SURPRISE: Justice Jackson Gets NUKED by Fellow Leftist Justice Kagan For Writing This Insane Dissent in Case Regarding Conversion Therapy Ban for LGBTQ Minors

 

Official portrait of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Credit: Fred Schilling / United States Supreme Court

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has become such an embarrassing spectacle on the Supreme Court that even her fellow leftists appear to be tiring of her.

 The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled 8-1 against Colorado’s conversion therapy ban for LGBTQ minors. Jackson was the lone dissenter.

The lawsuit was filed by Christian talk therapist Kaley Chiles, who argued that Colorado’s ban on her talk therapy methods violated her First Amendment rights. 

In an insane 35-page dissent, Jackson essentially said that therapists like Chiles should not have the same free speech rights as other Americans.

“Professional medical speech does not intersect with the marketplace of ideas: ‘In the context of medical practice, we insist upon competence, not debate,'” she wrote. “Treatment standards exist in America.”

“It threatens to impair States’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect,” she added. “It extends the Constitution into uncharted territory in an utterly irrational fashion. And it ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and well-being.”

She also attacked the Court for ‘playing with fire’, which could ‘burn Americans.’ 

“Ultimately, because the majority plays with fire in this case, I fear that the people of this country will get burned,” Jackson said. “Before now, licensed medical professionals had to adhere to standards when treating patients: They could neither do nor say whatever they want.”

This argument went too far for even Elena Kagan, who absolutely blasted her colleagues’ dissent in a concurring opinion in the case.

“Justice Jackson’s dissenting opinion claims that this is a small, or even nonexistent, category,” Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined.

“But even her own opinion, when listing laws supposedly put at risk today, offers quite a few examples,” she added.

Kagan also said that Jackson’s argument relies on “reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”

Kagan additionally noted that the case was “straightforward” because Colorado was actively suppressing Chiles’ Free speech rights.

“Because the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward,” Kagan said.

“It would, however, be less so if the law under review were content-based but viewpoint-neutral.”