
JD Vance is right — don't trust the left's 'experts'
The 'experts' holding sway over our public policy have failed America for what may be the last time — and they're not happy about it.
Boundless trust has been placed in the hands of people who have leaned into their biases, ignored rigorous study and scientific inquiry and led trusting Americans straight off cliffs of financial, medical and social ruin.
But in recent years, we've seen again and again that the 'experts' in everything from climate change to COVID are not as adept as they make themselves out to be — and on Wednesday, the Supreme Court expressly rejected expert claims in a landmark case.
Advertisement
In a 6-3 ruling, the court found that Tennessee has the right to ban the barbaric practice of child sex changes, as can 26 other states that have passed similarly sensible restrictions.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurrence to Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion, called out the attorneys who wanted the court to 'defer to the so-called expert consensus' regarding these inhumane procedures.
Advertisement
'There are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here,' Thomas wrote.
'Leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance.'
Indeed, experts in mental health, medical science and LGBTQ advocacy, led by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, peddled non-science-backed lies that medical sex changes for children are both reversible and life-saving, neither of which has turned out to be true.
'This case,' Thomas noted, 'serves as useful reminder that the American people and their representatives are entitled to disagree with those who hold themselves out as experts.'
Advertisement
Yet the left is refusing to accept that their experts can be argued with.
Vice President JD Vance proved that when he launched a Bluesky account to have a 'common sense' conversation on the high court's ruling — only to be first banned, then shouted at by leftists who couldn't deal with the notion of respectful dissent.
'Hello Bluesky,' the veep posted, 'I found Justice Thomas' concurrence on medical care for transgender youth quite illuminating.'
'He argues that many of our so-called 'experts' have used bad arguments and substandard science to push experimental therapies on our youth,' Vance continued. 'Many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids . . . What do you think?'
Advertisement
'I think you're an a–hole, and I think you don't actually give a f–k what actual scientists say about actual research,' responded one unhinged pro-butchery Bluesky user.
'I think you're a disingenuous bigot and I think you lack basic human empathy and anything resembling a soul.'
'There's certainly more scientific evidence to support transgender care than supports your belief in sky fairies,' another responded.
The 'experts' themselves, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, got their panties in a bunch over the court's ruling — which simply upheld the right of states to determine if sex-change drugs and surgeries should be legal for minors within their borders.
'The Supreme Court's decision today does not change the science,' the AAP railed. 'Gender-affirming care remains evidence-based, medically necessary care that improves the health and well-being of transgender youth.'
The group refused to back down from its position that permanently preventing children from growing up healthy and whole is the right thing to do.
And it didn't admit that these kids are doomed to become lifelong medical patients, or that boys given puberty blockers and hormones can never experience normal sexual function, or that the denial of sex-change procedures does not in fact lead to suicide.
These are all facts that attorney Chase Strangio, who argued the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, was forced to admit before the court.
Advertisement
'This is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive,' wept Lambda Legal.
The ACLU, which brings endless cases to defend such offenses as men in women's prisons and males in women's sports, slammed the ruling for telling 'transgender youth and their families that they cannot access healthcare that is vitally important for a successful life.'
Talk about cope.
Advertisement
Thomas and Vance are right: Too much power and trust has been given to people who claim to have expertise, but are really just making things up as they go along.
The left refuses to realize its own folly, which has cost the health of thousands of American children in service to lies.
With 'experts' like theirs, we're all better off relying on people who lean into common sense and decency.
Libby Emmons is the editor-in-chief at the Post Millennial.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
15 minutes ago
- New York Post
Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.' He's not alone. The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language? Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people? Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that. And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely. Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender. Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker. Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979? Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse? It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.' Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own? If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime. The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon. Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless. The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business. Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing. They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills. 'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.' 'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.' Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right. The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later. It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s. Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome. For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic. Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well. None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world. People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq. Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime. Many would not. The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses. There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity. If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West. It may go south. It may not. I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you. Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.

USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump signs executive order delaying ban on TikTok
Trump signs executive order delaying ban on TikTok - again The 90-day extension marks the third time that Trump has delayed a TikTok sell-or-ban law from going into effect after it it was passed by Congress. Show Caption Hide Caption Tiktok stays as President Donald Trump extends deadline for ban President Donald Trump signed an executive order extending the deadline to ban Tiktok. WASHINGTON − President Donald Trump has again extended the deadline for a TikTok ban to go into effect, allowing the Chinese-owned social platform to continue operating for the 90 days. Trump said earlier in the week that he planned to give TikTok a third extension and signed an executive order on June 19 making it official. It was the third time that Trump authorized a delay. TikTok and Tariffs: Trump postpones TikTok deadline as talks continue to sell social media giant The popular social media app's parent company, ByteDance, now has until Sept. 17 to secure a deal that satisfies a legal requirement. Lawmakers ordered TikTok to divest from its Chinese ownership or face a ban in the United States over national security concerns. Former President Joe Biden signed the bipartisan legislation into law. And the Supreme Court held the ban. But since returning to office, Trump has directed the Department of Justice not to enforce it. His executive orders have kept the app from going dark. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration's lawyers "strongly believe" the president has the legal authority to delay enforcement. "The political reasoning for this, of course, is because the president made a promise to keep TikTok on," she said. "He also wants to protect American's data and privacy concerns on this app, and he believes we can do both things at the same time. So he's making an extension so we can get this deal done." Trump ordered Vice President JD Vance and his then-national security adviser, Mike Waltz, to help facilitate a deal that would prevent user data from being accessed by the Chinese government. U.S. officials said they were on the verge of reaching an agreement in April but hit stumbling blocks when Trump ratcheted up tariffs on China. Is TikTok getting banned? Trump says he'll 'probably' extend deadline again Trade relations between the two nations have improved since then but a TikTok deal remains on ice. It was not clear if TikTok came up when Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump spoke by phone for the first time on June 5. "We probably have to get China approval. I think we'll get it," Trump told reporters on June 17. "I think President Xi will ultimately approve it." TikTok has 135 million users in the United States, most of them young Americans, who Trump has said he does not believe are at risk from being spied on. "If China is going to get information about young kids, I don't know. To be honest with you, I think we have bigger problems than that," he told reporters. China denies that it interferes in the affairs of private businesses. Its embassy spokesman in Washington said in a June 19 statement that Trump has not changed its position on the United States ban. In response to a request, Liu Pengyu reiterated that the nation would "handle relevant matters in accordance with Chinese laws and regulations" and said the United States "should provide an open, fair, just, and non-discriminatory business environment." Contributing: Joey Garrison


Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Lawyer who once defended drug kingpin ‘El Chapo' questions critics of her judicial victory
CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (AP) — Of the roughly 2,600 judges elected for the first time by Mexicans earlier this month, Silvia Delgado García received more attention than almost any other because she once helped represent drug kingpin Joaquín 'El Chapo' Guzmán. That single client in a nearly two decade career as a criminal defense attorney in Ciudad Juarez, across the border from El Paso, Texas, made Delgado standout in the historic June 1 election, name recognition that may have helped her victory formally certified Thursday. Delgado won a spot as a criminal court judge in Ciudad Juarez in the June 1 election. At Thursday's ceremony, Delgado smiled, got emotional and received hugs. Speaking to reporters later, she said it was time for her defense work to stop being described as a 'tie' to the drug lord. She was just doing her job, she said. 'The only thing that we do is a job,' she said. 'The decision to enter in this electoral process was very simple: I wanted to strengthen my career helping the community. I've helped so many here, helping defend.' In 2016, Delgado García was a member of Sinaloa cartel leader Guzmán's legal team when he was temporarily held in a prison in Ciudad Juarez before being extradited to the United States. He was eventually tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison in the U.S. Some critics of electing judges, and a human rights litigation group called Defensorxs, had labeled Delgado García 'high risk' before the vote, because 'she defends alleged drug traffickers.' Hailed as a way to make corrupt judges accountable to the people and clean up Mexico's judiciary by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the historic elections that covered more than 2,600 positions ranging up to the country's Supreme Court, drew only a paltry 13% voter participation. Critics feared it would politicize the judiciary and offer organized crime an easier path to influencing judicial decisions. Mexico's governing Morena party was poised to gain control of the Supreme Court as a majority of the winners had strong ties to the party or were aligned ideologically. On Thursday, Delgado noted that she had been called out for petitioning the court that Guzmán be given a blanket in prison. 'Is it bad that if a person is not accustomed to the cold that he have a blanket?' she asked. 'I have been in the eye of the hurricane for that reason.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .