Posted on 06/19/2025 8:00:21 AM PDT by Twotone
Constitutional attorney Alan Dershowitz said Wednesday that the Supreme Court should have ruled unanimously in favor of Tennessee’s restrictions on child sex changes, calling it “a simple, simple, case.”
The Supreme Court upheld SB1, which was passed by the Tennessee legislature in March 2023, in a 6-3 ruling released Wednesday morning. On “The Dershow,” Dershowitz expressed shock that it was a 6-3 decision.
“The Supreme Court decided today in a six-to-three decision. [It’s] shocking to me it was six-to-three. It should have been nine-nothing, in a six-to-three decision, decided that a state, Tennessee, had the right to restrict certain kinds of procedures on below-age minors that could permanently affect their lives,” Dershowitz said. “That is, removal of testicles, removal of breasts, surgical procedures that are irreversible, and the state said, no, we can wait until you’re 18 to allow you to do that or certain kinds of medical procedures that are also irreversible.”
After reviewing the “divided” science on the issue, Dershowitz explained why the case that had been originally brought by the Biden administration — before the Trump administration reversed course — should have been an easy victory for Tennessee.
“It was Louis Brandeis who coined the phrase that the states are ‘the laboratories of political experimentation,’ and the Constitution gives tremendous authority to the states under the police power to regulate medicine, to decide what’s permissible, what’s not permissible,” Dershowitz said. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government that power.”
Dershowitz hit at liberals for what he called hypocrisy, recalling how he came under attack for suggesting that the age of consent for sexual activity be lowered in some states, citing what he viewed as selective enforcement based on race and politics.
“I was called a sexist, a horrible person by the left. The left, who were saying a 13-year-old can consent to have an abortion, but she can’t consent to have sex,” Dershowitz said. “By the way, how do you have an abortion without having had sex? I haven’t ever figured that one out yet, but that was what they were arguing.”
“So the age of consent has become incredibly political, and the same people who say that a 17-and-a half-year-old woman, young woman, can’t consent to having sex with an 18-and-a-half-year-old boy, the same people [who] with a straight face are arguing ‘Oh, but a 17 year-old boy can consent, or [a] 15-or-14-year-old boy can consent to have his testicles cut off or a girl to have her breasts removed,” Dershowitz said.
One doctor involved in child sex change procedures said in October that she suppressed a study that questioned the effectiveness of the procedures, saying she feared the results would get used to support restrictions on them.
“Under any standard, the state should be allowed to make a decision that many European countries have made, and many states have made, I think 22 of them, saying no, no, no, wait until you’re 18. We’re not gonna let you do it when you’re 12 or 13 or 14. That’s a very easy decision, and it shouldn’t have been six-three. It actually was six-and-a-half to two-and-a-half. Justice Kagan basically said she’s not going to reach the issue of whether or not under the super-duper scrutiny, a state could make this decision. Her whole opinion is that you need super-duper scrutiny rather than just super scrutiny, and so she wrote her decision about that, and she said ‘I won’t decide whether under the super-duper scrutiny it would pass the muster.'”
“Of course, it would pass the muster. All you have to show under super-duper scrutiny is that there’s a compelling state interest and it can’t be satisfied in any other way,” Dershowitz said. “That’s easy to show in this case.”
President Donald Trump, within hours of taking office Jan. 20, signed an executive order declaring that the federal government recognizes the “biological reality of sex,” defining terms like male, female, man, woman, boy and girl.
“The State of Tennessee has the constitutional authority to decide that you have to be 18 to have irreversible, surgical or medical procedures. It’s a simple, simple case. This is not a case of sex discrimination,” Dershowitz said. “It’s equally as applicable to transgender people who change from male to female as from female to male. It doesn’t discriminate against anybody except on the ground of age and, of course, the Supreme Court has said over and over and over and over and over again that age is a rational ground for discrimination.”
“Indeed, we needed a constitutional amendment to require 18, 19-year-olds to vote,” Dershowitz said. “Before that, they were prevented from voting by numerous states, and so I don’t understand why this case was in any way controversial.”
When you consider there are three woke commies on the court, it’s not shocking at all it was a 6-3 decision. What’s more surprising is that none of the “conservative” justices joined them in their absurdity.
“There’s nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government that power.”
Much of what the federal government does, especially Congress, is unconstitutional.
These three are sooo, predictable.
BTTT
There is nothing liberal about justices allowing grown adults destroy the viable futures of minors incapable of informed consent.
These are LEFTIST PROG justices who openly dislike human life and the ability to procreate further.
“Equal protection.” Children should get MORE protection! You can’t let them go a few blocks alone in daytime without hassle from karens and the Ku Klux Karens of the Child Protection Racket, but you can trust those same children to choose elective surgery?
NUTS!
9 mins, picked at random, would perform better.
But these come with political guarantees.
What is a woman? Too complicated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.