UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

This was written by a SCOTUS justice. Let that sink in.

"This case presents an easy question: whether SB1’s ban on certain medications, applicable only if used in a manner 'inconsistent with . . . sex,' contains a sex classification. Because sex determines access to the covered medications, it clearly does. Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it. The Court’s willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent."

Historically, I have always agreed that there were no dummies on the Court. She is a dummy. Sometimes a dummy is just a dummy. She thinks and talks like a dummy. She is, therefore, a dummy. She was given this position for everything other than her intellect.