Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compares transgender surgeries on children to interracial marriage at Supreme Court arguments



U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued Wednesday that bans on transgender surgeries for children are similar to bans on interracial marriage.

Jackson argued that one of the state bans on child transgender surgeries appeared to depend on an argument of classification that seemed similar to that used by states in the past on interracial marriage. The court is hearing arguments about transgender surgeries after the Biden Department of Justice sued Tennessee for banning the practice in March 2023.

'There is absolutely a parallel between any law that says you can't act inconsistent with a protected characteristic.'

"The question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn't necessarily invidious or whatever, but as I read the statute here, asking the case here, the court starts off by saying that Virginia is now one of 16 states which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications," said Jackson.

"And when you look at the structure of that law, it looks in terms of you can't do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It's sort of the same thing," she added. "So it's interesting to me that we now have this different argument, and I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten away with what they did here by just making a classification argument the way that Tennessee is in this case."

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar agreed with the characterization made by Jackson.

"Yes, I think that's exactly right that there is absolutely a parallel between any law that says you can't act inconsistent with a protected characteristic," she responded.

Audio of the comments was circulated on social media by supporters of the Tennessee ban.

Democrats have been struggling to explain their electoral losses across the board, and some have landed on the unpopular issue of transgender child surgeries as part of their problem. Others have scolded Democrats on the issue and demanded that the party plow full steam ahead into more extreme transgender policies, despite polling showing most Americans oppose those policies.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Another Strange Death in the Crypto World | 11/30/22

Another Strange Death in the Crypto World | 11/30/22

The ‘Respect For Marriage Act’ Disrespects Faithful Americans

The legislation puts small business owners at risk of fines and imprisonment for declining participation in a same-sex wedding celebration.

12 Republicans vote with Democrats to advance bill codifying same-sex marriage into federal law



One dozen Republican senators joined their Democratic colleagues on Wednesday to advance legislation protecting same-sex marriages.

Who are those Republicans?

By a vote of 62–37, the Senate advanced the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and codify into federal law same-sex and interracial marriages.

The Republican senators who support the bill are:

  • Roy Blunt (Mo.)
  • Richard M. Burr (N.C.)
  • Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.)
  • Susan Collins (Maine)
  • Joni Ernst (Iowa)
  • Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.)
  • Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
  • Rob Portman (Ohio)
  • Dan Sullivan (Alaska)
  • Mitt Romney (Utah)
  • Thom Tillis (N.C.)
  • Todd Young (Ind.)

Congress began working to pass the bill this summer after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Pressure to codify the right to same-sex and interracial marriage was based on unrealistic fear that the Supreme Court may overturn landmark cases that legalized both types of marriage unions. But Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion overturning Roe, made clear the court's ruling would not impact same-sex or interracial marriage.

Alito wrote:

The Solicitor General suggests that overruling Roe and Casey would threaten the protection of other rights under the Due Process Clause. The Court emphasizes that this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

The House passed the Respect for Marriage Act in July by a vote of 267–157, with the approval of 47 Republicans.

Before the bill becomes law, the Senate must formally approve it and send it back to the House for approval on amendments before it can head to President Joe Biden's desk.

Why did Republicans support it?

Romney, for example, explained he voted for the bill on legal principle, though he personally disagrees with same-sex relationships.

"While I believe in traditional marriage, Obergefell is and has been the law of the land upon which LGBTQ individuals have relied," Romney said in a statement. "This legislation provides certainty to many LGBTQ Americans, and it signals that Congress—and I—esteem and love all of our fellow Americans equally."

The Utah senator also praised the bill's protections of religious liberties.

In her statement, Collins said she supported the bill because it protects against discrimination and strengthens protections for religious liberty.

"This bill recognizes the unique and extraordinary importance of marriage on an individual and societal level," Collins said in a statement. "It would help promote equality, prevent discrimination, and protect the rights of Americans in same-sex and interracial marriages. It would accomplish these goals while maintaining—and indeed strengthening—important religious liberty and conscience protections."

The bill gained significant bipartisan support after a small bipartisan group of senators supported an amendment to protect religious liberties.

Whoopi Goldberg lies about Clarence Thomas and persists in ignorance when confronted with the facts



Whoopi Goldberg lied repeatedly and outrageously Wednesday morning on "The View" when she asserted that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has called for an end to interracial marriage.

Despite pushback from her co-hosts, Goldberg stubbornly insisted that Thomas "brought up" taking away the right that people have to marry someone of a different race or ethnicity in his concurring opinion for the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. She made her comments during a discussion on the Democratic message for the upcoming midterm elections after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the constitutional right to abortion.

