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
I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier……………..
.
You can check more=======> https://urlr.me/6dtQ3J
The ACLU position is absurd. The United States has announced through its legislative bodies that the U.S. does NOT wish to exercise territorial jurisdiction over the vast majority of foreigners who would otherwise enter and/or reside within the United States. Our law provides that they shall be excluded from the territory, and therefore the territorial jurisdiction, of the United States. They are therefore not part of the polity nor the political jurisdiction of the United States, even if they are in the strict sense under and subject to the criminal laws of the several States and the United States. The election of which foreigners the U.S. exercises territorial jurisdiction over must be within the will of the people of the United States through their legislative enactments. Foreign nationals who force their way into the United States in violation of those laws have force-placed a kind of “jurisdiction” upon the United States, but not the “jurisdiction” as it was meant in the 14th Amendment. The lawfulness of the jurisdictional contact between the person and the United States must be dispositive.
Ketanji is to the legal system what Biden was to the presidency; just a brain-dead embarrassment.
She can’t define what a woman is, but she gets to vote on important legal matters?
None of our Founders would believe this debate is even possible. They would grab their muskets and start again.
Listening carefully to the questions Justice Brett Kavanaugh put to the ACLU lawyer Ms. Wang, BK just threw us a bone (those of us who believe automatic birthplace citizenship should be tailored to fit modern circumstances with additional exclusions).
It was subtle. It was clever. Kavanaugh suggested that a simple and preferable way to decide the Barbara case would be to find for the Plaintiffs by merely upholding statute (INA Section 1401(a) — which recites a verbatim copy of the Citizenship Clause with all its modern era ambiguities. He asked Wang point blank if she would accept that flavor of a “win”, and she readily agreed. I’m guessing her colleagues at ACLU and proggie lawyers were wincing.
That kind of case decision would deny the left a modernized interpretation of Constitutional law (14A), the thing they filed Federal lawsuit hoping to obtain from the bench. Instead, the decision would merely uphold the current INA definition of who is eligible for automatic birthplace citizenship. That deference to Congress to decide Citizenship Policy would be reinforcing Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. The 14th Amendment need not be mentioned as determinative to this case.
Bottom line, if 4 other Justices like Kavanaugh’s deft approach to this case, that would put Congress in the driver’s seat to update Section 1401(a), as the currently pending bill HR 569 does. It would affirmatively answer the Constitutional question, “Who among the 3 branches decides Citizenship Law?”. Answer: The People through our elected Representatives.
Pbinca,
Thanks. Good comment and it suggests reason for hope.
Today it was Wang, Chung tonight!
That revision of INA Section 1401 might pass muster when challenged, so long as the new legislation:
1) explicitly prohibits retroactivity (rescinding of US Citizenships obtained though past and present birthplace citizenship policy), and
2) affords the States and Counties an adequate grace period to update their systems and procedures to work smoothly and prevent fraud.
HR 569 already anticipates these two criteria, and will codify them.
Actually, not, HR 569 needs those 2 provisions added. I hope MAGAs will not gag on barring retroactivity. That’s an extreme, impractical “performative” stance. And if you care about success, you won’t allow that kind of mean-spirited thinking to adulterate Congressional action. The goal is to pass something effective that will stand up to challenge in Federal Court. Taking away Citizenships given out under the old system would be a poison pill. Trump’s EO rules out retroactivity, so why is that not part of HR 569?
Trump only gave Vital Statistics Bureaus 30 days to update their systems and procedures!! It should be more like 12-18 months. Again, is the goal to change the system in a permanent way and introducing no new avenues for fraud? Or is it to poke liberals in the eye short-term with no end result for the country?
Pbinca, even if Congress changes the law to exclude temporary residents and illegal aliens, that would be challenged under the Constitution, on the same theory that the 14th amendment does not allow these exceptions. At that point, however, the Court would have to invalidate a law and not merely an executive order. That would be a heavier lift, but the arguments would be the same.
