Conversion Therapy and Free Speech

Advisory Opinions

The Dispatch

News, Politics, Government

4.8 • 3.6K Ratings

🗓️ 9 October 2025

⏱️ 63 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Editor’s Note: This episode was previously uploaded with the incorrect audio. We apologize for the error. Sarah Isgur and David French kick off the episode by examining a conversion therapy case before the Supreme Court—one that, surprisingly, few seem to be talking about. Where are the sensational headlines claiming that the rights of LGBT youth are under direct threat, or that religious freedom is on the verge of extinction? The Agenda:—‘Independent as hogs on ice.’—Chiles v. Salazar—Viewpoint discrimination in therapy—Justice Sonia Sotomayor's interesting hypothetical—‘There are multiple failures of IQ tests that have led to this moment.’—Mail bag!—State courts v. federal courts Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you’d like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Advisory Opinions is presented by Pacific Legal Foundation, suing the government since 1973.
0:06.2	Ready?
0:07.9	I was born ready.
0:38.9	Welcome to advisory opinions. I'm Sarah Isgert. That's David French. And we have a great. I think it'll be a really fun episode. We're going to talk about the Supreme Court's argument in Childs v. Salazar. That was the conversion therapy case. We're going to talk also about the National Guard heading to Portland or not, as it turns out.
0:45.7	A judge recently enjoyed that. And finally, Sarah, state courts don't suck. All that and more on advisory opinions.
0:59.0	All right, David, this is going to be like the platonic ideal of an advisory opinions podcast.
1:07.9	We're back in oral argument season. We have expert emails from our listeners.
1:12.7	By the way, if you have not already subscribed to the new SCOTUS blog newsletter,
1:17.9	they just started it a couple weeks ago and already it is morphing into this very fun thing.
1:24.2	So they have now SCOTUS quote. And the quote today was from William Rehnquist in
1:29.5	1976. Now, he's an associate justice in 1976, and he's just joined the court. And here was the quote.
1:38.3	The chief justice presides over a conference, not of eight subordinates, whom he may direct or instruct, but if eight
1:45.0	associates who, like him, have tenure during good behavior and who are as independent as
1:50.6	hogs on ice.
1:54.1	Independent as hogs on ice.
1:56.8	Pretty good, right?
1:57.6	And he's saying that as one of the hogs.
1:59.5	All right.
2:05.2	We had the conversion therapy argument on Tuesday.
2:08.8	And David, are we just getting spoiled?
2:12.4	Are we on like the hedonic treadmill of Supreme Court dockets?
2:19.5	Because all of a sudden, some of these merits docket cases are just feeling dull, predictable.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Dispatch, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of The Dispatch and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.