Category: Scratch a Lib-Find a Moron

Ketanji Brown Jackson Vs. Sonia Sotomayor: Who’s Dumber?

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a pivotal case addressing state restrictions on controversial medical interventions, including puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors with gender confusion. At the heart of the case is a Tennessee law banning these procedures for children, with the court’s decision likely to have far-reaching consequences. Will our country protect children from these barbaric and irreversible procedures or not?

As I previously reported, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson humiliated herself when she bizarrely tried to equate banning transgender procedures for minors with prohibiting interracial marriage. She began with a convoluted statement: “Being drawn by the statute that was sort of like the starting point, the question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn’t necessarily invidious or whatever.”

It got worse from there.

“But you know, as I read … the case here, 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.” While it was clear that she intended to invoke historical racial discrimination, the connection to the case at hand was tenuous at best.

The real stretch came when she concluded, “And when you look at the structure of that law, it looks in terms of you can’t do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It’s sort of the same thing.”

The suggestion that anyone could somehow liken laws protecting minors from irreversible and harmful gender procedures to bans on interracial marriage is downright absurd. Jackson’s argument hinged on a confusing assertion that both types of laws were based on “inconsistency” with one’s “characteristics,” a comparison that is frankly laughable and dumb.

But she wasn’t the only left-wing justice on the court to make a dumb argument.

While speaking before the court, Tennessee’s Solicitor General asked, “How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits?”

And that’s when Justice Sonia Sotomayor promptly jumped in.

“I’m sorry, Counselor,” she said, interrupting him. “Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin, there is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that’s going to suffer a harm.”

That’s right. Sotomayor, the so-called “wise Latina,” compared cutting off the healthy breasts and genitals of minors to taking aspirin.
Which justice made the dumber argument? Jackson bizarrely compared Tennessee’s ban on gender procedures for minors to bans on interracial marriage, claiming that both involve “inconsistency” with inherent characteristics. The analogy was a spectacular failure as protecting minors from irreversible harm has nothing to do with racial discrimination.

Meanwhile, Sotomayor trivialized the issue by likening the risks of permanent, life-altering surgeries on minors to those of taking aspirin. This flippant dismissal of the severe, irreversible consequences of such procedures demonstrates a shocking lack of seriousness.

Both arguments are embarrassingly absurd, making it difficult to determine which is more moronic. One thing is for sure: both are an embarrassment to the court.

Walz’s Interview With ‘The View’ May Have Revealed More Than He Intended

Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz was asked another softball question about gun ownership and the Second Amendment on Monday, this time from the hosts of The View. While most of Walz’s answer was nothing more than a regurgitation of his campaign talking points claiming that gun owners have nothing to fear from the candidate who previously supported banning handguns and declared the Supreme Court shouldn’t find that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, one jab at Donald Trump highlighted the draconian stance that the Harris/Walz ticket has taken on who, exactly, possesses the right to keep and bear arms.

Walz made one more shady dig at his Republican opponent Donald Trump, telling the co-hosts, “The Republican nominee can’t pass a background check to get a gun,” referring to Trump getting convicted on 34 felony counts in his hush money trial early this year.

“We understand the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners, folks who have been doing this for 50 years like I have, we understand that there’s not a single thing that we’re proposing that takes away your right to be able to own that firearm, to be able to have it in your possession,” he continued. “But it does go a long ways to making sure that folks who shouldn’t have it, don’t have it.”

Clearly Walz believes that Trump’s felony convictions for the non-violent crime of falsifying business records should prevent him from lawfully possessing a firearm, though the Minnesota governor still believes felons should be able to cast a vote. Just last year Walz signed a bill allowing felons to have their voting rights restored after they complete their sentence, though their ability to legally own a firearm is still prohibited under Minnesota law.

Walz’s stance is right in line with Biden/Harri’s DOJ, which has argued that a lifetime prohibition on gun ownership is entirely appropriate for anyone convicted of a felony or criminal offense punishable by more than a year in prison, even non-violent crimes. That argument has its share of critics, however, including multiple judges on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which seems poised to once again rule in favor of a Pennsylvania man seeking to get his 2A rights restored almost 30 years after he pled guilty and received probation for falsifying his income on a food stamp application.

The Third Circuit previously ruled in favor of Bryan Range, but the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the appellate court after it issued the Rahimi decision. The appellate court held oral arguments in the Range case for a second time earlier this month, and the panel seemed skeptical of DOJ attorney Kevin Soter’s position that only “serious crimes” result in a lifetime loss of the right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”