to lean this hard on “normative standards” for licensed professionals, she ought to stop and ask what standards she is modeling from the bench. In this case she tells us doctors “had to adhere to standards” and “could neither do nor say whatever they want,” as if “the standard” and “the orthodoxy” were the same thing. But the judiciary has standards too, starting with basic respect for viewpoint neutrality and for the idea that we demand both competence and open debate, not competence instead of debate. When you start treating disagreement as danger and orthodoxy as the only acceptable “standard of care,” you are not just policing bad medicine you are undercutting the very constitutional standard you swore to uphold.
Oh oh, now Olly is kissing ass, and from a pig farmer no less. He plagiarized that text. What a fraud.
How low can you go Olly? Desperation… BTW, PF didn’t understand a word you wrote. In fact no one does, its nonsense and gibberish.
What, mommy didn’t breast feed you enough? That’s why you’re here making horse’s a– comments?
And that’s why you’re here making horse’s a– comments? Come on, are you really that …
And that’s why you’re here making horse’s a– comments.
Conversion therapy is child abuse. That is why it needs to be illegal.
Consider someone wants to talk about it. A girl lost her breasts for a lifetime. Children may really really think it’s possible to change genders. They don’t understand what it means.
The old “speech is conduct if I disagree with it” canard that Jackson tried to use.
Who decides what is “Conversion Therapy”? If you actually look into it, rather than view at as a thought-terminating evil, you’ll see that what is deemed “Conversion Therapy” runs the gamut from horrific to hilarious. My favorite is one that proposed that kids became gay because their father didn’t hug them enough, so the “therapy” consisted of the older male counselor hugging the younger man for extended periods of time. It was REALLY GAY! (I guarantee it would not convert any kid that was gay to not be so)
But also consider: Isn’t all transgender medicine also “Conversion Therapy”? You’re literally converting a persons gender with surgical instruments. Or is it only “Conversion Therapy” when it goes in one direction? And that’s the rub.
Imagine an effeminate young man goes to therapy. Is he gay or is he trans? Is it “Conversion Therapy” if the therapist believes he’s more likely to be gay than trans and warns him away from trans surgery?
Therapy should be neither horrific nor hilarious. Therapists do not tell patients what to do. They don’t advise them of what decisions to make. They sure as shit don’t help turn people who want to be straight straight. Therapists don’t tell people they’re gay or trans. Have you ever been to therapy? Everything you typed is uninformed.
Question: What is the biggest difference between the war in Vietnam and the war in Iran?
Answer: Trump knew how to get out of the war in Vietnam.
And your comment has what to do with today’s Turley column?
Nothing. I have stage-4 terminal TDS. Trump lives in my head rent free, which is why I posted that comment.
Johnson tied the generals hands and Trump hasn’t, there you have it, and yea I was in Nam 1967-68.
Jackson is incompetent and should be impeached. The incompetent Senate split 50-50. Harris as VP selected Jackson with the tie breaker.
Constant interruptions and constantly leaping over other Justices’ questions. Sotomayor is nearly as bad. Their commerce is in half truths, propaganda and grandstanding.
Today is Trump v. Barbara. Should be a circus with 3 clowns darting about.
Incompetent? Split? Interruptions? Got an issue?
Yeah…there is an issue Anonymous…its YOU
Yeah…there is an issue JW ..its YOU
Without a doubt there’s issues. No doubt…
^^^ 50 senators confirmed jackson after a disgraceful hearing what is a woman response. Ms Jackson thinks a biologist should be a justice. It’s that stupid. Nominated by the 2nd worst president in history and confirmed by a vp worse than Dan Quayle. 😂. If Jackson would recuse herself in these cases by saying I don’t know at least there’d be consistency. 😂
My god it’s like kindergarten. Is it first in line?
Please, you sound like a whiny little girl.
Keep in mind that Sotomayor and Kagan were selected by Obama, the traitor, in order to ensure his agenda continued under “president Hillary”. Jackson was selected because she is black. Period. I’m pleasantly surprised that Sotomayor and Kagan actually exhibited some common sense jurisprudence. It’s looking like they are getting smarter as they age. Hope so. Too bad Jackson doesn’t have the intellectual capacity for that kind of growth.
‘I Just Don’t Understand’: SC Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Shocked How Much People Focus on Her Talking.
In my opinion, KBJ’s comment demonstrates just how entitled and ignorant she is.
Ketanji just doesn’t understand why it’s a big deal that she talks *the most* during oral arguments.
