SCOTUS Catch-all |

[StrangePackage]

I brought this up again because of another very confusing dissent on the Chiles case. Probably the most confusing yet and she utilized her option to read this dissent from the bench, which is even more odd.

You are easily confused.

The problem may not be with her reasoning.

 

[wmheel1287]

I brought this up again because of another very confusing dissent on the Chiles case. Probably the most confusing yet and she utilized her option to read this dissent from the bench, which is even more odd.

Do you believe Justice Jackson is qualified? Just state an opinion clearly about her and not about the process that resulted in her nomination. You proclaim to be all about truth, so state your truth. Is she qualified to sit on SCOTUS?

 

[superrific]

I brought this up again because of another very confusing dissent on the Chiles case. Probably the most confusing yet and she utilized her option to read this dissent from the bench, which is even more odd.

Your confusion is a you problem, not a Justice Jackson problem. Evidence: you are confused nearly all of the time, whether she is involved or not.

It sure seems that your feelings are hurt by a high-melanin individual being way, way smarter than you. Condolences, I guess. Meanwhile, I don't think there is anything confusing about this:

No one directly disputes that Colorado has the power to regulate the medical treatments that state-licensed professionals provide to patients. Nor is it asserted that, when doing so, a State always runs afoul of the Constitution. So, in my view, it cannot also be the case that Colorado’s decision to restrict a dangerous therapy modality that, incidentally, involves provider speech is presumptively unconstitutional.

In fact, I think most people on this board would easily comprehend this. I personally agree with it. In fact, I would say her opinion is demonstrably correct and I would have joined it in full. Basically the majority is just taking a shit on the medical profession yet again.

 

[superrific]

Meanwhile, here is the idiot Gorsuch's view on the matter. He says the key question (he answers it in the negative) is:

whether the law in question restricts speech only because it is integrally related to unlawful conduct

That is just silly, and it demonstrates Gorsuch's lack of understanding of mental health treatment. He thinks the fact that talk therapy is only talk is somehow important. It is not, because the therapy itself IS the conduct. Therapists do not actually just blabber with their clients: they are highly trained, which is why they can be effective, and they use specific treatment modalities. Conversion therapy is not an accepted treatment modality. It can be regulated the same way as surgery or oral advocacy.

But I can see why you like him. You and he both never consider the possibility that you aren't smarter than everyone else about everything, despite the obvious evidence that you are clearly less smart than almost everyone about almost everything.

 

[ZenMode]

Your confusion is a you problem, not a Justice Jackson problem. Evidence: you are confused nearly all of the time, whether she is involved or not.

It sure seems that your feelings are hurt by a high-melanin individual being way, way smarter than you. Condolences, I guess. Meanwhile, I don't think there is anything confusing about this:

No one directly disputes that Colorado has the power to regulate the medical treatments that state-licensed professionals provide to patients. Nor is it asserted that, when doing so, a State always runs afoul of the Constitution. So, in my view, it cannot also be the case that Colorado’s decision to restrict a dangerous therapy modality that, incidentally, involves provider speech is presumptively unconstitutional.

In fact, I think most people on this board would easily comprehend this. I personally agree with it. In fact, I would say her opinion is demonstrably correct and I would have joined it in full. Basically the majority is just taking a shit on the medical profession yet again.

Not surprisingly, you are confused by my confusion. I understand what she's saying and believe she, and apparently you, are wrong and not just wrong, but way off base.

The majority is protecting the ability of mental health counselors to speak to their patients...which is what counselors do. Despite what KBJ may imply, nobody is using electro-shock therapy or any other crazy conversion methods. Just a conversation.

 

[Calheel]

Not surprisingly, you are confused by my confusion. I understand what she's saying and believe she, and apparently you, are wrong and not just wrong, but way off base.

The majority is protecting the ability of mental health counselors to speak to their patients...which is what counselors do. Despite what KBJ may imply, nobody is using electro-shock therapy or any other crazy conversion methods. Just a conversation.

Are you suggesting that LICENSED therapists can say whatever they want to patients and the state has no interest in regulating the speech of LICENSED therapists? Could they tell kids that they should commit suicide?

