Justice Sotomayor Compares Risks of Child Sex Changes to Taking an Aspirin

Justice Jackson compares ban on child sex changes to ban on interracial marriage
Chris Menahan
InformationLiberation
Dec. 04, 2024

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday compared the risks of child sex changes to taking an aspirin.

J. Matthew Rice, Tennessee's solicitor general who is defending the constitutionality of his state's law banning children from receiving sex changes, cross-sex hormones and puberty stunters, asked the court: "How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed [from these child sex change procedures] for unproven benefits?"

Sotomayor interjected, "I'm sorry counselor, every medical treatment has risk -- even taking aspirin."


Sotomayor in 2022 similarly humiliated herself during arguments over the Biden administration's vax mandates by claiming over 100,000 children were actively hospitalized with covid (the real number was 3,342), the Omicron variant was "as deadly" as Delta and covid deaths had never been higher (none of which was true).

Sotomayor, who describes herself as a "product of affirmative action," also argued in 2022 that anyone who is familiar with FBI crime stats must be banned from Capital case juries for "racial bias."



Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson -- who President Biden selected after pledging in a corrupt backroom deal with South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn to pick a black woman for the Supreme Court in exchange for his endorsement -- compared bans on child sex changes to bans on interracial marriage.


Drawing parallels to the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia that legalized interracial marriage in the United States, Brown said:
The question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn't necessarily invidious or whatever. But, you know, as I read the statute here -- excuse me, the case here -- you know, the court starts off by saying that Virginia is now one of 16 states which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. And when you look at the structure of that law, it looks in terms of -- you know, you can't do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It's sort of the same thing. So, it's interesting to me that we now have this different argument and I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten away with what they did here by just making a classification argument the way that Tennessee is in this case.
As a reminder, Brown was incapable of defining what a woman is during her confirmation hearing.


It's looking like it's going to be up the court's "conservative" justices to block this insanity.


Lest anyone forget, Justices Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts poured oil on the fire of this trans-insanity by ruling in 2020 that transgenders must be considered a protected class under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Gorsuch "was silent during arguments Wednesday" over the trans laws and "didn't ask a single question during the roughly two and half hour-long proceedings," according to Bloomberg Law.

Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter, Facebook, Gab, Minds and Telegram.












All original InformationLiberation articles CC 4.0



About - Privacy Policy