It will be tempting to the Court to resolve this by relying on the law to invalidate the EO without having to revisit the Constitution. They could say they do not need to say whether the law is implementing the Constitution or going beyond it to make more people citizens than the Constitution requires. The Court may figure that it’s unlikely that Congress would ever change the law to exclude temporary residents and illegal aliens, so the justices may never have to decide what the Constitution means on this matter.
There could well be a splintered decision.
Three Justices siding with the ACLU might say the Constitution voids the EO, as does the statute;
Four justices siding with the ACLU might say the statute voids the EO and they don’t need to reach the Constitution;
And two justices siding with the Government might say the statute simply implements the Constitution’s original meaning which excludes temporary residents and illegal aliens from birthright citizenship.
There would thus be no majority on the constitutional question one way or the other.
If I read your thinking right, almost everyone could come out a winner. The 4 plaintiffs would win ( by 7/2) Citizenship status for their infants as determined by the current INA Law on the books. We Americans appalled at birth tourism (now $100K per baby, and 50-100K sold per year) and anchor babies would win the chance to pass reform of Birthplace Citizenship in Congress, and have a recent precedent upholding deference to Congress. The only big losers would be the <10% of leftist lunatics who support birth tourism, anchor babies, and legislating from the bench. For the 80-90% of Americans who think exceptions should be codified (birth tourism is not a Dem v. Repub issue, 90+% find it disgusting/irritating), moving the action from the WH over to Congress would be a smart move.
Yes and no. Plaintiffs win. The Court would have deferred deciding whether the Constitution requires that children of those here lawfully but temporarily and those here illegally must be made citizens. Congress could then pass a law preventing this. That would lead to a new challenge saying that the new law violated the birthright citizenship clause. The constitutional issue would then need to be resolved.
The Court may think it unlikely that such a new law would ever be passed. If no new law were to be passed, then the status quo would simply continue. But the blame in the first instance would lie with Congress not the Court.
This result could be attractive to Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
Pb
Are you alluding that Justice Kavanaugh has subtly beaten WANG?!
Correctly pointed out the most scary part. A couple of nominees from the liberal side will trample free speech. Let’s hope enough see a warning in her comments and writing.
Ketanji talks much more than any other justice and much more than all the male justices combined.
Despite all the blather she doesn’t make a good argument for censorship.
Does make a helluva demonstration for mouth tape though.
You call this a free speech victory, but isn’t it more a free enterprise victory? Colorado was outlawing a whole sector of business, and that business involved much more than just public speech. It was private therapy. The only public speech component was advertising the business’s existence and value prop.
The majority ruling is pretty explicit that Colorado could not prevent licensed counselors from “any practice or treatment….”. That’s business freedom, which I’m very glad the Supreme Court defended. A more germane rationale would be “pursuit of happiness”.
That said, there is a continuum from ideation –> speech –> action. An example is the leftist militant tactic of doxxing ICE officers. Would the Constitution allow private legal action against doxxing? I would hope so, since it is clearly intended to impose a threat of harm. Has this theory yet been tested?
Same shit you posted yesterday…
Pathetic.
As I understand it, the Colorado law permitted licensed mental health counselors to engage in talk therapy – speech – that indulges the delusions some people have that they are not their real gender.
The law prohibited talk therapy – speech – that does not reinforce those delusions.
The law was enacted by government to prohibit viewpoints it does not like. That is a blatant 1A violation.
1A vio? Got proof?
Proof? Read the statute. Read the opinion. Acquaint yourself with the 250 year history of jurisprudence around the 1A. That’s why it was an 8-1 decision. That’s the “proof”.
The burden of proof when government restrictions on free speech are involved is on the Government.
Please look up what “strict scrutiny” means.
It is Colorado that MUST prove this law is necescary – when other states do fine without it, AND that the critical problem they seek to solve can only be solved by intruding on freedom of speech.
The burden of proof is on government and those defending regulating speech.
pbinca – Speech is speech.
The First amendment is NOT just about public speech in a government created public forum – though that is the most protected form of speech.
Yes, there is a spectrum of speech and speech does blurr into conduct.
Regardless Government government may not restrict speech based on viewpoint.
That is pretty much universal – and that is one of the huge problems with Colorado’s laws.
Generally Government can restrict speech that “incites violence” that constitutes fraud, or that is intimately tied to criminal conduct – such as ordering someones death.Doxxing ICE members is likely protected free speech – so long as that Doxxing does not include a clear call to do violence.
Which is why the fight over ICE masks and identification is stupid.
Even when we KNOW that those Doxxing ICE officers “clearly intend” harm to ICE officers – absent their Expressing that the speech is protected.
We do not ever want to be determining whether conduct is criminal or not based on mind reading or the unexpressed intentions of those we seek to punish.
Free speech is messy. It does not work out perfectly all the time.
But the alternative is much worse.
If you prohibit Doxxing ICE because harm might happen – or even because it does happen – when there are other means to protect ICE officers,
you have opened the door to pretty much any restriction on speech those in power seek.
It is ALWAYS possible to argue hypothetical harm – expecially when you have redefined harm to hurt feelings.
You have the whole damn thing all wrong!
He’s not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays
Ian Anderson
Professor Turley and Others, The first 31 pages of the dissent reads like a good faith disagreement of the application of the applicable case law with the majority. The last 4 pages discusses in broad and strong terms the potential negative implications of the majority opinion for the future. Do you have concerns with both parts of the dissent or just the last part?
I have not read the dissent. I am not sure why I would need to.
The case is simple. Colorado is engaged in prior restraint of speech. That means the standard of review is strict scrutiny – which is nearly impossible to meet.
The law is unconstitutional viewpoint restrictions.
As to “application of case law” – we have 250 years of case law – prior restraint of speech is virtually never constitutional.
As to the negative implications – The majority is following 250 years of precident. Further no other state has this idiotic law that CO has.
Obviously the country will not collapse without this law.
Can anyone here cite any cases of conversion therapy doing more good than harm? Or any good at all? Can anyone point to a person who went to therapy gay and left straight? Did it work for you? Have you ever looked into the efficacy, or lack thereof, of conversion therapy? Have you ever researched anything at all about gender affirming care? All this reversal will do is traumatize more kids who are forced into conversion therapy by their uninformed parents.
“So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over–a weary, battered old brontosaurus–and became extinct.”
― Malcolm Muggeridge, Vintage Muggeridge: Religion and Society
Can you cite any cases where CT does more bad than good?
Not sure about conversion therapy. But a long term study of transsexualism in Sweden found suicide rates for trannys INCREASED after having their genitals chopped off:
“Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3043071/#:~:text=Results,their%20respective%20birth%20sex%20controls.
The term “conversion therapy” is wrongly applied to counselling children who believe they were “born in the wrong body.” That is a delusion. Counselling that helps them escape from this delusion could be effective therapy. The Court was right to stop Colorado from banning it while permitting counselling that reinforces the delusion and can lead to harmful medical and surgical interventions. This viewpoint discrimination clearly violates the first amendment, as eight justices concluded.
It does not matter.
As to examples – Do you think sexual orientation is binary ? Most of the left does not. Like myriads of other attributes I expect that sexual orientation falls on a spectrum.
Some people have no musical ability, others are able to make music that does not cause pain. A few are virtuosa.
I expect that sexuality is the same. Some people are 90% straight, and some are 90% homosexual. but many fall in the middle. I would expect that someone who is 60:40 homosexual could probably live a fulfilled life as a heterosexual.
And YES there are examples of people who have had sucessful conversion therapy. As well as people who have failed.
My “guess” is that those who are 60:40 homosexual do NOT get conversion therapy, that they live their lives primarily as Heterosexuals without therapy.
“It does not matter.”
IMO you should have stopped there, and refrained from posting those examples. Because that statement was 100% on point, and completely sufficient unto itself. It is not the Supreme Court’s responsibility to determine where the societal benefits lie in any case brought before it. Its responsibility, its ONLY responsibility, is to determine which aspects of the case are, or are not, supported by the Constitution of the United States.
I wonder if, after a few more ludicrous (lewdicrous ;?) opinions of this kind, the other 8 Justices might just consign KBJ to the total limbo she/he/it so richly deserves.
Shortly before Donald J. Trump was set to address the American people on Wednesday night, Iran declared that it would agree to end the war only if there was regime change in the United States.
“The United States is a rogue state led by an unstable ruler,” the Iranian statement read. “Such a madman must not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.”
The Islamic Republic’s ultimatum drew immediate and strong support from Greenland, Canada, and the rest of NATO.
At the White House, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said only that Trump was well-rested for his televised address, having spent the day sleeping at the Supreme Court.
Yawn. More lies from the left
You know, there are people who have changed the spelling of a few words and modified a few definitions slightly and rearranged sentences a tad and voilà, we have morons with titles like Doctor of Natural Medicine, World Renown Physician in Advanced Floral and Biological Nutrition with a Doctorate in Organic Chiropractic Cancer Mitigation. “Join are exclusive club for $499 a month for 24 months and receive the latest data from our researchers on each miraculous breakthrough. Only $399 when a friend signs up. Call today. It just may save your life (and make me richer than hell as an illiterate, 8th grade drop out.)
Suddenly, I realize that Iran is kickin it! What am I doin in this dump? I am headed to Persia, Right Now! Thanks left wingers.
I love political humor. I do not care whether it is from the left or right.
But it needs to be actually funny.
The left used to know how to be funny. The right used to be poor at it.
Trump has flipped that.
Your quip was a dud – it is not funny. It fell flat.
“But it needs to be actually funny… The left used to know how to be funny.”
Someone pointed out in the comments to a different Turley column that some politician or official had recycled an old George Carlin line about the “7 words you cannot say on TV” in a recent speech. Now, Carlin was *funny*. I guess you would position him as left of center on the political spectrum, but he made plenty of pointed (wrt Carlin, that adjective is pretty much redundant) jabs at the left, as well as the right.
1. The Principle of “Fraud Vitiates Everything”
In civil and administrative law, there is a maxim that a legal benefit obtained through fraud or an illegal act (like an illegal border crossing) is void from the start (ab initio).
Status Connection: If the mother’s presence is a “legal nullity” because it was achieved via a crime, proponents argue the fetus’s presence is likewise a nullity. Under this logic, a child cannot gain a “right” (citizenship) that is rooted in an “illegal” act (the crossing).
2. Derivative Immigration Status
In many other areas of immigration law, a child’s status is strictly “derivative” of the parent.
Visa Categories: If a parent’s visa is revoked for fraud, the children’s dependent visas are typically revoked automatically. The law treats the family as a single unit; the children do not have an independent right to stay if the parent’s “anchor” status is removed.
This pathetic individual mirrors obongo’s hate for America. It’s tragic she’s been able to elevate herself to a position in which she can influence our culture with her anti-America politics.
It’s no coincidence that her African name corresponds with her anti-America positions. There’s no doubt that she will continue to keep influencing Supreme Court activities against America’s best interests.
Obongo et al. are the enemy who, by their own admission, have the sole intent to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”
Americans DO NOT want their country transformed other than to clean house by appropriate deportation and compassionate repatriation.
Certainly work permits and exit visas are available for all.
The Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then, they had the capacity and acumen sufficient for the task.
“fundamentally transform the United States of America.”
It has not been observed nearly as often as it should have been in regard to that statement, that destruction is a variety of transformation…
This could be parody, but looks like she believes it:
It’s homophobic to worry about the straights of hormuz, and not worry at all about the gays of hormus.
Justice for the Gays of Hormuz!
https://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/2038729125653819515
What is most chilling is that Jackson is now routinely called the model for new nominees….