"What the Democrats seem to be running on is also protecting everyone's rights," Goldberg said. "Regardless, whoever you love or whoever you're married to, if you're married — I don't know — but they're trying to make sure that the rights you are so easily, you know, able to give away ... we're trying to hold on and say, actually you can't do that. Especially for a lot of folks who are also married interracially, which is coming up, you know bobbing its ugly head around."

Joy Behar interjected, pointing out that Thomas, a black man who is married to a white woman, "is not gonna move on that one."

"Well, let's find out. He's the one who sort of brought it up," Goldberg claimed.

"Well, he didn't bring that one up," Behar responded, but Goldberg ignorantly insisted "yes he did!"

\u201cWhoopi Goldberg falsely claims the Supreme Court is looking to abolish interracial marriages and that Justice Clarence Thomas is leading the charge.\n"Yeah, he brought that one up," she ignorantly declared. "Yes, he did! Yes, he did!"\n#ABCStandards\u201d
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@Nicholas Fondacaro) 1658329762

Sunny Hostin, a lawyer, went to Thomas' concurring opinion for Dobbs to clear up what he actually said. The justice agreed with the majority's argument that Roe was wrongly decided because the text of the Constitution is silent on abortion and the right is neither "deeply rooted" in the nation's history nor an essential component of "ordered liberty." But while the majority explicitly stated, "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion," Thomas would have gone further.

He wrote that the court should "in future cases ... reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." The cases Thomas cited established a constitutional right to privacy that broadly protects contraception access, sodomy, and gay marriage, respectively.

Importantly, Thomas did not write that these cases were wrongly decided. He took issue with the legal principle of substantive due process, which has been used by courts to establish protections for rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Thomas called this principle "an oxymoron" that "lack[s] any basis in the Constitution," and said the reasoning of the cited cases should be reconsidered using other legal principles.

Hostin did not mention Thomas' argument regarding substantive due process, but she did point out that the justice did not suggest reconsidering Loving v. Virginia, the landmark civil rights case that declared laws banning interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, Goldberg persisted.

"I'm telling you, when he spoke about all the things that could go, this was one of the things he brought up," she wrongly asserted.

After a cut to commercial break, Goldberg doubled down on her false claim.

\u201cComing back from a commercial break, Whoopi doubles down on her lie.\u201d
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@Nicholas Fondacaro) 1658329762

"This is what Clarence said, he said is concurring opinion is 'we should reconsider all of the court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold'' ... and then he went on to name them," Goldberg said. "When you say 'all', I think you're talking about 'all' and you're not playing."

Black Republican torches Eric Swalwell for claiming GOP wants to ban interracial marriage: 'You’ve never been black a day in your life'



Wesley Hunt, a Republican running for Congress, shut down Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) on Friday for claiming the Republican Party will try to outlaw interracial marriage.

What is the background?

After a leaked Supreme Court opinion draft showed the court had voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, liberal hysteria went into overdrive.

Progressives began claiming without evidence that Republicans would not stop at overturning abortion rights, but would seek to overturn a plethora of other rights. Swalwell, for example, claimed that Republicans "want to ban interracial marriage."

Other Democrats similarly argued that Republicans want Loving v. Virginia overturned. The 1967 landmark Supreme Court decision struck down a Virginia law that banned interracial marriage.

What did Hunt say?

The issue of interracial marriage is particularly important to Hunt because he is a black man who is in an interracial marriage, which has produced two biracial daughters.

Hunt responded to Swalwell's initial comments by observing how Democrats like him are using race as a political weapon.

"Hi Eric, my name is Wesley Hunt, I’m a Republican nominee in a Congressional District that is 70% white," Hunt said. "I’m black, I’m in an interracial marriage, and my wife and I have two biracial daughters. Republicans are celebrating diversity while white liberals like yourself race-bait."

Hi Eric, my name is Wesley Hunt, I\u2019m a Republican nominee in a Congressional District that is 70% white. I\u2019m black, I\u2019m in an interracial marriage, and my wife and I have two biracial daughters. Republicans are celebrating diversity while white liberals like yourself race-bait.https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1521340822989402113\u00a0\u2026
— Wesley Hunt (@Wesley Hunt) 1651607925

Instead of engaging in productive dialogue, Swalwell hit back and reaffirmed his charge that Republicans support outlawing interracial marriage by pointing directly at Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.).

"Hey Wesley, your problem isn’t with me. It’s with @SenatorBraun who said states should be able to ban interracial marriages like yours. He’s a senator in YOUR party," Swalwell said. "Looks like you’re just another Republican who is in denial of what your colleagues say. Party over country, right?"

