Forgive me for saying something obvious, but the problem with Roberts' logic is that when a certain condition by definition can only occur in one class of people, targeting that condition is indistinguishable from targeting the class. It's a distinction without a difference.
It's not "logic", it is a rationalization of a predetermined outcome not based on facts.
This is functionally the same as saying it's okay to ban interracial marriage because you're not banning blacks from marrying whites, you're banning both races from the same conduct. But obviously that rule targets only one class of people.
The infuriating thing is that this exact logic that the court rejected in Loving was also rejected in Bostock just three years FOR FUCKING TRANS PEOPLE. You didn't even need to innovate the application because the precedent already existed!
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." The decision bans treatment for gender dysphoria for both people who have it and also people who do not have it. Totally equitable.
One hopes his god is waiting for him
So a ban on treatment for sickle cell anemia would be legal? I actually doubt that will stand.
the good old "the thing is not the thing" theory.
The American Taliban is winning. In the 1970s Afghanistan women were wearing mini skirts. Now they are completely oppressed based on religion. The same thing is now happening here.
This is conservatives wet dream, a specious argument made by someone whose logic cannot be challenged. It can't be challenged because there is NO ONE overseeing the Supreme Court. Early on in law school they teach us "The Supreme Court is not last because this right, its right because its last"
It's the exact logic of Geduldig, which this decision relies on, and which Sotomayor correctly points out is "egregiously wrong".
"The ban on all erectile dysfunction treatment does not discriminate on the basis of sex; it merely removes 'erectile dysfunction' as a treatable condition."
Why are our Supreme Court justices so stupid? How can you be a judge and not understand basic logic?
Something the Supreme Court used to understand. This is Justice Scalia! Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic.
Not to mention, what the fuck is the State doing deciding what kinds of diagnoses are treatable?
the ghost of Potter Stewart and 'pregnant people'
Very good point. I wonder if it was made during the case @scotusblog.com
Discrimination is discrimination. It's making one class of people subhuman, just like they did with women's healthcare. All in the name of their "God".
That makes sense. “We refuse to treat ovarian cancer” would be damn evil.
Seems like he knows nothing about modern science or medicine.
As usual they start with what they want, then bend over backwards to justify it, then act shocked and hurt when we point out that they aren’t calling balls and strikes.