As the most junior member of the court, one would think an intelligent person would lay low and observe how the supreme court operates before running her newbie mouth so much and so often. A sure sign of ignorance.
Ketanji loves to hear herself talk. She will not be silenced, oh no sireee. She has a voice and she’s gonna use it.
Similar to Kamala’s favorite phrase, always said with her annoying head bob: “I’m speaking! I’m speaking!”
With each dissent, I continue to see Ketanji as an entitled ignoramus.
Ketanji sees herself as the Great Dissenter.
Entitled and ignorant? Please. Stop being stupid. The woman is a SC justice. She’s smart and highly ideological. And she’s doing what she was hired to do. Do you get that?
Just pissing on her leg just shows the lame and tired thinking of MAGA white males. Dumb as rocks.
Well then Anonymous, you must also mean that in siding with the majority that Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan have now become MAGA and are dumber than a box of rocks. Like a box of rocks you never think any thing through before you proceed with the flapping of your lips. They’re not laughing with you they’re laughing at you and you just don’t know the difference.
I don’t mean anything you, the perennial stupid commenter. And definitely dumber than a rock. No lip flapping, its a keyboard. Juvenile clichés, is that all you got?
Let me help…
you out the door commie!
TiT,
That is a interesting observation, re: 8-1 ruling. Then add in Kagan’s additional response to Jackson and how there are those trying to insist the majority is wrong and Jackson is right.
I think it has more to do with a free speech victory and the leftist loss to harm children.
Observation, what his his observation exactly. In your own words. try thinking instead of a$$ kissing.
Her title means nothing, you’re just proving any idiot president can nominate any idiot. She’s a SC justice because Biden wanted black. Any possible inherent intelligence was second and really, in her case not a consideration. She’s a virtue hire because all libs ‘know’ somehow that great wisdom comes from anyone who isn’t white so she must be celebrated. She can do no wrong, for she is black.
And here I was thinking she’s just a run-of-the-mill idiot. Please stop covering for her embarrassing take, on every subject, like you agreed with her all along. It’s all just made up on the spot.
HAHAHAHAHA!
“She’s smart..”
She admits she doesn’t know what a woman is..while being one!
You can’t make this level of stupidity up.
Yours and hers.
LOLOLLL!
I know a gal named Wayout Ketanji,
A cute little chick and a rockin’ filly.
She don’t play quidditch or Calvinball,
She do Ketanjive on TV.
Ketanjive, Ketanjive,
Doin’ that crazy Ketanjive.
Socratic method would serve other justices well as questions provide a means to test and interpret from various perspectives.
A friend of mine once told me that there are people who listen and those who wait to talk. She appears to be the latter. In my experience those that wait to talk often require repetition and mistaken information, that requires further explanation.
She doesn’t wait. She leaps in and over everyone.
So, because she’s black she has to wait for the whites to finish?
Now she’s opened ‘the can of worms’ we can all see it’s between her ears!
Barker you are a stupid fool.
Ha Ha! Hurts that your “side” sucks? This whole article and comments detail Kentaji’s stupidity. can you read?
Of course she may actually be smart, pretending and insincere, and just hates the Constitution. Explains everything too, but the ‘can o’ worms’ is still HER worms.
Well, in a way, Justice Jackson may be right. You never know what will happen now….as her sage, omniscient, all-knowing soul is free to attempt conversion therapy on her fellow justices, as she “reimagines” the Constitution more to her liking….
Must burn you that a black woman is a SC justice. You petty MAGAott.
Who cares that she’s black? Thomas is black and he’s one of the most insightful on the Court.
It’s that she was nominated and confirmed ONLY because of her skin color and gender. She will go down as one of the worst SC Justices in history.
Cares? Lin does. You apparently too. I sense racism in those words.
“I sense racism in those words.”
Who cares? you libs sense racism in everything because it’s all you got to get votes: dumb people who can’t think for themselves.
America is the least racist country in the world and in all of history. “Racism” is only kept alive in liberal dreams. DEI is the ultimate in racism and you know it.
Born and breed conservative. MAGA fan. Who can think independently.
She’s mentally ill actually. She flinches if someone quickly moves in her direction psychologically. Battered personality disorder. She lashes out frequently in nonsensical ways. I’m not a biologist is an example. It wasn’t a cogent response. The idiotic argument stating people are forced to break the law to gain asylum is another example. Voter ID is another example. Panic disorder will lead people into life or death thinking.
