Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire MORE MAGA: TRUMP TRANNY BAN UPHELD.

And soon no more Ginsberg...Too bad they can't reinstate Title Ten restrictions on chicks as well.


LINK

Awesome!

It's a good start.

I don't understand how the court has jurisdiction over the military,given that the president is the Command-in-chief.

Where did the court derive this authority?

It says in the article that Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

I doubt that she was capable of forming an opinion. But here's the 4 justices who dissented.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan

What do 3 of them have in common?

The first step. We need to replace Ruthie as soon as possible and get back to "don't ask, don't tell"

A good illustration of the duplicity of the left is their wanting to prevent mentally ill civilians from owning firearms and at the same time force the military to give them access to implements of war.

Perhaps their goal isn’t really about guns, or trannies, or the military at all.

Next step is to get rid of the females in the combat arms. There isn't too many, but my sources are telling me that it ain't working out too well in the 82nd ABN. Another female got tossed out of Ranger school for getting pregnant. SF selection and Ranger school have been dumbed down to get the women through. A couple of E-7 instructors in SF selection have been threatened with Article 15s for exposing the sillyness in selection. The punishment was halted when it made the "ARMY TIMES".
Bob

Bolshi.

They represent 2-3% of the population but 33% of the supreme court.

Let us also not forget that Kagan and Ginsburg presided over homosexual ceremonies but refused to recuse themselves for the Obergefell v. Hodges case.Kagan is a practicing homosexual.They have no honor or integrity.

Their always the first ones to whine and call for a justice or other official to recuse themselves.

Are you suggesting that the President, as CIC, should have unchecked authority over the military?

That's called a dictatorship, and is more scary than any amount of judicial review.

You're crazy.

You also didn't answer my question.

No and no.

Excellent!

Very well said.

This decision is only temporary and goes back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will allow President Donald Trump to temporarily enforce restrictions on transgender individuals serving in the military.

As is typical of orders of this nature, the Court gave no reason for its decision, though Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan noted their dissent.

The Trump administration first petitioned the Supreme Court to decide directly on the legality of the trans-soldiers ban, after federal trial judges in California, Washington, D.C., and Washington state issued orders prohibiting its enforcement. The plaintiffs in those lawsuits argue the policy violates a range of constitutional rights including the First Amendment, equal protection, and due process.

The government said the Court’s intervention was necessary because the lower court decision “require the military to maintain a policy that, in its own professional judgment, risks undermining readiness, disrupting unit cohesion, and weakening military effectiveness and lethality.”

Subsequent to that request, the Department of Justice filed a second petition proposing an alternative: in the event the Court denied the first request, the justices could allow enforcement of the ban while litigation continues in the lower courts. The Court granted that request Tuesday.

The case will now return to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Should the administration lose before the 9th Circuit, they can return to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling on the legality of its restrictions on transgender soldiers.

Tuesday’s decision is a strong indicator that the government would prevail if the high court has to issue a final ruling in the dispute.

Another district court order from Maryland that was not before the Court prohibits the government from enforcing its restrictions on trans military personnel. Though that order remains in effect for the moment, it will likely terminate in the near future.

The president abruptly announced on Twitter that the military would not permit trans personnel to serve in the military. Thereafter, former Defense Secretary James Mattis convened a panel of military experts to conduct an independent review of the subject. Their findings served as the basis of Mattis’ February 2018 memo which implemented Trump’s request.

That memo provides that individuals with a history of gender dysphoria — a clinical term referring to anxiety triggered by the conflict between one’s biological sex and the gender with which they identify — may enlist provided they are willing to serve in their biological sex and have not suffered gender dysphoria for a continuous three-year period prior to recruitment. Active personnel who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria may continue to serve provided they do so in their biological sex.

Estimates vary as to the number of transgender individuals in the military: some studies place the figure between 1,000 and 6,000, while others suggest there are as many as 8,000.

OutServe-SLDN, a non-profit that provides legal services to LGBT soldiers, promised to continue fighting the administration’s restrictions.

“To our transgender siblings-in-arms, veterans, and hopeful recruits: This battle is not yet over. You will not be left behind or forgotten,” OutServe said in a tweet following Tuesday morning’s decision.

They are immunized against that. Don’t be afraid to name a jew a jew.

sporting,

in a way he did answer your question.

SCOTUS is there to rule on the Constitutionality of actions by the Congress and the Executive branches. Checks and balances, pretty good design so far in our history, perhaps flawed at times, but better than a monarchy/oligarchy, no?

Would it be OK if the CIC didn't like men with black hair, freckles, and blue eyes (an Irishman perhaps) and refused to allow them to serve? The Supremes would likely overrule that command.

Geno

Trannys are gross.

Perhaps you could illustrate your point with a quote from the Constitution.

Please don't cite the Marbury v Madison decision.

It appears to me that the Court has usurped power they were never intended to possess.

Some of you guys, along with all liberals, seem to feel the serving in the Armed Forces is a right.


Service in the Armed Forces is most definitely NOT a right. It is a PRIVILEGE granted only to those few who can meet the very high standards imposed by the services, including those standards of physical condition, education, mental abilities and morals. In addition, they must not have any qualities that would be detrimental to good order and discipline. The services decide on the definition of these standards, for instance a history of asthma , a history of trouble with the law, a history of drug abuse, the lack of a high school diploma and the inability to pass the entrance exams are all disqualifying.

Currently, DOD estimates fully 70% of all age-qualified males in the US are unable to enlist because they cannot meet the other requirements.

It will be interesting to see if the courts can force the services to enlist people who are disqualified.

The President, acting as the Commander-in Chief, can make these decisions and has in the past. For instance, Harry Truman ordered the services to integrate in 1947. Lyndon Johnson ordered the enlistment of Mental Category 4's during the infamous Vietnam era Project 100,000, a decision which almost destroyed the United States Navy and caused no end of problems and anquish among the other services. With this in mind, I dont understand why President Trump's order on Transgender people should be questioned.