John Roberts has a plan to deny transgender rights
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/john-roberts-has-a-plan-to-deny-transgender-rights/ar-AA1vuuTM?ocid=windirect&cvid=0a3093e4ce084aaeb5f838078ed8c4e5&ei=48
Story by Pema Levy (8 Dec 2024)
After contemplating a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors Wednesday, the Supreme Court appears likely to greenlight the prohibition on the theory that nine humble justices are not the best arbiters of complex medical questions.
It's a theory of a modest judiciary that stays in its lane and knows the limits of its expertise. But the notion is a wolf in sheep's clothing: Under the guise of judicial restraint, several justices suggested during arguments they would allow states to circumvent the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection.
This Supreme Court, dominated by a 6-3 majority of Republican appointees, doesn't usually take such a modest posture toward government regulation. But when it does, it's often in cases that will allow a state to implement a constitutionally questionable and partisan-motivated policy. If Wednesday's case, United States v. Skrmetti, is decided this way, it will be one in a line of decisions where the court deferred to state legislatures so it could avoid facing the constitutional deficiencies those same lawmakers created. Such an outcome would also stand in stark contrast to the court's rulings on federal law and regulations, where conservative justices have been eager to take power away from Congress and federal agencies.