So the Supreme Court didn't actually rule that conversion torture is constitutionally protected.
-
So the Supreme Court didn't actually rule that conversion torture is constitutionally protected.
It's so much more insane than that.
They ruled that licensed medical professionals have a first amendment right to expression even in the context of professional intervention. So a therapist has a constitutional right to express whatever they want during therapy. Or "therapy" I guess since this functionally renders apeech based therapeutics impossible to regulate?
The implications here are like unimaginable. If a doctor anywhere in the country decided to start telling patients that their problems are caused by ghosts in their blood and they must repent by consuming a pound of Chex Mix every hour, there's a real question now if that's constitutionally protected speech. That doctor may be protected from consequences to their license. More realistically, if a doctor tells a patient that them being fat is a moral failing, or a therapist tells a patient that being dead would be better than being an atheist, those are potentially constitutionally protected speech.
-
So the Supreme Court didn't actually rule that conversion torture is constitutionally protected.
It's so much more insane than that.
They ruled that licensed medical professionals have a first amendment right to expression even in the context of professional intervention. So a therapist has a constitutional right to express whatever they want during therapy. Or "therapy" I guess since this functionally renders apeech based therapeutics impossible to regulate?
The implications here are like unimaginable. If a doctor anywhere in the country decided to start telling patients that their problems are caused by ghosts in their blood and they must repent by consuming a pound of Chex Mix every hour, there's a real question now if that's constitutionally protected speech. That doctor may be protected from consequences to their license. More realistically, if a doctor tells a patient that them being fat is a moral failing, or a therapist tells a patient that being dead would be better than being an atheist, those are potentially constitutionally protected speech.
Look, I'm a bit of a history nerd but not even close to an expert and frankly barely in a position to fairly call myself an enthusiast. But I don't know of any Supreme Court in US history that is as adversial to facts as the Roberts Court. The Roberts Court truly embodies the worst things about lawyers as a cohort, as they very clearly truly believe that everything is reducible to a kind of vague thought experiment totally isolated from any context. They have a total contempt for reality or material consequence. The politics of the Roberts Court are shocking and fascist, but the Republican justices intuitions about what lawyers do are also just the most lawyer-brained idiocy found anywhere. Roberts and his comrades aren't just right-wing cranks, though they are, they're also people who think that being very good at logic games means you're smart.
-
So the Supreme Court didn't actually rule that conversion torture is constitutionally protected.
It's so much more insane than that.
They ruled that licensed medical professionals have a first amendment right to expression even in the context of professional intervention. So a therapist has a constitutional right to express whatever they want during therapy. Or "therapy" I guess since this functionally renders apeech based therapeutics impossible to regulate?
The implications here are like unimaginable. If a doctor anywhere in the country decided to start telling patients that their problems are caused by ghosts in their blood and they must repent by consuming a pound of Chex Mix every hour, there's a real question now if that's constitutionally protected speech. That doctor may be protected from consequences to their license. More realistically, if a doctor tells a patient that them being fat is a moral failing, or a therapist tells a patient that being dead would be better than being an atheist, those are potentially constitutionally protected speech.
@PallasRiot@social.treehouse.systems Everything becomes a weird free speech issue now because the wealthy have the ability to control the town square. Controls on speech for accuracy or protection are essentially seen as controls on capital; and we can't have that.
-
Look, I'm a bit of a history nerd but not even close to an expert and frankly barely in a position to fairly call myself an enthusiast. But I don't know of any Supreme Court in US history that is as adversial to facts as the Roberts Court. The Roberts Court truly embodies the worst things about lawyers as a cohort, as they very clearly truly believe that everything is reducible to a kind of vague thought experiment totally isolated from any context. They have a total contempt for reality or material consequence. The politics of the Roberts Court are shocking and fascist, but the Republican justices intuitions about what lawyers do are also just the most lawyer-brained idiocy found anywhere. Roberts and his comrades aren't just right-wing cranks, though they are, they're also people who think that being very good at logic games means you're smart.
Moreover, as I've said in the past the greatest predictor for what the Roberts Court will do is what will increase their own power. Technically the mechanism of their ruling here is that any law or regulation that involves the speech of a medical professional must face what's called "strict scrutiny" when it's brought to court. That's the highest level of barrier a law can face from the courts, the strictest test. The vast majority of laws subject to strict scrutiny are found to be unconstitutional. This means that the Roberts Court has effectively struck a huge blow against the regulatory power of legislatures and made those legislatures subject to much greater degree of control by the judiciary.
-
Moreover, as I've said in the past the greatest predictor for what the Roberts Court will do is what will increase their own power. Technically the mechanism of their ruling here is that any law or regulation that involves the speech of a medical professional must face what's called "strict scrutiny" when it's brought to court. That's the highest level of barrier a law can face from the courts, the strictest test. The vast majority of laws subject to strict scrutiny are found to be unconstitutional. This means that the Roberts Court has effectively struck a huge blow against the regulatory power of legislatures and made those legislatures subject to much greater degree of control by the judiciary.
Anyway, while you're here I'm going to guess that Trump's birthright citizenship executive order gets overturned, probably 6-3. My guess is that Roberts wants to display independence and this was a case he thought would be useful for that. He's really trying to end the Republic without creating the political will for court reform, and he's largely succeeded.
-
Moreover, as I've said in the past the greatest predictor for what the Roberts Court will do is what will increase their own power. Technically the mechanism of their ruling here is that any law or regulation that involves the speech of a medical professional must face what's called "strict scrutiny" when it's brought to court. That's the highest level of barrier a law can face from the courts, the strictest test. The vast majority of laws subject to strict scrutiny are found to be unconstitutional. This means that the Roberts Court has effectively struck a huge blow against the regulatory power of legislatures and made those legislatures subject to much greater degree of control by the judiciary.
Just as many didn’t understand that the ruling on executive immunity wasn’t about increasing executive power. It was the SC saying THEY get to decide what the executive can and can’t do. Congress can’t limit the executive, it needs to go through the courts (and if it’s a Dem, you can be sure how they’ll decide in that instance.) It’s funneling all power and ultimate decision making to the SC.
-
Moreover, as I've said in the past the greatest predictor for what the Roberts Court will do is what will increase their own power. Technically the mechanism of their ruling here is that any law or regulation that involves the speech of a medical professional must face what's called "strict scrutiny" when it's brought to court. That's the highest level of barrier a law can face from the courts, the strictest test. The vast majority of laws subject to strict scrutiny are found to be unconstitutional. This means that the Roberts Court has effectively struck a huge blow against the regulatory power of legislatures and made those legislatures subject to much greater degree of control by the judiciary.
@PallasRiot it’s like they’re trying to 4d chess a unitary executive theory using the judiciary and think their abstract ability to determine executive legality will subordinate the executive branch. They need the law to be both whatever they say and written in stone for everyone else without the material capacity (cops) to make it happen. Not gonna pan out how Robert’s wants it
-
So the Supreme Court didn't actually rule that conversion torture is constitutionally protected.
It's so much more insane than that.
They ruled that licensed medical professionals have a first amendment right to expression even in the context of professional intervention. So a therapist has a constitutional right to express whatever they want during therapy. Or "therapy" I guess since this functionally renders apeech based therapeutics impossible to regulate?
The implications here are like unimaginable. If a doctor anywhere in the country decided to start telling patients that their problems are caused by ghosts in their blood and they must repent by consuming a pound of Chex Mix every hour, there's a real question now if that's constitutionally protected speech. That doctor may be protected from consequences to their license. More realistically, if a doctor tells a patient that them being fat is a moral failing, or a therapist tells a patient that being dead would be better than being an atheist, those are potentially constitutionally protected speech.
@PallasRiot so next time someone says 'go to therapy' I can justifiably say, "actually I don't think I should"
-
Look, I'm a bit of a history nerd but not even close to an expert and frankly barely in a position to fairly call myself an enthusiast. But I don't know of any Supreme Court in US history that is as adversial to facts as the Roberts Court. The Roberts Court truly embodies the worst things about lawyers as a cohort, as they very clearly truly believe that everything is reducible to a kind of vague thought experiment totally isolated from any context. They have a total contempt for reality or material consequence. The politics of the Roberts Court are shocking and fascist, but the Republican justices intuitions about what lawyers do are also just the most lawyer-brained idiocy found anywhere. Roberts and his comrades aren't just right-wing cranks, though they are, they're also people who think that being very good at logic games means you're smart.
@PallasRiot They don't seem very good at logic games at all because I could out-logic them in this, especially if I'm allowed to use other fundamental, easily -understood constitutional rights.
But I could also do it just based on the free speech clause.
-
@PallasRiot so next time someone says 'go to therapy' I can justifiably say, "actually I don't think I should"
@cmdr_nova This won't tear down all of therapy's norms and regulations overnight, this is more like something that will be the source of major scandals that get uncovered in 10 to 20 years probably, if it holds. The near-term thing is that conversion therapists are going to be able to enter the market as if they were real medical professionals, like how chiropractors currently do.
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