Hey Wesley, your problem isn\u2019t with me. It\u2019s with @SenatorBraun who said states should be able to ban interracial marriages like yours. He\u2019s a senator in YOUR party. Looks like you\u2019re just another Republican who is in denial of what your colleagues say. Party over country, right?https://twitter.com/wesleyhunttx/status/1521580037631270913\u00a0\u2026
— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@Rep. Eric Swalwell) 1651876016

Braun incited brief controversy in March after he appeared to endorse leaving the issue of interracial marriage up to individual states to decide, thus reversing Loving v. Virginia. However, Braun quickly clarified that he believes "there is no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race, that is not something that is even up for debate."

Hunt, however, was not deterred, and issued the decisive blow of the debate.

"Eric, here we go again. My problem is with you. You’ve never been black a day in your life, and yet the white 'intellectual' Democrat from California is lecturing me on racism," Hunt hit back. "And for the record, don’t lecture me on country over party either, I served in combat, did you?"

Eric, here we go again. My problem is with you. You\u2019ve never been black a day in your life, and yet the white \u201cintellectual\u201d Democrat from California is lecturing me on racism. And for the record, don\u2019t lecture me on country over party either, I served in combat, did you?https://twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1522704492247982080\u00a0\u2026
— Wesley Hunt (@Wesley Hunt) 1651882368

Hunt is the Republican candidate running for Texas' 38th congressional district, which is situated in the Houston area. The district was established after the 2020 census. His Democratic opponent will be determined after a runoff election later this month.

Eric Swalwell asserts Republicans 'want to ban interracial marriage' after abortion



A Democratic lawmaker has accused Republicans of wanting to ban interracial marriage after a report said the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the abortion issue to the states.

"The Republicans won’t stop with banning abortion. They want to ban interracial marriage," California Congressman Eric Swalwell tweeted just after midnight on Tuesday. "Do you want to save that? Well, then you should probably vote."

The Republicans won\u2019t stop with banning abortion. They want to ban interracial marriage. Do you want to save that? Well, then you should probably vote.http://www.Iwillvote.com
— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@Rep. Eric Swalwell) 1651550892

He made the accusation, without evidence, after Politico published a draft Supreme Court opinion Monday authored by Justice Samuel Alito that indicated the court has found its precedent in Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Chief Justice John Roberts later confirmed the authenticity of the document and announced an investigation to find the leaker.

Democrats were "angry, troubled, and deeply disturbed" by the report, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in an address Tuesday responding to the Politico report. In a separate joint statement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Democratic leaders denounced the impending Supreme Court decision as "one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history."

"Every Republican Senator who supported Senator McConnell and voted for Trump Justices pretending that this day would never come will now have to explain themselves to the American people," the Democratic leaders said, demonstrating that the party will attempt to make preserving abortion rights a top campaign issue for the upcoming midterm elections.

Voters should expect increasingly heated campaign rhetoric as the election draws near, such as Swalwell's baseless claim that Republicans want to ban interracial marriage.

President Joe Biden, for example, warned Tuesday that if the Supreme Court follows through with a final decision that overturns Roe, privacy rights related to marriage and contraception could be in danger as well as abortion rights.

"One of the issues this court, many members of the court, have not acknowledged is there is a right to privacy in the Constitution," Biden said.

"If this decision holds, it really is a radical decision," he continued. "All of the decisions made in private life, who you marry, whether you can have an abortion, how you raise your child … it is a fundamental shift."

The draft opinion calls into question the fundamental right to privacy \u2014 the right to make personal choices about marriage, whether to have children, and how to raise them.\n\nThese are fundamental rights for Americans \u2014 a critical part of who we are.
— President Biden (@President Biden) 1651602300

If Roe is overturned, the abortion issue would be returned to the states, where elected representatives will once again have the power to restrict or expand abortion access based on the will of voters.

At least 13 states have so-called "trigger laws" that would put abortion restrictions into effect as soon as the court officially overturns Roe, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Another 13 states have laws on the books imposing restrictions on abortion that either existed before Roe or have been blocked by courts.

A handful of Democrat-led states have vowed to pass laws creating safe-havens for women seeking abortions. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has promised to work with state lawmakers to codify abortion rights into the state's constitution, and other Democratic governors have pledged to take similar actions.


Biden’s ‘Jim Crow’ Label For Georgia Election Laws Is Insane. Here’s Why

Biden continues to float "Jim Crow" around, dangling it before seething and corrupt media, but the comparison to Georgia's election law doesn't stand.

Disney Corporate Darling, Atlantic Journo Jemele Hill Says U.S. Is As Bad As Nazi Germany

It's absolutely insane that anyone doubts that America has historically proven to be overwhelmingly superior to Nazi Germany, much less that the theory undergirds a bestselling book.