New Episode: Backup Backup Backup Backup Argument
Barbara recaps and Chiles v. Salazar analysis
The new episode of Divided Argument, Backup Backup Backup Backup Argument posted this morning:
We recap and reflect on the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara (the birthright citizenship case) and then analyze the Court's recent decision in Chiles v. Salazar, about the First Amendment limits on Colorado's conversion therapy ban. We also confront the taboo question: Are judicial opinions too long?
Re "medical consensus": Let's just suppose the medical consensus were that electro-shock therapy or lobotomies were the best treatments. A state, wanting its doctors to reflect medical consensus, said doctors can recommend electro-shock therapy or lobotomies, but they can't talk patients out of those treatments or say those treatments are ineffective. Is that okay under Jackson's dissent?
The truth is, science and medicine are rarely settled. Just look at the state of medical science in the 1800s and early 1900s, and you'll see some wild stuff that was accepted by a lot of people. The First Amendment exists largely to allow such debates to play out.
I was listening to the Advisory Opinions podcast released today that covered Chiles. They talked a lot about viewpoint vs. content based discrimination. Can someone explain the difference? For example, is it viewpoint discrimination for a state medical licensing board to say "We don't want doctors advising patients with Covid to drink bleach as a treatment to cure Covid"?