Skrmetti, Mahmoud, and Free Speech Coalition - "Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children?"

I think Skrmetti, Mahmoud, and Free Speech Coalition can be summed up in a meme: Won't somebody please think of the Children? But more precisely, the Court was protecting children from misguided parents.

In Free Speech Coalition, the Court allowed the state to protect children from accessing pornography that their parents might wish to access. In Skrmetti, the Court allowed the state to protect children whose parents approved puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. And in Mahmoud, the Court allowed parents to protect their children from the school board.

These three cases are not the same, but at bottom, they were all about protecting the children.

Comments

[Martinned]

Irony means nothing to you, does it?

[Joe_dallas]

yes the irony -
Protecting children from the evils of mutilation is somehow ironic?

[Martinned]

No, dummy, that Simpsons clip is.

[Malika the Maiz]

joe often has answers to the wrong question.

[loki13]

.... in addition to using a meme in the worst possible way, it has been a talking point in some conservative circles, and ESPECIALLY those that you might find loitering around places like Reason, that all bad government regulation and choices usually starts with, "Think of the children."

Now, I've seen your posts and comments significantly degrade over time, so this irony is lost on you. But this is how we get populism and authoritarianism; when people forget that they once had principles and they begin to think only of specific issues and results- and always through the mentality of fans.

I mean, I could point out that most conservatives might have thought that the following things would be a little, well, sus-
-Deploying the national guard over the objections of state and local leaders.
-Deploying the military on domestic soil for domestic law enforcement.
-Building concentration camps on American soil.
-Unilateral disobedience of court orders.
-Cavalier disregard of fiscal restraint.
-Allowing the Executive to suspend civil law for favored groups indefinitely.
-Allowing the Executive to unilaterally and without review to set all tariffs (taxes on Americans)- for any reason including a dislike of a foreign country's internal policies.
-Directing DOJ attorneys to (at best ... I will put this euphemistically) ... make deliberately misleading statements to the Court. Which causes them to resign (as they should), or comply.
-Claim the ability to deport American citizens without due process, and claim the ability to strip American citizens of their citizenship without due process.
-Arrest, detain, and deport individuals without any review of the lawfulness of those actions.

I mean, I could keep going on, but that should be enough. Look, I get that you might be thinking, "I can point to this other event, I mean, Japanese internment, amirite?" But the fact that you can't see that a conservative appeal (or, at least, a conservative appeal on Reason) to "Think of the children" is ironic is ... it shows you where we are at.

This isn't small government. Or about liberty. And it's as far removed from fiscally responsible as you can get. If you don't recognize that this is anathema to liberalism (the classical meaning), then I can't help you. But as I have repeatedly seen, you can lead a horse to water, but only the horse can choose to drink it.

[Joe_dallas]

Loki
mutilating children is evil

Normal people can grasp that

[loki13]

I notice you're not being in the least bit responsive to what I'm saying.

But sure, I'll take the bait. See, here's the thing. At a certain point, the position of humility means that you have to assume that you can be wrong. That your opponent might be right. So what do your principles say?

Well, I think that there are a lot of things that parents do to children that are capital E ... evil. But in this country, we tend to have a strong presumption that the government can't interfere with the rights of parents to raise their children- even if you, or I, think that what they are doing is wrong. Having them work on a farm. Raising them to believe in a cult (or a lack of religion). Raising them vegan (ugh). And so on. Because we think that the good of trusting families more than the government outweighs the occasional bad of parents making bad decisions- you know, liberty.

It is only in extreme cases- such as active abuse and neglect- that we intervene. Now, you might want to continue to use your overheated rhetoric, but we both know that if it is actual "mutiliation," it would be covered by other laws. It isn't. Instead, what you are saying is that you disagree with a family's decision, made with medical advice, to do what they think is best for their child. And because of that, you want the state to enforce your will on the family.

