Dan Epps

So he says that over and over. This is something that maybe I'd heard him do before, but I never picked up because I didn't listen to them all in kind of close succession. I didn't pick up quite how frequent it is.

I think he's just trying to make sure he understands the argument. I think sometimes it seemed like maybe he was putting a spin on it that wasn't necessarily helpful, but I think it was mostly, it was on balance helpful. Yeah.

I think he's just trying to make sure he understands the argument. I think sometimes it seemed like maybe he was putting a spin on it that wasn't necessarily helpful, but I think it was mostly, it was on balance helpful. Yeah.

If you're the Trump administration, maybe the rational thing to do is just file the brief saying we disagree, we disavow the position we took, but don't try to get the case dismissed. Try to get the case decided on the merits because it looks like, based on the argument, that the decision is going to be what the new administration would want.

If you're the Trump administration, maybe the rational thing to do is just file the brief saying we disagree, we disavow the position we took, but don't try to get the case dismissed. Try to get the case decided on the merits because it looks like, based on the argument, that the decision is going to be what the new administration would want.

I mean, you could. Yeah. I confess to not finding the current administration's position in that very compelling based on existing- Current administration. The Biden administration. Biden administration. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's a very heavy lift to say that this area, the state regulation of medicine is one that should be constitutionalized.

I mean, you could. Yeah. I confess to not finding the current administration's position in that very compelling based on existing- Current administration. The Biden administration. Biden administration. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's a very heavy lift to say that this area, the state regulation of medicine is one that should be constitutionalized.

And I think it depends on this kind of clever rhetorical move of trying to spin these things as just gender classifications when obviously it's deeply related to gender, but I think it's a little bit more complicated than that. And I also tend to think this is an area where

And I think it depends on this kind of clever rhetorical move of trying to spin these things as just gender classifications when obviously it's deeply related to gender, but I think it's a little bit more complicated than that. And I also tend to think this is an area where

by demonstration is kind of like way out in front of where a lot of the country is, including a lot of people on the left, I think are actually kind of deeply skeptical. If you talk to them privately, they're kind of deeply skeptical of, you know, some of the, you know, positions on this kind of medical care for kids and arguably kind of further, you

by demonstration is kind of like way out in front of where a lot of the country is, including a lot of people on the left, I think are actually kind of deeply skeptical. If you talk to them privately, they're kind of deeply skeptical of, you know, some of the, you know, positions on this kind of medical care for kids and arguably kind of further, you

You know, ahead of not exactly where the science is, which I think has been really kind of up for debate and moving kind of quickly. And other European countries have kind of dialed some of this back. So I don't know. I never thought this was kind of a winner of a case for the government.

You know, ahead of not exactly where the science is, which I think has been really kind of up for debate and moving kind of quickly. And other European countries have kind of dialed some of this back. So I don't know. I never thought this was kind of a winner of a case for the government.

Yeah, I think the plaintiffs had won multiple of these cases. So it's obviously not a frivolous argument. Getting this court to endorse it just strikes me as extremely implausible. Yeah. Same. I don't see it. And it strikes me as an issue where if Democrats want there to be real change on this issue, it's going to probably have to come from politics and not from the courts. Okay.

Yeah, I think the plaintiffs had won multiple of these cases. So it's obviously not a frivolous argument. Getting this court to endorse it just strikes me as extremely implausible. Yeah. Same. I don't see it. And it strikes me as an issue where if Democrats want there to be real change on this issue, it's going to probably have to come from politics and not from the courts. Okay.

Maybe some quick discussion of some orders list stuff type stuff. I want to talk a little bit about this case, a case gloss up that we were going to talk about a couple of months ago and never got around to it, but let's just try to maybe this episode will be more focused on odds and ends.

Maybe some quick discussion of some orders list stuff type stuff. I want to talk a little bit about this case, a case gloss up that we were going to talk about a couple of months ago and never got around to it, but let's just try to maybe this episode will be more focused on odds and ends.

So we had a couple, a couple of digs, a couple of cases dismissed as imprevidently granted, which the court doesn't love to do is kind of embarrassing when that happens. And we had two from the same sitting.

So we had a couple, a couple of digs, a couple of cases dismissed as imprevidently granted, which the court doesn't love to do is kind of embarrassing when that happens. And we had two from the same sitting.

And in a world where the court really doesn't grant very many cases to have multiple cases digged, I think is kind of embarrassing.