Something I read here: http://www.lpsg.org/2673677-post2345.html got me to thinking. What if, a lawyer, or group of lawyers managed a class action law suit against the medical industry due to the unlawful intrusion upon the body of males at birth by senseless, needless circumcisions? Clearly, if this is done, there will likely be appeals and more appeals and it may well wend its way up the ladder and then the steps of The Supreme Court. Now, given the current roster of Judges, I wonder how would they rule? I am aware that the Judges are supposed to make their decisions based entirely on law; however, we know from the past, they often bring personal experience into it. So, let us look at our current men and women on the bench. John Roberts- born in 1955 Buffalo New York has a look which says, I'm clean because I was cut, hard call, his fellow Bufflalonian, Tim Russert was not cut. He has two adopted children which may be coincidence or may speak to an inability to perform sexually. Vote=Unknown Antonin Scalia- I am fairly certain he is is uncircumcised born in Trenton 1931, Catholic, he has a look that says, NO to circumcision. Vote=No to parents having the right to circumcising their son. Ruth Bader Ginsberg- being Jewish, she may be tired of seeing her people being subjected to this. She is fair minded, and will see the senselessness of cutting, her personal experience will be the realization that the Jewish Circs have become more severe over the years, which makes her mad. Vote=No to circumcising. Samuel Alito- born 1950 and in Trenton same as Scalia and Catholic same as Scalia, he has seen both sides; sees men are happy when left intact. Vote=No to circumcising. Stephen Breyer- Jewish, filled with happy memories of childhood, he smiles and says it's not a problem and people need to grow up. Besides, he's Jewish and got no choice so why should other boys get a choice? Vote=Yes, it's okay for parents to make this decision. Anthony Kennedy- Catholic born b 1936 Sacramento. From a mixed background growing up when cuts were becoming more common, he always felt it was inconsistant with the freedom the country was supposed to have. Vote=No to parents having the right to circumcise the son at birth. Sonia Sotomayor- born 1954 Bronx, Hispanic roots say no to the cut; she really doesn't care and has heard the President was cut and he gave her her job so she decides to vote=Yes. John Paul Stevens= born in 1920 he has the smug look which says I still have my skin suckers. Vote=Yes. (he is also sadistic, elderly and no longer thinking clearly) Clarence Thomas- born in 1938 Georgia at a time when being poor, in the south and black meant no cutting. Being a weirdo he may have gotten cut to blend in and now thinks all men should. Maybe Anita Hill can proviide an answer. In the end, vote=No to the parents having the right. 5 will vote that the parents are in violation of the rights of the child, 3 will vote it doesn't violate, and Roberts remains an unknown at this time. )the Roberts vote doesn't matter, since the majority is for ending the RIC) In the end, parents will be forbidden, legally, to have their son circumcised and the doctors will need to generate their golf course and yacht money another way.