It bothers you that a single black woman doesn’t measure up? I know many dumb ones and also dummies in every possible identity combination in the libs virtue Olympics. Tis you who are petty and unable to control yourself and now lumped in with the dummies. Tis your side that put the dummy in the SC. Of course we are going to make fun of her non-arguments.
Why don’t you explain to us WHY you agree with her ridiculous opinions so we can prove you don’t measure up either?
That’s why your side has no leaders. WEAK. We are waiting for your intelligence to ‘shine’.
Well Jackson is correct about this kind of therapy being conduct and not speech. Therapy for the individual is not conducted on the public square after all…
But you have to pick your spots and recognize the trump administration would run hog wild is squashing free speech over this. Because they’re fascists.
The truth is though that you guys lick this guy’s b hole so there’s that…
https://youtube.com/shorts/q7YLY_V2LPg?si=qFhAku2tiBb9rZ1P
Just think, if this guy wasn’t so idiotic and bankruptcy prone in real estate development he’d just be working Jersey by now if he wasn’t already in jail.
ATS,
Speech that does not occur in a public square is STILL speech and still protected by the first amendment.
No Therapy is NOT conduct.
Therapists are not mafia bosses who give orders that MUST be obeyed.
Therapists are not surgeons cutting into the skin of their patients.
Their job is to TALK and LISTEN, and ADVISE – each of which is SPEECH not conduct.
Therapy IS conduct.
ATS
While I would expect that Trump quietly supports this decision – this is NOT about the Trump administration.
Fascists RESTRICT speech – that would be Colorado – not Trump.
That would be Biden – Not Trump
That would be Obama – Not Trump.
This is an entirely left wing nut move by left wing nut Colorado that has over the past decade been on the wrong side of a plethora of laws trying to restrict first amendment rights.
States can not tell doctors what advice they can give their patients.
Not therapists. not GPs, not surgeons.
Myriads of abortion laws requiring or restricting doctors counselling of patients have been struck down in the past – this is NO DIFFERENT.
Trump is patently anti free speech. He just goes about achieving those aims like a mobster would…by intimidation and having his friends buy media outlets to censor for him. It’s obvious. Not that you personally are capable of understanding that.
A true fascists would arrest a lame comment such as yours.
The ruling suggests that state laws requiring doctors to provide specific information before an abortion—such as the “informed consent” requirements in Planned Parenthood v. Casey—may now face strict scrutiny. If a law compels a doctor to provide “factual” but “controversial” information that reflects a state-imposed viewpoint, it could be struck down as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination
States that prohibit doctors from recommending or discussing abortion options are particularly vulnerable. The Court held that “suppressing one side of a debate” while allowing the other is a blatant First Amendment violation. Under this logic, a state cannot ban “pro-choice” counseling while permitting “pro-life” counseling.
Turley’s logic is a legal trap: he celebrates this ruling as a victory for ‘dissenting’ counselors, but it simultaneously strips red states of the power to restrict doctors from advocating for abortion or gender-affirming care. By turning the exam room into a ‘viewpoint-neutral’ zone, he is advocating for an unregulated medical system where a professional license is a license to flout any safety standard as long as the malpractice is delivered through words.
It “suggests” no such thing. It stated clearly, CO law is illegal. Nothing more. You silly non-lawyer.
It changed a lot more than just that one case. Of course you’re oblivious given your poor understanding of things.
While everyone is busy bashing Justice Jackson her core legal warning is being ignored. By reclassifying ‘talk therapy’ from medical conduct to protected speech, the 8-1 majority has fundamentally weakened a state’s power to regulate the medical profession.
The ruling in Chiles v. Salazar didn’t just protect one therapist; it established that clinical conversations are ‘pure expression’ subject to strict scrutiny.
As Jackson noted in her dissent, this ‘opens a dangerous can of worms’ for any state-mandated medical standard. This precedent directly impacts laws in states like Texas that attempt to restrict what doctors can say regarding abortion options or gender-affirming care. If the state cannot ban ‘conversion therapy’ because it is speech, it logically cannot ban a doctor from recommending other treatments that the state happens to oppose.
So what qualifies you to analyze and critique SC rulings? Education, certification, experience, or none of the above.
I’m wondering what your qualifications are – degrees, certifications, experience – to pass judgement on a SCOTUS judgement?
X
Casey has already been overruled – see Dobbs.
With respect to “informed consent” more generally – it is NOT a requirement by the state compelling Doctors etc to provide SPECIFIC information.