 

[heelinhell]

“Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities”

As a devout atheist I think that there is overwhelming evidence that if there is a god, that god is either an incompetent benevolent god or a sadistic malevolent god.

That evidence is overwhelming and I take comfort knowing there is no god. If there were a sadistic or incompetent god, that would scare the shit out of me.

I am 74yo and on the path to nonexistence and I am ok knowing that my experience of nonexistence will be just like my experience of nonexistence was for the past trillion years before being brought into an existence that will last only a few more years. So I will continue to enjoy whatever years of existence I have left and have no worries about the eternity of nonexistence to follow because those trillions of years of nonexistence I experienced were not so bad.

 

[ZenMode]

Are you suggesting that LICENSED therapists can say whatever they want to patients

No I'm not and neither are the 8 justices.

and the state has no interest in regulating the speech of LICENSED therapists? Could they tell kids that they should commit suicide?

I think the state does have an interest, which is why states have laws about what speech is legal and illegal and states, I believe all, have licensing boards for counselors.

EDIT: Do states currently regulate medical procedures or restrict what medical doctors/surgeons, etc can say to their patients? I'm actually asking, not being facetious.

 

[Calheel]

EDIT: Do states currently regulate medical procedures or restrict what medical doctors/surgeons, etc can say to their patients? I'm actually asking, not being facetious.

Absolutely.

 

[ZenMode]

Absolutely.

I guess I need to find some examples. I know state medical boards set rules, but I've never heard of a state law saying "You can't say xxxxx" to your patients.

 

[superrific]

Not surprisingly, you are confused by my confusion. I understand what she's saying and believe she, and apparently you, are wrong and not just wrong, but way off base.

The majority is protecting the ability of mental health counselors to speak to their patients...which is what counselors do. Despite what KBJ may imply, nobody is using electro-shock therapy or any other crazy conversion methods. Just a conversation.

Obviously you do not understand anything about this case. The majority is not protecting the ability of mental health counselors to speak to their patients. They actually don't care -- and say as much -- about the medical aspect of the case. They just go with a simple maxim. Not viewpoint neutral? Then invalid.

KBJ takes the medical aspect of the case seriously. She is the one concerned about the patients, and in ensuring the patients get quality care. The concurrence takes a different approach; it's a strategic concurrence and I understand why they did it that way. I would have joined KBJ

So you are obviously wrong, because your stated rationale undermines your own position. You have trouble going two posts without contradicting yourself.

 

[superrific]

I guess I need to find some examples. I know state medical boards set rules, but I've never heard of a state law saying "You can't say xxxxx" to your patients.

A physician cannot tell a patient that Kit-Kats can cure their cancer. Among many, many, many other things.

 

[superrific]

Here are some more thoughts about this case in the event anyone else is interested:

1. The six are just plainly hostile to homosexuality or transgenderism. They rule against those groups at every turn, Bostock being a cabined exception that Gorsuch has since disavowed. Here's a brief timeline;

Trans people: We have a right to receive the medical care we need, from physicians who want to treat us. We need protection because, among other reasons, people keep trying to "cure" us when that is impossible.
SCOTUS majority: All your harms are too speculative, so GTFO.
Counselor: I have a way to cure people of homosexuality and they won't let me!
SCOTUS majority: You have a right to do that.

It's that transparent.

2. If I was on the court, my question to the majority would be one that it can't answer: does the government have to be viewpoint neutral about cancer? What about gravity? At what point do we stop both-siding and instead embrace truth. They will give no answer because there is none. If the government can't be viewpoint neutral about anything, then it can't do anything.

Securities laws are not viewpoint neutral. They are biased against fraudsters, who merely want to sell watered stock to people who want to buy it. Antitrust laws are not viewpoint neutral: they clearly disfavor the view that price-fixing is good, and thus they do not (among other things) allow competitors to share raw price data.

If the majority were serious about the viewpoint neutrality, then antitrust would fall, securities laws would fall. All sorts of things would fall. Legal ethics will fall.

But the majority isn't serious about the viewpoint neutrality. They just have animus against gay people.

 

[ZenMode]

A physician cannot tell a patient that Kit-Kats can cure their cancer. Among many, many, many other things.

That's regulated by the start medical boards, not state law.

 

[heelinhell]

Are you suggesting that LICENSED therapists can say whatever they want to patients and the state has no interest in regulating the speech of LICENSED therapists? Could they tell kids that they should commit suicide?

I was a licensed psychotherapist back in the day and there were no state regulations per se about what you could say to a patient. We had an ethical standard that spelled out in detail how we should conduct our practice.

No ethical therapist would advise that a kid or adult commit suicide and if they did the recourse would be to sued for malpractice, and I am pretty sure the patient or family would win in court.

Conversion therapy was not a thing when I was in practice, but I did have gay patients.

If conversion therapy( which is ineffective and harmful to those who go through it ) was brought to my attention by one of my gay patients wanting to pursue it, my first impulse would not have been, yeah dude, go for it. My first impulse would have been to explore his motivation ( often wanting to no longer suffer the societal hardship ? ) and explore how he would imagine his life to be as a converted gay person within his new identity and society in general.

But if parents sent a kid to me wanting him to undergo conversion therapy, that would pose an ethical problem for me and I would probably advise the parents to seek another therapist.

 

[wmheel1287]

That's regulated by the start medical boards, not state law.

In almost every licensing issue, the licensing boards are authorized by statute to regulate certain activities and create administrative rules that align with the statute.

I know nothing of this particular case, but separating state licensing boards from staye law almost never makes sense as an argument.

 

[nycfan]

 

[farce©]

"The law, signed by Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee last month, coerces the speech of abortion providers and mandates that they lie to their patients. Under the law, physicians are required to tell their patients that if they have a medication abortion, it can be “reversed.” Doctors then have to refer their patients to a governmental website encouraging them to partake in experimental treatments that run counter to their patients’ best interest, all in violation of their ethical obligation as medical providers.

To be clear: There is absolutely no medical basis for this law.

The claim that medication abortion can be “reversed” is wholly unsupported by reliable scientific evidence. Leading medical organizations including the American Medical Association have condemned it, saying such laws “undermines [the provider-patient] relationship…with messages that contradict reality and science.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has said that there is “no evidence” to support the reversal claim. Still, anti-abortion politicians continue to push ahead.

This law is also plainly unconstitutional. It is a clear violation of the First Amendment for the state to force doctors to personally deliver a government-ordered message that they and the overwhelming majority of the medical profession reject. It’s a direct violation of patients’ privacy rights under the 14th Amendment to be subjected to misleading and inaccurate statements about the constitutionally protected medical care they seek. And, it is a violation of the constitutionally mandated guarantee of equal protection under the 14th Amendment for Tennessee to single out medication abortion providers and patients for state-mandated inaccurate disclosures that aren’t imposed in any other health care context."

 

[farce©]

"And this infuriating treatment isn’t limited to Tennessee. Just last year, North Dakota and Oklahoma passed bills requiring doctors to tell this lie about medication abortion, both of which have been blocked by courts. During the course of that litigation, medical professionals emphasized that the laws forced them to deliver false information to patients in violation of their ethical obligations.

Disturbingly, these “reversal” laws are just one example of “biased counseling” requirements that states have passed in recent years to control and distort the information abortion patients get from their medical providers by inserting anti-abortion talking points into physicians’ mouths.

In four states, doctors have to tell their patients that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, even though that is factually wrong. Eight states insist that physicians include “negative emotional response” among the lists of risks associated with the procedure, even though mainstream medical associations have uniformly determined that this is false. Four states require doctors to lie to their patients about the risk having an abortion could have on their future fertility.

The intent of all these laws is clear: to shame, humiliate, and deceive people who have decided to have an abortion. The laws are designed to make the process so laborious and so confusing that some patients give up and abandon their constitutional right to abortion altogether."

 

[ZenMode]

2. If I was on the court, my question to the majority would be one that it can't answer: does the government have to be viewpoint neutral about cancer?

Wow... and you thought 8 SCOTUS justices were hostile toward homosexuality and transgenderism.