Supreme Court Allows Trump’s ‘Radical Gender Ideology’ Military Ban to Continue While Litigation Continues
BTW, Trump’s executive order does NOT include the word transgender.
The Supreme Court lifted the injunction against President Donald Trump’s order banning “radical gender ideology” from the military while litigation continues.
I stress again: The ban can continue as the case moves through the courts. The Supreme Court didn’t rule or uphold the ban.
The executive order does NOT include the word transgender.
It reiterates that the military has a longstanding strict policy of accepting people with strong mental health, males & females are different, and you have to use the space based on your sex. You use the pronouns based on your biological sex.
Many district judges put injunctions in place to stop the ban from going into effect.
Elizabeth wrote about District of Columbia Judge Ana Reyes, who had an interesting order…she cited the Hamilton musical.
Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the Federal District Court in Tacoma, Washington, issued a nationwide injunction on the ban.
The Trump administration appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to block Settle’s order as it considered the case.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It is a military readiness factor. Judges should keep their hands off. Ana Reyes is an embarrassment and Hamiton is a prime example of cultural appropriation not that progressives care about that really.
Really? Citing a musical as a source in a legal decision? Sounds like that judge shouldn’t have a degree or found it in a Cracker Jack box
So many judges that are embarrassments.
Biden appointment. Lesbian. Born in Uruguay. Went to and I kid you not Transylvania University. Graduated from Harvard Law School. And there is much, much more.
However, Transylvania University is in Kentucky…
Maybe Vlad the Impaler is a long lost relative of McConnell.
The Three Stooges that were the Democrat nominees would deny, of course.
The impediment here for the plaintiffs is the issue of inability to deploy to combat or even to field exercises as training to deploy. Tranny can’t go into those environments while on a limited duty profile from taking a bunch of meds and recovering from surgeries. If you can’t deploy for extended periods you have no place in the armed forces b/c you are unfit for service and service is a privilege not a right.
Heh. A good description of Timmy Walz. When it came time for him to deploy he couldn’t or wouldn’t. It affected his entire unit.
Ztakddot – The efficiency of Walz’s unit probably improved considerably when he didnt show up.
Perhaps. However he was the top enlisted officer (is that the term?) and they had to scramble to fill his spot. It also set a bad tone for everyone else in the unit on the eve of deployment.
Hey, at least he didn’t weasel out with 5 deferments like Trump did.
But unlike you, Trump has an honorary Purple Heart from a snipers bullet.
I need not remind you, or anyone else, the bravery he showed immediately after that incident.
Put that in your F’ing pipe and smoke it, you piece of sh*t.
She prefers to smoke dick, by the barrel
No. What he did was arguably worse, training with a unit within which he became an important part, and then abandoning the unit when it needed him (and his training) most.
Biden was drafted too, and avoided service due to “asthma.” (Maybe it eventually went to his brain?) I didn’t see you criticizing Biden for not serving.
Obama never served either, and he positively dumped on the military.
In fairness, I would not want to share a foxhole with Biden…
in other words Trump did a Bill Clinton, could be like another senator from a north east state that I believe was in the Marine Corp reserve and never went to VietNam.
I had a friend that was drafted into the Marines
Clinton basically convinced his local draft board to give him a defferment so he could go to Oxford and not inhale. After he came back he promised to study law and join a reserve officers training program at the University of Arkansas, but he never did,
Now for Ted Kennedy. I lifted this from military wiki
In June 1951, Kennedy enlisted in the United States Army and signed up for an optional four-year term which was shortened to the minimum two years after his father intervened.[12] Following basic training at Fort Dix in New Jersey, he requested assignment to Fort Holabird in Maryland for Army Intelligence training, but was dropped without explanation after a few weeks.[12] He went to Camp Gordon in Georgia for training in the Military Police Corps.[12] In June 1952, Kennedy was assigned to the honor guard at SHAPE headquarters in Paris, France.[1][12] His father’s political connections ensured that he was not deployed to the ongoing Korean War.[1][16] While stationed in Europe, he traveled extensively on weekends and climbed the Matterhorn in the Pennine Alps.[17] He was discharged after 21 months in March 1953 as a private first class.[
Finally Jimmy Carter. Carter graduated from the US Naval Academy and served honorably on submarines. However, he was of an age where he could have served in WW2 like my father who was drafted. Instead he was at the naval academy from 1943 – 1946,
Ted Kennedy only signed up in the first place because it was that or be expelled from Harvard. The deal was if he signed up his record would be wiped and when he got out he could come back and complete his education as if nothing had happened. So he took the shortest and safest posting he could.
“Hey, at least he didn’t weasel out with 5 deferments like Trump did.”
No, dipstick, he did something worse. Lied about his rank and his awards, and bailed out on his troops right before a combat zone deployment.
You’d know how bad this is, if you had actually served, you Section 8 moron.
