And the Sixth Cir. has ignored Justice Gorsuch's latest controlling opinion (6-3) on the matter, in the process of coming to a contrary conclusion. So some time next summer, the Supremes will strike the law and this errant opinion.
For now, we will quote the dissent -- that understands the actual black letter federal law very well:
. . .[W]hen a fundamental right or freedom from discrimination is involved, experimentation has no place. “The very purpose of” our constitutional system “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” W. Va. St. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943). Our “fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Id. Similarly, “[n]o plebiscite can legalize an unjust discrimination.” Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assemb., 377 U.S. 713, 736 n.29 (1964) (citation omitted).
Tennessee’s and Kentucky’s laws tell minors and their parents that the minors cannot undergo medical care because of the accidents of their births and their failure to conform to how society believes boys and girls should look and live. The laws further deprive the parents -- those whom we otherwise recognize as best suited to further their minor children’s interests -- of their right to make medical decisions affecting their children in conjunction with their children and medical practitioners. For these reasons, I dissent. . . .
Now you know. Onward, just the same. These conservatives think simple state "laws" may step over the top of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees to all the people. They may not.
Smiling into a CU v. USC weekend, midday tomorrow. Go Buffs!
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment