Jasmine Crockett Loses Dem Senate Primary to Hoax-Boosted James Talarico - Blames Republic...
Patch Dispatched: Seth Toth Scores Double-Digit Republican Primary Upset Over Incumbent Da...
National Post: Don’t Deport Truck Driver Who Killed 16 Canadian Teens
Man Who Had Security Clearance Revoked for Leaking Documents to Iran Has Thoughts...
Trump Cuts Off Trade With Spain After It Refuses to Let US Use...
For All of Us Who've Learned It the Hard Way: Grief's Quiet Lesson
'Always Money for War' Whines Senator Who Can’t Read a Budget—or a Bible
ICE Watch Activist Strolls Into Kristi Noem’s Senate Hearing Carrying Massive Backpack
LIVE ELECTION RESULTS: Primary Night in Texas and North Carolina!
CA State Sen. Scott Wiener Says Children Will Die If Teachers Must Out...
The Atlantic Wonders If a Bearded Pete Buttigieg Can Convince America He’s a...
DHS Says It Won't Comply With Denver's New Ban on Law Enforcement Agents...
Kurt Schlichter BODYING Conservative Wannabe Whining About Trump's Iran Strikes Is a BEAUT...
Operation Epic Fury Reminds MS NOW’s Chris Hayes of 9/11
ICE SHREDS 'Asinine, Legally Illiterate' Abigail Spanberger for Putting Violent Illegal Ov...

WaPo Spin on SCOTUS Ruling Protecting Minors Is Chock-Full of the Usual 'Journalism'

meme

As we told you earlier, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that upholds the right of states to ban what the Left and much of the media calls "gender-affirming care." 

Advertisement

Our previous story contained the conclusion of the majority opinion, but if you missed that here it is

'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not “to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic” of the law before us, Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 313, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is affirmed. 

It is so ordered.'

The public sentiment over so much of what's going on these days -- whether it's enforcing immigration laws or about the mutilation of minors -- are called "80-20 issues" for very good reason: 

Advertisement

However, the media continue to report these things as if it's a major source of contention within the U.S.

The Washington Post called the SCOTUS ruling a "polarizing national issue":

It is in no way a "polarizing national issue":

Also you'll notice the Trump administration has "seized" again, and the "pouncing" can't be far behind. 

Advertisement

Then there's the "divided" court. Yeah, about that:

It depends on what your definition of "divided" is.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement