How in the World Was the Supreme Court’s Awful Conversion Therapy Ruling 8–1?

No. §12–245–224(1)(t)(V) says you can’t do conversion therapy if you’re a licensed therapist. Conversion therapy is trying to change gender identity or sexual orientation and bans the practice with no regard for how it’s done. The plaintiff says she only talks to people about that and since the law doesn’t distinguish the how she is being prevented from speaking because of what she is saying. So she’s saying that the law as applied to her is unconstitutional and she wants an injunction. It reached the Supreme Court on the injunction question and the Supreme Court said the 10th circuit didn’t use the correct standard and they need to go back and apply that standard. Jackson is saying that then strict standard isn’t necessary because it’s a medical treatment and that has less protection than normal speech.

I’m not arguing what the constitution reads. I’m trying to say that the SC ruling in that case was not as simple as you are making it out to be, legally. It was about the mechanism of enforcement.

>shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Biden should have ensured Trump was tried and convicted of insurrection. He didn't. Since there was no legal determination of Trump's insurrection, there was no legal reason to prohibit his candidacy. Otherwise, it would be trivial to block political rivals from running on fabricated charges.

Yeah, the SC said, as far as I am aware, that one state didn’t have the authority to make the determination in a manner that would effect the outcome for the whole United States, especially when there exists a process that could be undertaken to make that determination at the federal level and Merrick Garland slow walked it. 

As others pointed out, legally Trump was never convicted of anything close to “engaging in insurrection.” Unfortunately that means he was not barred from running. I’m not happy about it either but it was the only possible outcome based on the law.

I know, I read the opinions, but I'm still not comfortable pretending like I can speak with authority about legal matters. For that reason, I'm not trying to argue with you about this. Here is a quote from Kagan's [opinion ](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf)that explains why the Colorado law is unconstitutional: >Colorado’s law, as applied to talk therapy, regulates based on viewpoint, for the reasons the Court gives. ... The law forbids a counselor to provide therapy designed to “change \[a minor’s\] sexual orientation or gender identity.”... At the same time, the law specifically allows a counselor to offer therapy expressing “\[a\]cceptance, support,” and other affirmation of the minor’s “identity exploration.” ... So, for example, the law prevents a therapist from saying she can help a minor change his same-sex orientation, but permits her to say that such a goal is impossible and so she will help him accept his gay identity. Colorado does not dispute that point... Nor does it dispute that under normal First Amendment principles, that difference constitutes viewpoint discrimination... Indeed, the case is textbook. The law “distinguishes between two opposed sets of ideas”—the one resisting, the other reflecting, the State’s own view of how to speak with minors about sexual orientation and gender identity. ... Or said just a bit differently, the law draws a line based on the speaker’s “opinion or perspective,” and thus enables “speech on only one side”—the State’s preferred side—of an ideologically charged issue. The Constitution trumps everything else and this SC found that the Colorado law infringes on the 1A. I would typically be skeptical of this court if it had not been an 8-1 decision. Kagan and Sotomayor, two liberal judges, called it a textbook example of [viewpoint discrimination](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/viewpoint-discrimination/). Even though the intent of the law is good, it is violates the Constitution. They need to find a different legal angle. Kagan and Sotomayor seem to think one exist because they hint at it in their opinion, as well: >the Colorado law challenged here, as applied to talk therapy, conflicts with core First Amendment principles because it regulates speech based on viewpoint. ... \[however\] **if Colorado had instead enacted a content-based but viewpoint-neutral law, it would raise a different and more difficult question.**

> So, the innocent are being punished by law enforcement officers now? > I feel like I'm being scammed here... By the police of all people... They're trying to "talk me out of it on the phone." None of this is new behavior by the police in the US. I’m guessing you’re not a member of the communities that they tend to abuse and take advantage of? Which, to be clear, doesn’t make it any unjust or frustrating, but this has been happening for a LONG time.

Did traffic ticket defense for a number of years and that was often the main goal was not to get a hike in insurance.

I'm not talking about malpractice suits. There's *a lot* of state medical regulations that restrict what a medical professional can and can not do while treating a patient that are not malpractice suits. If I think I will be cured by taking LSD and my doctor thinks I'll be cured by taking LSD and wants to give it to me, the state does not allow it. If I think my therapist is really hot, and she thinks I'm really hot, the state will revoke her license if we have sex.