Justice Samuel Alito

Had there been a case, I mean, the medical consensus is usually very reasonable and it's very important, but have there been times when the medical consensus has been politicized, has been taken over by ideology?

Isn't it a fact that it's happened in the past?

Was there a time when many medical professionals thought that certain people should not be permitted to procreate because they had low IQs?

I don't know that, but I will accept the premise.

Was there a time when there were many, many medical professionals who thought that every child born with Down syndrome should be immediately put in an institution?

I don't know that, Your Honor.

Thank you.

All Article III judges are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that I am right and I can do whatever I want. Now, on a multi-member appellate court, that is restrained by one's colleagues. But the trial judge sitting in the trial judge's courtroom is the monarch of that realm.

All Article III judges are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that I am right and I can do whatever I want. Now, on a multi-member appellate court, that is restrained by one's colleagues. But the trial judge sitting in the trial judge's courtroom is the monarch of that realm.

It's true. The court has never held that a foreign government has free speech rights. And if we were to hold that, I would think it would be because speech by a foreign government, particularly one with enormous resources, is not protected, allowing that.

It's true. The court has never held that a foreign government has free speech rights. And if we were to hold that, I would think it would be because speech by a foreign government, particularly one with enormous resources, is not protected, allowing that.

It's true. The court has never held that a foreign government has free speech rights. And if we were to hold that, I would think it would be because speech by a foreign government, particularly one with enormous resources, is not protected, allowing that.

The law here operates in the same way. There, the question of can you marry this other person depended upon what your race was. You could marry the other person if it was the same, consistent with your race. You couldn't if you couldn't. I take your law to be doing basically the same thing. You can get these blockers if doing so is consistent with your sex, but not if it's inconsistent.

The law here operates in the same way. There, the question of can you marry this other person depended upon what your race was. You could marry the other person if it was the same, consistent with your race. You couldn't if you couldn't. I take your law to be doing basically the same thing. You can get these blockers if doing so is consistent with your sex, but not if it's inconsistent.

So how are they different?

So how are they different?