Informed consent is a TORT law principle that requires those entering into SOME types of free exchange are opbligated to provide accurate information regarding the risks of whatever service is being purchased or face heightened liability in a malpractice lawsuit.
There are very very few instances in which the courts have upheld laws requiring conveying very specific information or forbidding the communication of very specific information.
Please cite an actual example where a state is COMPELLING or PROHIBITING the expression od a specific viewpoint in an abortion, medical or really any other context.
Should you find such an example – I will join you in opposing it, as would 8 supreme court justices.
John Say,
John, your definition of ‘informed consent’ as a mere tort principle is decades out of date.
In March 2026, Kansas passed laws forcing doctors to provide ‘misinformation’ about abortion reversal, and South Dakota’s statutes still force physicians to tell patients they are ending a ‘unique living human being.’ These aren’t risk disclosures; they are state-compelled ideological scripts. If you really agree with 8 Supreme Court justices that the state shouldn’t suppress one side of a debate, then you must oppose these mandates that treat doctors like mouthpieces for the state legislature.
South Dakota: Under SDCL 34-23A-10.1, a physician must provide a written statement asserting that an abortion will “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being”.
South Dakota: The same statute compels doctors to tell patients they have an “existing relationship” with the “unborn human being” that is constitutionally protected.
West Virginia, Texas, Utah, and South Dakota: State-mandated materials in these areas assert that patients may suffer from “postabortion traumatic stress syndrome”—a condition not recognized by the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association.
The 8-1 majority in Chiles v. Salazar (March 31, 2026) ruled that “talk therapy” is protected speech, not just conduct. Because the Court now applies strict scrutiny to viewpoint-based professional speech, these state-mandated scripts are highly vulnerable to legal challenge. If the government cannot “suppress one side of a debate” in a therapist’s office, it arguably cannot “aid” one side by forcing a specific ideological script onto a doctor in a clinic.
“Turley’s logic is a legal trap: he celebrates this ruling as a victory for ‘dissenting’ counselors, but it simultaneously strips red states of the power to restrict doctors from advocating for abortion or gender-affirming care.”
Correct – and not at all NEW. Laws restricting doctors from Advocating for …. or Advocating Against … are unconstitutional. Just as this Colorado law is unconstitutional.
Can you cite a REAL example of one of these hypothetical laws that you posit ?
Pro Life advocates have tried REPEATEDLY to get the laws you beleive exist – and FAILED.
The State can require “informed consent” in the medical and other contexts. That is NOT a state requirement to communicate very specific information. It is a provision that innaccurate communication of the risks associated with some service – it need not be medical, can be considered by a JUry in a tort case – such as a malpractice case.
That is NOT viewpoint discrimination. It is NOT a apriori restriction on speech.
” By turning the exam room into a ‘viewpoint-neutral’ zone, he is advocating for an unregulated medical system where a professional license is a license to flout any safety standard as long as the malpractice is delivered through words.”
Off in lala land. This ruling did NOT require viewpoint neutral examine rooms. It PERMITTED exactly the opposite.
It ALLOWS doctors to communicate freely – including their own viewpoint. It does not alter the FACT that they MIGHT be sued for malpractice if AFTER THE FACT a jury decides that their expression of their views resulted in HARM to those they were serving.
What this ruling precludes is the GOVERNMENT regulating speech in a manner that is NOT viewpoint neutral.
You constantly get thongs backwards.
People are NOT required to be viewpoint neutral in their speech.
Government is required to be viewpoint neutral in the rare instances in which it is allowed to restrict speech.
John Say,
“Can you cite a REAL example of one of these hypothetical laws that you posit ?”
They are not hypothetical, they are real. Here are a few real examples,
Kansas (March 2026): The legislature passed HB 2729, which compels clinics to give patients forms stating that a medication abortion can be reversed—a claim doctors testify is unproven junk science.
South Dakota: Under SDCL 34-23A-10.1, a physician is legally required to tell a patient that an abortion will “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”
Florida and Texas: Both states have active laws or Medical Board guidance that strictly regulate what doctors can say to justify emergency care, often forbidding the discussion of abortion as a viable health option in non-lethal cases.
X –
Why do you even come to this blog? It is clear that either 1) you do not read it, or 2) you simply cannot understand it.
Your posts show you have zero legal education or understanding.
Are you here just to remind all of us the importance of voting because people like you vote?
Sadly there are old guys who have no life, no friends, family, spend whole days here. Pick fights and insult each other. X has signs of dementia.
Anonymous, you haven’t shown me any evidence that what you think is true. None. It’s obvious that you’re trying to gaslight instead of engage in the discussion.