IMO Walz demonstrated moral cowardice at minimum when he used an opportunistic campaign as the excuse to abandon the Troops he was responsible for as their CSM. That he did so in a highly unusual manner going outside his chain of command to submit his paperwork which can only have been to hide his actions confirms how despicable his actions were.
The military has the RIGHT to discriminate against people. EVEN PEOPLE WITH IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS.
You DO NOT have a right to military service.
Race is pretty much the only one that they’re explicitly forbidden from ‘discriminating’ against, mainly because it has nothing to do with military readiness.
They can discriminate against people with all manner of from-birth medical and genetic conditions. Asthma, color blindness, eyesight, allergies, missing/deformed limbs, diabetes, heart conditions.
On top of that they can freely discriminate against fat people (and thin, people, incidentally – anorexia and bulimia are no-go).
The idea that they can’t refuse to take lunatics that require extreme amounts of medication and surgery while never being able to deploy to combat, has always been insane.
Short people too. Don’t forget short people.
One of the Tesla arson cases involves a tranny. The defense has cited gender dysphoria as a condition, among other mental health disorders, that merits consideration for leniency in the defendant’s treatment by the court. But it’s not sufficiently serious to prevent service in the military?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/tesla-arson-suspect-released-lawyer-argues-detention-disrupt-sex-change-treatments
the short people does not apply anymore, women sued saying that the height requirement discriminated against women
Tall people too – for certain services.
I was Navy and couldn’t be a submariner. Or a fighter pilot.
Hmmm, you’re correct of course. But should SCOTUS eventually decide there is a right to military service regardless of physical attributes, maybe I can sue because the Navy rejected my NROTC scholarship application in 1976 due to color blindness. Discrimination! Someone call me a waambulance!
Yup. I was not eligible thanks to my vision–no “special allowances” or anything else. Someone else I knew was all set for an ROTC scholarship, but turned out to be color blind; another good friend who was on the USN track developed a nasty skin allergy that would have impeded his ability to serve, so another “no.” There is definitely no “right” to serve in the armed forces.
Olinser, how immutable? Can a soldier buck up and avoid the discharge by putting on a pair of pants?
dems: the commander in chief is not allowed to preach sanity
but lets keep the insanity being taught in our classrooms
The fact that #47 is the Commander-in-Chief should be the beginning and end of any judicial inquiry. He possesses obvious power in that capacity, to set rules for military fitness and admission. End of story.
waiting for the all female or all trans battalion to go front line
Trump is Commander in Chief, and no Judge is so Trump should have ultimate control of the military. There should be no TRANS in the military period as it is a mental health issue.
Since when is the judiciary in charge of the military?
Has any been elected to Lieutenant General?
The military is subject to the law, and it is the judiciary that decides what the law is. Some people have sued the military, as is their right, and the case will be heard. The only question was what would happen in the mean time; various district courts said that until the case before them is resolved the status quo ante should remain in place. The Supreme Court has now said no, the President is presumptively entitled to make this change, unless and until the courts find otherwise. If they find for the plaintiffs, they can be compensated and reinstated, so no harm will have been done.
As they should be doing in every case re Foreign Policy and National Security. The presumption should nearly always be that the President has the power undertake X action especially where there is a statue or history of use in a similar way. Let the Plaintiffs proceed but damn sure insist upon a bond payment v waiving it and once SCOTUS eventually rules then that’s it.
FWIW the ‘military’ is subject to ‘military law’; UCMJ and the basis for every point of military law is to ‘establish and maintain good order and discipline’ within the force. It also has separate Art II Courts including the CT of Military Appeals. Cases move through that to SCOTUS. Which is IMO pretty compelling argument that the Art II immigration CT system should be accepted as entirely valid in its rulings. If immigration CT are not ‘real’ or valid b/c they exist in Art II v.Art III then that also apples to Military Courts.
UCMJ is the military’s internal law. It remains bound by every single statute Congress has made, just like anyone else.
And under all circumstances anyone being held by the military, other than as a prisoner of war, has the absolute right to habeas corpus in an Article 3 court. Alleged POWs also have this right, if they dispute that status; however all the government has to prove is that they are POWs, and if it does then the inquiry stops there.
In addition, all decisions by Article 2 “courts” are appealable to Article 3 courts. Congress can direct such appeals to a specific court, or even to SCOTUS, but there has to be an appeal available. People are entitled to it as of right.
So if they are deemed mentally unfit
then what happens if they “take one for the team”?????
Commander Emily Shilling, a decorated Navy pilot with over 60 combat missions and high-risk work as a test pilot. Lisa Desjardins spoke with Shilling about her legal challenge to Trump’s executive order.
Of course the Supreme Court let the ban continue, because they know how they will rule once it gets to them.
They can’t already know how they will rule. They haven’t heard arguments and may not prejudge the matter. All they did was speculate on the likely outcome.