Ketanji Brown Jackson is called that by people who are unbridled by morality and religion, to use the words of John Adams:
Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s defenders are the same people unbridled by morality and religion who hoisted Cesar Chavez unto Americans as a hero, plastering his name and face on public schools, highways, buildings, and elsewhere in Western USA. Now, the silence is deafening when it comes to labeling Cesar Chavez as a powerful man who preyed on under aged girls and groomed them. Move over Jeffrey Epstein. Cesar Chavez sexually assaulted many young girls and women of legal age decades before Bill Clinton used his power differential on Monica Lewinsky.
An investigation by The New York Times found extensive evidence that the United Farm Workers co-founder groomed and sexually abused girls who worked in the movement.
Ms. Murguia and Ms. Rojas, both of whom are now 66, were the daughters of longtime organizers who had marched in rallies alongside Mr. Chavez. He used the privacy of his California office to frequently molest Ms. Murguia, she said. He had known her since she was 8 years old. She became so traumatized that she attempted to end her life multiple times by the age of 15…..Ms. Rojas said she was 12 when Mr. Chavez first touched her inappropriately, groping her breasts in the same office where he’d meet with Ms. Murguia. When Ms. Rojas was 15, he arranged to have her stay at a motel during a weeks long march through California, she said, and had sexual intercourse with her — rape, under state law, because she was not old enough to consent.
The abuse allegations appear to be part of a larger pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Chavez, much of which has never been publicly revealed. The Times investigation found that Mr. Chavez also used many of the women who worked and volunteered in his movement for his own sexual gratification. His most prominent female ally in the movement, Dolores Huerta, said in an interview that he sexually assaulted her, a disclosure she has never before made publicly.
Many of the women stayed silent for decades, both out of shame and for fear of tarnishing the image of a man who has become the face of the Latino civil rights movement, his image on school murals and his birthday a state holiday in California. The findings are based on interviews with more than 60 people, including his top aides at the time, his relatives and former members of the U.F.W., which he co-founded with Ms. Huerta and Gilbert Padilla. The Times reviewed hundreds of pages of union records, confidential emails and photographs, as well as hours of audio recordings from U.F.W. board meetings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/18/us/cesar-chavez-sexual-abuse-allegations-ufw.html
That Jackson was even nominated to SCOTUS is concerning. That she was confirmed in spite of her shameful “I’m not a biologist” quip, is part of the larger trend in our declining culture. Americans have sacrificed their souls and paraded their shame, by electing “leaders” who are unbridled by morality and religion. All of this was preventable and avoidable. We were told 2000 years ago to beware of such people. Now they sit on SCOTUS.
Join with others in being imitators of me, brothers, and observe those who thus conduct themselves according to the model you have in us. For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction. Their God is their stomach; their glory is in their “shame.” Their minds are occupied with earthly things.
Philippians 3:7-19
US Founding Father John Adams was right.
It is Holy Week. Go to church. Return to the Christian principles of the US Founding Fathers up until the 20th Century. It was Christian principles that established the foundational pillars our once great Western Civilization, which began when Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, centuries after Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (470 – 322 B.C.).
Oremus!
Gorsuch wrote the opinion of the court. Jackson dissented. The issue is conversion therapy and Chile’s explained it may be therapy any conversion including a goal of feeling comfortable with a decision to transition. The viewpoint is neutral.
Jackson’s dissent is more of an objection to aversion therapy. The viewpoint is not neutral and the content is not neutral. Colorado has laws disallowing various forms of aversion therapy in place.
My take but I skimmed it.
She is just awful. So awful that Kagan, once again, took shots at yet another of her idiotic dissents.
I missed that. Where did you read or hear that? Thanks
What should be done by the Roberts court is to overturn the Kim Ark opinion. Please note DJT EO contains that error as Ark’s parents were permanent residents.
The 14th is about 3 groups: freed slaves without a nationality, confederate soldiers born or naturalized retaking oath, possibly a 4th native Americans having a nation.
Ark and the EO contain the same error. That’s about all there is. The quota established by law for refugees has rendered it void, nonfunctional. It’s been suspended.
Just as Roe v. Wade was tossed so too Kim Ark. The president has emergency powers when egregious errors have been made by millions. It’s national security. The EO Has one error.
I deny any association