JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS ASSAILS FALSEHOODS OF TRANS LOBBY IN RULING
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has never been shy about telling it like it is in his Supreme Court opinions. So, it came as little surprise when he demolished the so-called "expert class" in the high court's Wednesday opinion in U.S. v. Skrmetti........................
While signing onto Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion in the case, Thomas also authored a separate concurring opinion "to address some additional arguments made in defense of Tennessee's law." It was here that the Court's most senior justice shattered attempts by plaintiffs - which included the Biden administration - to "accord outsized credit to claims about medical consensus and expertise."
Thomas noted that the Biden administration "asserted that 'the medical community and the nation's leading hospitals overwhelmingly agree' with the Government's position that the treatments outlawed by SB1 can be medically necessary," with the implication being "that courts should defer to so-called expert consensus." However, the George H.W. Bush appointee argued, "There are several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class."
"First, so-called experts have no license to countermand the 'wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.' & Second, contrary to the representations of the United States and the private plaintiffs, there is no medical consensus on how best to treat gender dysphoria in children," Thomas wrote. "Third, notwithstanding the alleged experts' view that young children can provide informed consent to irreversible sex-transition treatments, whether such consent is possible is a question of medical ethics that States must decide for themselves. Fourth, there are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance."
"Taken together," the senior justice wrote, "this case serves as a useful reminder that the American people and their representatives are entitled to disagree with those who hold themselves out as experts, and that courts may not 'sit as a super-legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation.'"