Now, I would suggest actually talking to some of those families affected. Or to talk to actual trans people. To learn about the impact of what you are demanding the state enforce on families in an actual and practical sense in reality, and to do so with empathy, instead of simply acting out of spite and with hatred to some imagined other.

But I doubt that will happen. It's easier to ignore the real pain and anguish of the families that are going through this, and reduce this to a caricature in a culture war.

I don't know that I am right, but I do know that I prefer to not have jackbooted government agents enforcing other people's demands on my family.

[Joe_dallas]

No - My response remains the same.

Skrmetti is very much a response to the left's desire to encourage the ability to chemically and surgically mutilate children. The conservative movement is to protect those children.

Your comment that mutilation is cover by other laws shows how far deranged the left has become. Its an evil procedure that leftists defend with a BS defintion of "medical care"

Mahmoud is very much a response to the lefts foisting age inappropriate material on 5-10 year olds. Leftists defend the indefensible with guise of inclusion and/or caring. It only shows how far derangwed the left has become

Why defend the deranged left?

[loki13]

*sigh*

I was unaware that there was a monolithic "the left" that had any desires. I asked that you thought about things- about families- instead of retreating to caricatures in a culture war, and you just couldn't help yourself.

You're a lost cause, Joe. I do not know that I am right- I think that there is certainly space for reasonable people to discuss issues. But I do know that I have met and talked to actual trans people. I know families that have struggled with this decision. I know that this isn't some giant conspiracy, but a painful and personal process. And I am sad to see that you have allowed yourself to become so radicalized that all you can do is spout off meaningless words to justify hatred instead of at least acknowledging that you are asking the government to force your preferences on to people- on to families- without their consent, because you know better than they do.

And that when I asked you to at least think about it, to consider it with empathy and compassion... not because it will change your mind, but so you would at least fully consider the consequences, you retreated to your pat explanations and angry and dehumanizing rhetoric.

I tried.

[Joe_dallas]

Loki - you are resorting to mispresentations.

As stated - If you cant grasp that protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation, then you should be commenting.

[loki13]

To summarize the conversation:

I ask Joe to practice empathy and compassion, think about underlying principles, and while he is welcome to his opinion, he should at least think about the harm he will inflict when he demands that his opinions are forced on families that are already dealing with a difficult and painful situation.

Joe responds that I am evil and need to shut up and stop commenting.

I think that's pretty much where discourse is today. Thanks, Joe! I know what to do with your comments now. Take care, and I hope the fever dream passes for you. I won't bother reading your comments in the future, because ... horse, water, etc. 🙂

[Joe_dallas]

Loki -

You ask for empathy and compassion for the mentally afflicted and the families dealing with difficult mental health issues.

You are very much ignore the mutilation that occurs with "gender affirming care"

you have to greatly distort the underlying facts to defend the indefensible.

[Malika the Maiz]

joe is what folks around my parts called “a simple man,” but unlike those people he thinks he knows a lot because he stated in a Holiday Inn.

[Roger S]

In the case of the transgender movement, I think it is a giant conspiracy. There is no other way to explain so many on the Left taking such extreme and unreasonable positions.

[Joe_dallas]

Agreed - look at loki's criticism
"I don't know that I am right, but I do know that I prefer to not have jackbooted government agents enforcing other people's demands on my family."

He uses a complete reversal of the facts and logic.

[Malika the Maiz]

Telling.

Roger S basically says “it’s a conspiracy because their positions are so extreme.” This is ipse dixit paired with usual lazy conspiracy theory (who is conspiring? How? For what?).

joe responds by, yet again, missing Loki’s point and then invoking facts and logic.

[Roger S]

Not just because the positions are extreme. Also because they are joined by so many with no direct interest in the matter, and because they are so unreasonable.

Consider Kamala Harris. She has no direct interest in transgenderism, and taking extreme transgender positions was not helpful to her presidential campaign. And yet she did it anyway.

[Joe_dallas]

Loki
Lastly - your comments are based on a huge distortion and misrepresentation of the underlying facts in Skrmetti and Mahmoud.

[Malika the Maiz]

His point was about turning state force to override other people’s decisions without trying to understand them first, ya goof.

[Joe_dallas]

If you cant grasp that gender affirming care is a BS name for mutilating children, then you should not be commenting.

[Joe_dallas]

Malika the Maiz 19 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
His point was about turning state force to override other people’s decisions without trying to understand them first, ya goof.

No - His point is based on a huge distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and the reason for the ban and certain medical procedures. Its to protect the children, not to prevent the parents from providing the best medical care.

[Malika the Maiz]

joe doesn’t just not get the point here, he literally can’t. Nothing is worse than an extremely dumb but confident person.

[Joe_dallas]

Malika the Maiz 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
joe doesn’t just not get the point here,

I fully get your point is you want to defend the mutilation of children in the oxymoronic terminology of "gender affirming care".

Until you grasp the evilness of your believes, you have zero business commenting.

[wvattorney13]

"Instead, what you are saying is that you disagree with a family's decision, made with medical advice, to do what they think is best for their child. And because of that, you want the state to enforce your will on the family."

The State of Tennessee, through its elected representatives, have determined that this is not a legitimate medical procedure to be performed on children. The "medical advice" received by the parents is not good medicine according to the body that regulates medicine. Doing what they think is best has been determined by the people of TN to be quackery and illegal no matter what an individual might think is best. I might think my kid needs oxycodone when he scrapes his knee, but I can't give him that despite the fact that he is my child. That is no different than any other regulation of medicine that the State has the sole power to determine.

Your side wants to make this grand pronouncement of parental rights but it is an amazingly odd place to start.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you think sometimes elected officials might be wrong or out of touch regarding what might be the appropriate care a parent’s child should get?

I mean, this is ostensibly a libertarian website.

[wvattorney13]

Sure they could get it wrong and a person could disagree with a particular application of the law.

But the arguments are "you can't tell me what to do with my children!!!!!!" Of course the government can and does do exactly that. And they do so in far more intrusive ways than telling you that you cannot castrate your son.

As I said, it's an odd place to throw down the libertarian flag.

[Roger S]

Yes, the elected officials are often wrong. In Maryland, the elected school board was forcing weird sex stuff on kindergarten kids.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Well, at least, it purports "often" to be libertarian.

[David Nieporent]

Well, I think that there are a lot of things that parents do to children that are capital E ... evil. But in this country, we tend to have a strong presumption that the government can't interfere with the rights of parents to raise their children- even if you, or I, think that what they are doing is wrong.

But we should all be able to agree that raising them as Yankees fans is intolerable.

[Martinned]

mutilating children is evil

Is it? Are you sure about that?

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/circumcision_2013/circumcision_2013.htm

[Roger S]

There are people who think that male and female circumcision is evil.

[Malika the Maiz]

How about make circumcision?

[Joe_dallas]

Roger S addressed what you asked about.
Just another inane comment.

[Joe_dallas]

there are lots of people that no longer encourage circumcision which was quite common as late as the 1970's.

However, there is such a huge difference in the level of damage caused by the transgender mutilations, that attempting to compare the two shows how little you care about the actual damage caused by the transgender mutilations.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You appear to have inadvertently linked to an article about male circumcision during a discussion about child mutilation.

We let parents pierce their kids' ears, ergo we should let parents cut their kids dicks off is a hell of a take.

[Lee Moore]

Look, I get that you might be thinking, "I can point to this other event, I mean, Japanese internment, amirite?" But the fact that you can't see that a conservative appeal (or, at least, a conservative appeal on Reason) to "Think of the children" is ironic is ... it shows you where we are at.

Actually the one that converted a quiet giggle into an actual laugh out loud laugh, was :

"Cavalier disregard of fiscal restraint."

Trump is not a conservative. Silent Cal he ain't. But Kamala is not a conservative either. We have to scrape through the muck and pick the least unappealing option.

