The Commentary Magazine Podcast Blind (Liberal Supreme Court) Justice
20 snips
Jan 14, 2026 A lively discussion unfolds at the Supreme Court regarding transgenderism in girls' sports, revealing some justices' embarrassing moments. The tension between 1960s civil rights protests and today's activism is explored, highlighting modern tactics and political rhetoric. Ethical concerns over medical interventions for children and the necessity of precise legal definitions of sex are debated. Meanwhile, the panel contrasts American protest responses with the violence seen in Tehran, raising questions about the implications of current activism.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Definition Of Sex Is Central To Law
- The Supreme Court argument exposed a core problem: legal rules need precise definitions like 'sex' to apply equal protection law.
- John Podhoretz and Abe Greenwald highlighted that refusing to define sex would make many laws unworkable and invite antinomian outcomes.
Exceptional Plaintiffs Can Become Broad Precedent
- Christine Rosen argued the cases revealed activists seeking exceptional plaintiffs to normalize male participation in girls' sports.
- She warned that narrow exceptions (e.g., puberty blockers) could become sweeping precedents undermining fairness and safety.
Puberty Blockers Don’t Remove Safety Concerns
- The West Virginia plaintiff who began puberty blockers young drives the safety and fairness debate in sports.
- Christine Rosen emphasized physical risk and competitive imbalance even before male puberty completes.
