Ketanji Brown Jackson is an embarrassment

[mspart]

This lady is an embarrassment.   In an 8-1 decision she was, of course, the dissenter.   Kagan excoriated her on this apparent 1st amendment case.   

Jonathan Turley has the following to report and opine. 

https://jonathanturley.org/2026/04/01/no-one-knows-what-will-happen-now-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson-warns-against-unbridled-free-speech/

Justice Elena Kagan could not withhold her frustration with her colleague, noting that “[b]ecause the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.” She added that Jackson’s view “rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”

This isn't the only time Kagan has complained in a written response against Jackson.  She embarrasses the left wing of SCOTUS, she is really out there.   It is no wonder that she couldn't say what a woman is during confirmation with the judicial reasoning she has used in almost everyone decision she has made.   It is apparent she is just an activist.   She has almost zero constitutional reasoning in any of her opinions.  

mspart

[ThreePointTakedown]

22 hours ago, mspart said:

This lady is an embarrassment.   In an 8-1 decision she was, of course, the dissenter.   Kagan excoriated her on this apparent 1st amendment case.   

Jonathan Turley has the following to report and opine. 

https://jonathanturley.org/2026/04/01/no-one-knows-what-will-happen-now-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson-warns-against-unbridled-free-speech/

Justice Elena Kagan could not withhold her frustration with her colleague, noting that “[b]ecause the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.” She added that Jackson’s view “rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”

This isn't the only time Kagan has complained in a written response against Jackson.  She embarrasses the left wing of SCOTUS, she is really out there.   It is no wonder that she couldn't say what a woman is during confirmation with the judicial reasoning she has used in almost everyone decision she has made.   It is apparent she is just an activist.   She has almost zero constitutional reasoning in any of her opinions.  

mspart

What were KBJ's reason(s) for their dissent? 

[Rassling]

On 4/1/2026 at 12:42 PM, mspart said:

This lady is an embarrassment.   In an 8-1 decision she was, of course, the dissenter.   Kagan excoriated her on this apparent 1st amendment case.   

Jonathan Turley has the following to report and opine. 

https://jonathanturley.org/2026/04/01/no-one-knows-what-will-happen-now-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson-warns-against-unbridled-free-speech/

Justice Elena Kagan could not withhold her frustration with her colleague, noting that “[b]ecause the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.” She added that Jackson’s view “rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”

This isn't the only time Kagan has complained in a written response against Jackson.  She embarrasses the left wing of SCOTUS, she is really out there.   It is no wonder that she couldn't say what a woman is during confirmation with the judicial reasoning she has used in almost everyone decision she has made.   It is apparent she is just an activist.   She has almost zero constitutional reasoning in any of her opinions.  

mspart

nailed it

[Rassling]

hmm, was Pamela fired??

Edited April 2 by Rassling

[jross]

23 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

What were KBJ's reason(s) for their dissent? 

CHILES v. SALAZARJACKSON, J., dissenting

Ultimately, because the majority plays with fire in this case, I fear that the people of this country will get burned. Before now, licensed medical professionals had to adhere to standards when treating patients: They could neither do nor say whatever they want. Largely due to such State regulation, Americans have been privileged to enjoy a long and successful tradition of high-quality medical care.

Today, the Court turns its back on that tradition. And, to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now. This decision might make speech-only therapies and other medical treatments involving practitioner speech effectively unregulatable—not to be reached via licensing standards, medical-malpractice liability, or any other means of state control. Who knows? Certainly not the majority. It appears to have made this momentous decision without adequately grappling with the potential long-term and disastrous implications of this ruling.

The fallout could be catastrophic. Many regulations impact the speech of medical professionals in the context of their provision of healthcare to patients; the possibilities go far beyond talk therapy and informed consent. For example, many States require that medical professionals “make every reasonable effort to promote the welfare, autonomy and best interests of ” the client. Ga. Comp. Rules & Regs., Rule 135–7–.01(1) (2026); see Ind. Admin. Code, tit. 839, §1–§5–5(1) (2026); Conn. Gen. Stat. §17a–542 (requiring “[h]umane and dignified treatment”) (2025); Ala. Admin. Code Rule 255–X–11–.01 (Supp. 2016) (requiring that the professional “assure client welfare and protection” during medical care). Some States further prohibit medical professionals from treating a patient “in a cruel manner.” Kan. Admin. Regs. 102–3–12a(b)(11) (2022). Similarly, some licensing boards can discipline a provider who “is incompetent.” Alaska Stat. §08.29.400(4) (2025).