Or, as they say, in the country of the blind, the one eyed man is king,

[Malika the Maiz]

How about during the primary?

[Sarcastr0]

This whole 'I am reluctant in my support for Trump' by some of his most enthusiastic rationalizers remains weird.

You're in the muck; you have lots of posts arguing for authoritarianism.

You're not going to get out unstained in 2028.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It is not really weird.

People pretend (including sometimes to themselves) they don't support Trump enthusiastically for various reasons, including to promote some fake independent truthteller function.

Some also realize Trump is horrible (or at least is deemed so by even people they are okay with) and don't want to be like Josh Blackman. So, supporting Trump has to be somewhat under duress.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You're not going to get out unstained in 2028."

Says one of the people who are in favor of cutting kids' dicks off.

[Sarcastr0]

You may want to check your notes on that.

I'm not a supporter of surgical interventions for trans children.

[loki13]

I am shocked to see that you would look at that list and immediately try and come up with a counterfactual to justify it.

At a certain point, you can't just point to some imagined happening and say, "The other side would have been worse." As a reminder, the last balanced budget was under Clinton. The last time we had a real chance for meaningful fiscal restraint was under ... Obama (that was the attempted bipartisan deal with Boehner that the GOP exploded because of their own issues).

I'm not going to say that the Democrats are the party of fiscal restraint, at all. Maybe it's a Nixon goes to China thing. I do know two things- the GOP, at the national level, is not. They talk the game to trash the Democrats, and then when they get power it's "What deficit?" But I also see what they actually did, and I can't imagine a worse fiscal hole any Democrat could have made.

Which circles back around to what I was saying- stop pointing at the other side; if you can't stand up for your side by agreeing with what your side is actually doing, then you might have a problem.

(And I would add that I have no difficulty disagreeing with political parties because I disagree with them. If I was king of the world, or the President, my main task would be to appoint a commission to reform the USC and tax code to cut every single regulation and law that was possible. Not because I don't believe in regulations and laws, but because we have way too many that have accumulated over time.)

[Roger S]

The power for fiscal restraint lies with the House, not the President.

[Joe_dallas]

Agreed -
the budget was never actually "Balanced" during the clinton adminstration, though the fiscal restraint was much greater in a large part due to newt gingrich.

[Malika the Maiz]

These two are hopeless.

The point he’s making is “At a certain point, you can't just point to some imagined happening and say, "The other side would have been worse."

And they’re both saying “hold my beer!”

[ReaderY]

Agreed.

I in general consider myself a constitutional conservative. But constitutional conservativism includes the idea that the constitution’s text makes the federal government’s taxation and spending authority far broader than its regulatory autuority. The Spending Clause conveys a general authority to address the “general welfare of the United States.” Regulatory powers, on the other hand, are limited to specific topics like “navigable waters” or “interstate commerce.” I would enforce the limitations on regulatory authority, but the spending power simply isn’t so limited.

And I completely agree that Trump is totally upending the Constitution, and not just giving both individual and states’ rights the finger and attempting to make the federal government all-powerful and the only real source of power in tbe country, but giving Congress and the Judiciary the finger and attempting to make himself all-powerful and the only real source of power within the federal government.

That’s totally anti-constitutional by ANY conception of the constitution, liberal or conservative. Indeed, the irony is that a key reason for conservative objections to liberal expansions of federal power is that expanding federal power beyond constitutional limits would make it that much easier for someone like Mr. Trump to take over. I think Mr. Trump has proven conservatives right in this respect. Suddenly, classic conservative ideas like states’ rights and limits on federal power don’t seem like such bad ideas to liberals anymore.

Mr. Trump is an authoritarian revolutionary, an overthrower of values and institutions treasured by liberals and conservatives alike.

He is no conservative.

[Roger S]

"giving Congress and the Judiciary" -- How has Trump done this, any more than Biden and other administrations? Trump is obeying Congress and the courts.

[Michael P]

How does a case where "the Court allowed parents to protect their children from the school board" qualify as one where "the Court was protecting children from misguided parents"?

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

This seems a little facile; you've identified that all three cases involve kids, but the holdings are not coherent.

In Skrmetti, the court held that the government (via the legislature) has the power to override parents' rights, in the context of regulating medical treatments. In Mahmoud, the court held that the government (via the school board) does not have the power to override parents' rights, in the context of regulating public education. In Free Speech Coalition, no one involved has raised anything about the parents rights to decide whether their children can access content (though you could theoretically argue this), and instead the question was whether or not restrictions on kids burdened adult speech.

It's fine that the holdings aren't coherent, mind you; the court simply views the operative parts of each case differently. I just don't really understand what it adds to claim these cases are of a kind when the jurisprudence doesn't suggest that.

[Social Justice is neither]

Do you really think being taught something or not is on par with being surgically altered or medicalized for life? The child isn't directly harmed with either set of teachings so it falls on the parents to be responsible for the person they put into the world; the child IS directly harmed by the trans drugs/surgery for life so even the parents shouldn't be allowed to violate that (abortion aside).

Perhaps if the pro-trans conversion science wasn't heavily curated bunk it might have had a chance but when the evidence of harm from denial is less than zero and over 90% desist from any ideation then you're creating real harm with the medical process in most people you "treat".

[Malika the Maiz]

I don’t know if he thinks that but he didn’t say that. He was talking about the general boxes Blackman was putting the rulings in.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

Hi. I am sure you are responding to someone but I'm not sure you're responding to me. Are you lost?

[wvattorney13]

I agree. The attempt to find commonality here falls flat. "Protecting children" is one side of a coin where the other side is "denying children the right/ability to do X" depending on your view of what X is.

[Savagely Average]

Yeah, Justice Sotomayor in her dissent clearly believed just as passionately that the Skrmetti *plaintiffs* were trying to protect “trans kids” while the majority was “abandoning” them. The defendants in Mahmoud likely also believed they were “protecting trans kids.”

[Savagely Average]

That’s not accurate with respect to Skrmetti. Parental rights weren’t before the court. The ACLU chose for strategic reasons to focus solely on the equal protection claim.

If parental rights had been at issue the Plaintiffs would have deserved to lose that argument too but they weren’t at issue.

[A Japanese Student]

ACLU did present parental rights claim before the Court, but it denied cert on that issue (indirectly, by granting only the federal government's petition, which could not raise due process claims).

[Savagely Average]

Interesting - thanks for the correction.

[Brett Bellmore]

In Skrmetti, the Court held that the government, via the legislature, could prohibit something (some) parents wanted for their kids.

In Mahmoud, the Court held that the government, via the school board, could not impose upon children something (Some) parents wanted their children spared.

In Free Speech Coalition, the government is prohibiting something for children, via means that inconvenience adults.

Looks to me like a consistent principle that both government and parents have a veto when it comes to children.

[apedad]

Wait!

So do we - or do we not - want the govt and not parents to take care of our kids?

[Martinned]

Only when the government agrees with us.

[ScottK]

Wrong.

[wvattorney13]

You present that as an either or and something to ponder. The state of the law IS and always has been that parents have an extraordinarily wide range of authority to make choices for their children up to a certain point. Past that point, the government decides that no parent can make such a decision.

Where that line falls is decided by the legislature. TN has so decided. This isn't some huge philosophical musing where we have to smoke a bunch of weed and come up with ideas.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"want the govt and not parents to take care of our kids?"

To be clear, are you advocating that parents have the right to buy their kids cigarettes and alcohol, sterilize them for contraceptive reasons, consent to sex on their behalf, etc?

Decline to send them to school, refuse them treatments like chemotherapy for religious reasons, etc?

If you're making a libertarian argument for things like that, I'd love to hear it.

Or does your libertarianism only extend to sex change surgury?

[Sarcastr0]

A series of posts where Blackman approvingly cites a different fallacy each day and then goes on to enthusiastically deploy it.