Ketanji say – Can’t have those damn Colonialists running around spreading ideas that keep us locked in to historical norms! Every freaky idea needs to become mainstream as the ‘new normal’ and the ‘old normal foot on the neck of the people” has to be abolished so others have a chance to become oppressors! Yeah right Ketanji!
There is a built‑in irony to Justice Jackson’s position. By her logic the state can treat professional speech as “conduct” whenever it believes the words will cause harm. But if that is the rule, her own opinions would be fair game. Her written views as a Justice are also official acts, and plenty of people think they do real damage. Yet no one seriously suggests gagging her or stripping her of a vote on that basis.
That instinctive recoil is the point. We recognize there has to be a line. Once the state can relabel disfavored viewpoints as “harmful conduct,” the only real limit is agreement with whoever holds power.
There is no irony, That is BS.
That what you think is, is your ignorance and stupidity in understanding simple legal judgements.
Just shut up.
OLLY,
“Once the state can relabel disfavored viewpoints as “harmful conduct,” the only real limit is agreement with whoever holds power.”
That is the truly disturbing part. Jackson’s dissent and other comments she has made seem very Stalinesque.
WTF, Stalinesque. What BS. Get real man. You’re no historian or lawyer.
Upstate, can I float an observation and see if it tracks with you? Jackson and Thomas both strike me as ideological purists Jackson from the left, Thomas from the right and the rest of the Court operating somewhere between those bookends. I don’t mind the “purist” part so much as the ideology driving it. Jackson often seems to start from the policy result she wants and then look for a way to make it sound constitutional, while Thomas often does the mirror image from his brand of originalism. Do you see it that way, or do you think I’m misreading one or both of them?
What place does an ‘ideological purist’ have on the court? Their job is to interpret the constitution as it was understood by those who ratified it. There is no left or right.
I believe you should read the constitution and realize how almost every case they have been hearing has been unconstitutional. The constitution says the Federal government is only capable of what is listed in the document and anything else is up to the States.
However, these justices take on State cases over which they have no jurisdiction. The First Amendment is a reiteration of the fact the federal government has no authority. What part of the Federal government was involved in this State case? Nothing.
Therefore, it belonged in the Colorado Supreme Court.
The Constitution actually answers this, and it does not say what you think it says.
The Supreme Court is not limited to cases where a federal agency is on the caption. Its job is to say what the Constitution means when a case “arises under” that Constitution, including when the case comes up from a state court. Article III gives the Court appellate jurisdiction over “all Cases… arising under this Constitution” and over state judgments that turn on federal questions. The Supremacy Clause then makes clear that the federal Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land,” binding the states. When a state passes a law that restricts what people can say, it has created a First Amendment question by its own hand. At that point, review by SCOTUS is not optional or illegitimate. It is exactly how you keep fifty separate state legislatures from rewriting the Bill of Rights out of existence whenever it suits them.
“Jackson and Thomas both strike me as ideological purists”
I think justices have at least two points of view: their political ideology and judicial philosophy. Jackson twists her judicial philosophy to meet her ideology. Thomas abandons his political ideology and stands firm on his judicial philosophy. We almost always know what he will say, even if his decision is the opposite of what he wants. That has been shown in some of his decisions.
Scalia was more nuanced, but some have said that sometimes Thomas’s influence pulled Scalia further to the right when Scalia was being pragmatic.
SM, I think that’s a helpful way to slice it. Every justice shows both a political ideology and a judicial philosophy. My concern with Jackson is exactly what you describe she seems to flex the “judicial philosophy” knob to keep her ideology in the driver’s seat. With Thomas, you can dislike where his brand of originalism takes him, but you can usually predict the result from the method, not from his policy preferences, and there are opinions where that has clearly forced him into outcomes he probably did not want politically. That’s the difference between a philosophy that constrains you and one that mostly supplies talking points for where you already wanted to land.
Sorry SM, that was from me.
Thomas isn’t bounded by “bookends”; he’s based on a solid foundation of law. Jackson is an activist ideolog somewhere on a spectrum.
Creekan, I’m with you on the asymmetry, but I’d still keep the “bookends” image. Thomas is anchored in a legal methodology that actually constrains him most of the time. Jackson is working from an activist ideological spectrum and then building doctrine around it. So they both define the outer edges of the Court, but only one of them is standing on something that looks like a stable foundation of law instead of a moving political target.
OLLY, your use of the word bookends is clear and visual, though who the bookend is changes.