On the majority’s view, these kinds of regulations become unenforceable if the healthcare provider risks harming patients with their speech rather than an operation. Providers who offer “cruel” speech-only therapies or who use speech to (intentionally or incompetently) harm the welfare of patients, for example, can now assert a First Amendment right to carry on, regardless of these standards.

So, to put it bluntly, the Court could be ushering in an era of unprofessional and unsafe medical care administered by effectively unsupervised healthcare providers. A state license used to mean something to the patients who entrust their care to licensed professionals—i.e., that the person is certified to be one who provides treatments that are consistent with the standard of care.

That stops today. Indeed, it is not at all clear how, or to what extent, state regulation of medical care involving practitioner speech can survive this holding. We are on a slippery slope now: For the first time, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to bless a risk of therapeutic harm to children by limiting the State’s ability to regulate medical providers who treat patients with speech. What’s next? In the worst-case scenario, our medical system unravels as various licensed healthcare professionals—talk therapists, psychiatrists, and presumably anyone else who claims to utilize speech when administering treatments to patients—start broadly wielding their newfound constitutional right to provide substandard medical care.

It is baffling that we could now be standing on the edge of a precipitous drop in the quality of healthcare services in America. But the Court sees fit to bring us one step closer to that fate today. Stranger still is the fact that this possibility looms in the 21st century—given what science now enables us to know about medical conditions and treatments, what our cases say, and what we all should have learned by now from history. Somehow, Justices from eras past have always understood that (as I stated at the outset) “there is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the States.” Lambert, 272 U. S., at 596. They correctly applied that simple but powerful understanding of our Constitution across the board—to all healthcare professionals, including those with practices that happen to involve treatment-related speech. We do harm to both the Nation’s medical system and our First Amendment jurisprudence by ignoring that wisdom today.

The First Amendment requires heightened scrutiny when States regulate “speech as speech” but not when speech is restricted “incidentally.” NIFLA, 585 U. S., at 769–770. The latter occurs where, as here, a State seeks to prohibit healthcare professionals from providing a dangerous medical treatment in all of its forms, including the speech-related variety. States have traditionally regulated the provision of medical care through licensing schemes and malpractice regimes without constitutional incident. And no core principle of our First Amendment jurisprudence leads inexorably to the conclusion that it violates the Constitution for a State to prevent its licensed talk therapists from using speech to harm the minors in their care. Holding otherwise, as the majority does now, flouts centuries of state-standardized regulation of medical care and is, ultimately, nonsensical. The Constitution does not pose a barrier to reasonable regulation of harmful medical treatments just because substandard care comes via speech instead of scalpel.

Accordingly, I cannot agree with the majority’s analysis or its conclusions in this case. The majority finds, at bottom, that Colorado likely cannot legislate to protect the children of its State if, by doing so, it happens to keep state-licensed healthcare providers from saying what they want to say to minors. And the majority’s holding means, in effect, that just because Chiles is a talk therapist—and not, say, a surgeon—a State can be prevented from incidentally imposing reasonable restrictions on the treatments she provides. Our precedents do not compel this conclusion. In fact, NIFLA draws a different line, and the correct course of action here is to hold it: Speech uttered for purposes of providing medical treatment may be restricted incidentally when the State reasonably regulates the speaker’s provision of medical treatments to patients. Id., at 769–770.

To do anything else opens a dangerous can of worms. It threatens to impair States’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect. It extends the Constitution into uncharted territory in an utterly irrational fashion. And it ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing.

[jross]

She is criticized for referring to speech as "medical treatment" to support removing the First Amendment speech protection from government censorship.  She applies content and viewpoint discrimination.

[mspart]

She sees no reason to explore all alternatives to treatment.   There must only be one kind of treatment, the one approved by government.   And no one can even suggest that there is some other way to look at something.   

In her argument, if the powers that be mandated that any 8 year old boy said they were a girl get the surgery to "make that happen", there could be no counter argument to that.   That is Orwellian. 

mspart

[uncle bernard]

Natural consequence of politicizing the courts. The right has been appointing "activist" judges for decades. They have an entire organization dedicated to training them. Now you're going to complain because you don't like the taste of your own medicine?

I do wonder how conservatives would react if the sexual orientation in the example case was flipped. Does this ruling not also prevent the state stepping in to prevent licensed counselors from attempting to convert straight kids to gay?

[braves121]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

She sees no reason to explore all alternatives to treatment.   There must only be one kind of treatment, the one approved by government.   And no one can even suggest that there is some other way to look at something.   

