A bunch of robes with lawyers in them (housed in the finest Corinthian Style) will sit in judgment over numerous conflicts between people, states, or against the federal government, and so on. This is a tried-and-true tradition with questionable results based increasingly on ideology and peer pressure rather than the Constitution.
It is, as they say (for now), what it is, and to borrow from Flip Wilson, here comes the judge. The court is back in session, and The Daily Signal tagged a few high-tension cases for us to be aware of and follow if our digestion can manage it.
United States v. Skrmetti, …involves a Tennessee law that bans giving children hormone treatments or genital surgeries to change a child’s body to match his or her chosen “gender identity.”
SCOTUS has been asked whether States can protect minors from weird adults and themselves to prevent the drugging and mutilation of children. Adults would be free to drug and mutilate themselves as long as the drugs are hormone therapies (for gender reassignment), and the cutting is to their sex parts.
[I]n Garland v. VanDerStok, …This, the administration assures us 9That “ghost Guns” [are] an “acute threat to public safety.” But there’s little evidence of that. It’s expensive, difficult, and time consuming to handcraft a gun, so criminals typically buy or steal them instead. But leftist feelings don’t care about the facts; they just want all the guns gone.
Check Out Today’s Amazon Prime Big Day Deals
The Feds want to ban custom homemade firearms over which they’ve no oversight ‘cuz “blood in the streets” with a reminder that the same ideological ancestors as those opposing hand-crafted weapons gave Mexican gangs guns (fast and furious) so they would turn up after being used to kill Americans so they could justify firearms bans and restrictions.
[A] trade association of pornographers calling themselves the Free Speech Coalition argued that the law [requiring websites to ensure minors cannot access pronogrpahy] interferes with “adults’ access to constitutionally protected expression.” They claim that requiring adults to provide their identifying information on a pornographic website raises “privacy concerns.”
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton includes 19 States that think we need to require age restriction controls and punishments for sites that fail to employ them or enforce them. It’s not a bad idea, but have they seen what kids can access at the public schools?
The case is San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which a super-lefty presidential administration has gotten on the last nerve of a super-lefty city.
The case involves the way that the Environmental Protection Agency regulates water pollution. In the past, the EPA gave local governments specific pollutant target levels. If the local governments allowed pollution levels to exceed those targets, the EPA would fine them huge amounts of money.
EPA decided not to tell San Francisco (or anyone else) what the targets were so that it could arbitrarily fine them for fun and profit. San Fran isn’t likely the first pick for pushback against bureaucratic overreach, but here we are.
I suspect that’s not all the hot potatoes, but then I’m just sharing someone else’s work and commenting on it, which is part of what we do. As new cases break the Internet noise barrier, we’ll try to share some details.
