Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was slammed on Wednesday after
she compared a Tennessee law banning gender transitions for minors to past
laws banning interracial marriage.

Jackson and the other justices heard over two hours of oral arguments
during the U.S. v. Skrmetti case, which involves the constitutionality of
state laws banning gender transition medical procedures for minors.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that state laws have the
effect of "sex discrimination," since the minor's gender is key when
determining specific medical treatments for those seeking to transition.

After Prelogar's remarks and exchanges with the other justices, Jackson
said that she saw a "parallel" between U.S. v. Skrmetti and the landmark
Loving v. Virginia case in 1967.

"Interesting to me that you mentioned precedent, because some of these
questions about sort of who decides and the concerns and legislative
prerogatives, etc., sound very familiar to me," Jackson said. "They sound
in the same kinds of arguments that were made back in the day�50s,
60s�with respect to racial classifications and inconsistencies. I'm
thinking in particular about Loving v. Virginia, and I'm wondering whether
you thought about the parallels, because I see one as to how this statute
operates and how the anti-miscegenation statutes in Virginia operated."

Jackson also said there was a "potential comparison" between the Loving
case and Skrmetti and wondered if Virginina could have banned interracial
marriage by following Tennessee's reasoning.

Jackson�s comments caused an uproar on social media.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., called Jackson�s statements an embarrassment to
the Supreme Court.

"Yes, because banning a white person from marrying a black person is the
same thing as cutting off a 10-year-old's gen*tals," co-owner of Trending
Politics Collin Rugg said.

"How can someone who doesn't know what a woman is rule on a case involving
gender?" one commentator posted, referring to Jackson's confirmation
hearing when she was asked to define what a woman is and wasn't able to.

"Supreme Court Mad Libs," said Greg Scott, senior vice president of
communications for Alliance Defending Freedom. "We are living in unserious
times," he added.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/supreme-court-justice-sparks-social-media-
fire-storm-her-comments-gender-transitions-minors