In her argument, if the powers that be mandated that any 8 year old boy said they were a girl get the surgery to "make that happen", there could be no counter argument to that.   That is Orwellian. 

mspart

I mean forcing people to go to conversion therapy is Orwellian. 

[Caveira]

32 minutes ago, braves121 said:

I mean forcing people to go to conversion therapy is Orwellian. 

Kids should not be having these type of surgeries 

[mspart]

39 minutes ago, braves121 said:

I mean forcing people to go to conversion therapy is Orwellian. 

No one is forcing conversion therapy but CO was forcing no conversion therapy.   It is a matter of the state saying that is not allowed.   

Conversion therapy being discussed is discussion only.   It is not electroshock stimuli or anything like that.   CO said you cannot try to discuss with anyone transing about alternatives or anything else.   Alternatives such as counseling kids and adults that this might be a difficult road to go down and irreparable if certain acts are taken.   CO says this kind of counseling is verboten.   SCOTUS by 8-1 disagreed.   Only Jackson sided with the Orwellian state.  

mspart

[braves121]

9 minutes ago, mspart said:

No one is forcing conversion therapy but CO was forcing no conversion therapy.   It is a matter of the state saying that is not allowed.   

Conversion therapy being discussed is discussion only.   It is not electroshock stimuli or anything like that.   CO said you cannot try to discuss with anyone transing about alternatives or anything else.   Alternatives such as counseling kids and adults that this might be a difficult road to go down and irreparable if certain acts are taken.   CO says this kind of counseling is verboten.   SCOTUS by 8-1 disagreed.   Only Jackson sided with the Orwellian state.  

mspart

This ruling allowed parents to force their gay children to attend conversion therapy because they don’t like their sexual orientation. We are regressing as a country every day 

[mspart]

You applaud parents rights when those are in the lefts favor.   You want to deny parents rights when it goes the other way.   Every think about being consistent?

mspart

[braves121]

6 minutes ago, mspart said:

You applaud parents rights when those are in the lefts favor.   You want to deny parents rights when it goes the other way.   Every think about being consistent?

mspart

A parent doesn’t have the right to do anything to change how their child is. I’m against gender surgery as minors. I’m against parents converting their children from their sexual orientation. How’s that for consistency?

[mspart]

That's a good start.  Since you are against gender surgery are you also against chemical forms of gender reassignment that will have lifelong effects?

Are you for parents getting their kids counseling?   If so, are you for parents having all options to choose from?  Apparently not.  So you are not consistent. 

mspart

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

That's a good start.  Since you are against gender surgery are you also against chemical forms of gender reassignment that will have lifelong effects?

Are you for parents getting their kids counseling?   If so, are you for parents having all options to choose from?  Apparently not.  So you are not consistent. 

mspart

Should parents of straight children who want their children to be gay be allowed to send them to conversion therapy?

[mspart]

I honestly don't think so but to be consistent, it must be available to them, as long as it is counseling only. 

mspart

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

I honestly don't think so but to be consistent, it must be available to them, as long as it is counseling only. 

mspart

Do you believe in any kind of regulation on counseling services?

[mspart]

Do you?

mspart

[jross]

2 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

Does this ruling not also prevent the state stepping in to prevent licensed counselors from attempting to convert straight kids to gay?

Yes, the ruling would apply as the First Amendment bars viewpoint discrimination.  

[jross]

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

Should parents of straight children who want their children to be gay be allowed to send them to conversion therapy?

Not in favor of conversion therapy as if being gay was a disease.

Let's troll another way...

Should celebrity parents who want their children to be transgender be allowed to create a gender dysphoria environment?  Is this coerced conversion therapy from a young age?

 

[red viking]

12 minutes ago, jross said:

Not in favor of conversion therapy as if being gay was a disease.

Let's troll another way...

Should celebrity parents who want their children to be transgender be allowed to create a gender dysphoria environment?  Is this coerced conversion therapy from a young age?

 

Yes but only if they're MAJOR celebrities. 

[Caveira]

7 minutes ago, red viking said:

Yes but only if they're MAJOR celebrities. 

Some of the koo koos have multiple (3) kids who can’t figure out their gender.  It’s defiantly encouraged by some on the left 

that’s some seriously messed up gene pools or plan old mental illness’s 

Edited April 3 by Caveira

[Lipdrag]

"parent doesn’t have the right to do anything to change how their child is. "

Except to abort it, right?  Then at least one of the  parents can change how the child is, right?

[JimmySpeaks]

3 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

"parent doesn’t have the right to do anything to change how their child is. "

Except to abort it, right?  Then at least one of the  parents can change how the child is, right?

This