Supreme Court Gives Trump Victory on T*********r Ban
Jan 22, 2019 16:47:12 #
http://www.newser.com/story/270284/supreme-court-allows-military-t*********r-ban-for-now.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=uol&utm_campaign=rss_top
The Supreme Court delivered a victory to President Trump on Monday, ruling that his ban on t*********r military troops can go into effect while the issue is argued in lower courts. The court's five conservative justices—John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—v**ed to lift national injunctions blocking the ban from taking effect, while Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan v**ed to keep them in place, reports the Washington Post. Trump put the ban in place in July 2017, citing "tremendous medical costs and disruption" on the military. Opponents immediately challenged the ban in lawsuits.
The court's decision, issued without elaboration, means the Pentagon can bar people who have changed their g****r from enlisting, reports the AP. The policy also requires recruits to serve as members of their biological g****r, unless they began a t***sition under more lenient polices of the Obama administration. The various legal challenges will now play out in the lower courts, and the final decision might ultimately be delivered by the Supreme Court. If so, Tuesday's 5-4 decision bodes well for the White House.
The Supreme Court delivered a victory to President Trump on Monday, ruling that his ban on t*********r military troops can go into effect while the issue is argued in lower courts. The court's five conservative justices—John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—v**ed to lift national injunctions blocking the ban from taking effect, while Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan v**ed to keep them in place, reports the Washington Post. Trump put the ban in place in July 2017, citing "tremendous medical costs and disruption" on the military. Opponents immediately challenged the ban in lawsuits.
The court's decision, issued without elaboration, means the Pentagon can bar people who have changed their g****r from enlisting, reports the AP. The policy also requires recruits to serve as members of their biological g****r, unless they began a t***sition under more lenient polices of the Obama administration. The various legal challenges will now play out in the lower courts, and the final decision might ultimately be delivered by the Supreme Court. If so, Tuesday's 5-4 decision bodes well for the White House.
Jan 22, 2019 16:59:42 #
Jan 22, 2019 17:07:34 #
Kraken wrote:
A big fat stupid useless win. 
Ever been in the military? Probably not. Know why women usually don't fight alongside men? Because it tampers with the unit's effectiveness whether its admitted or not. In that foxhole the woman is somebody's girlfriend, sister, mother or wife. They are not simply another soldier. That is reality.
This isn't about the rights of sexual d*****ts, its about keeping the military effective.
Jan 22, 2019 17:09:19 #
Blunt, but eloquently stated.
--Bob
--Bob
Rose42 wrote:
Ever been in the military? Probably not. Know why women usually don't fight alongside men? Because it tampers with the unit's effectiveness whether its admitted or not. In that foxhole the woman is somebody's girlfriend, sister, mother or wife. They are not simply another soldier. That is reality.
This isn't about the rights of sexual d*****ts, its about keeping the military effective.
This isn't about the rights of sexual d*****ts, its about keeping the military effective.
Jan 22, 2019 17:20:34 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
Rose42 wrote:
Ever been in the military? Probably not. Know why women usually don't fight alongside men? Because it tampers with the unit's effectiveness whether its admitted or not. In that foxhole the woman is somebody's girlfriend, sister, mother or wife. They are not simply another soldier. That is reality.
This isn't about the rights of sexual d*****ts, its about keeping the military effective.
This isn't about the rights of sexual d*****ts, its about keeping the military effective.
Then why didn't these ideas come from the military instead of private bone spurs. Mattis was against the idea. Of course I'm sure you and Trump know a lot more about being in the military than Mattis does.
Jan 22, 2019 17:30:27 #
thom w wrote:
Then why didn't these ideas come from the military instead of private bone spurs. Mattis was against the idea. Of course I'm sure you and Trump know a lot more about being in the military than Mattis does.
I believe Rose would know about sexual d*****ts
Jan 22, 2019 17:31:49 #
thom w wrote:
Then why didn't these ideas come from the military instead of private bone spurs. Mattis was against the idea. Of course I'm sure you and Trump know a lot more about being in the military than Mattis does.
You weren't in the military either were you. Mattis was an officer not a foot soldier. I've seen the dynamics even in a military office environment. You want to compromise effectiveness for a few mentally unstable people? That is ridiculous. If Mattis supports it then shame on him for compromising.
Jan 22, 2019 17:37:11 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
Rose42 wrote:
You weren't in the military either were you. Mattis was an officer not a foot soldier. I've seen the dynamics even in a military office environment. You want to compromise effectiveness for a few mentally unstable people? That is ridiculous. If Mattis supports it then shame on him for compromising.
If you weren't aware that Mattis was against Trumps idea, you aren't very up on the whole thing. You are being judgmental, and you are letting that inform your opinion. There is a reason generals run things, I hope. If he thought it affected performance, do you think he would have supported it? For you to say he c*********d with no evidence other than he made a decision you don't agree with speaks to you being judgmental.
I wasn't in the military and I wouldn't have second guessed Mattis' judgement as you have.
Jan 22, 2019 17:45:50 #
thom w wrote:
If you weren't aware that Mattis was against Trump... (show quote)
I am basing my opinion on firsthand experience and knowing many soldiers and Marines. Also knowing that those who run the day to day matters are the senior enlisted.
Jan 22, 2019 18:37:34 #
Jan 22, 2019 18:40:56 #
But I guess the left wants more of this hooray
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/good-morning-america-promotes-child-d**g-queen
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/good-morning-america-promotes-child-d**g-queen
Jan 22, 2019 21:57:56 #
Rose42 wrote:
Ever been in the military? Probably not. Know why women usually don't fight alongside men? Because it tampers with the unit's effectiveness whether its admitted or not. In that foxhole the woman is somebody's girlfriend, sister, mother or wife. They are not simply another soldier. That is reality.
This isn't about the rights of sexual d*****ts, its about keeping the military effective.
This isn't about the rights of sexual d*****ts, its about keeping the military effective.
Nawww, he's just devastated that he will not be allowed to migrate to the U.S. and join the military now.
Jan 22, 2019 22:43:53 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
Rose42 wrote:
I am basing my opinion on firsthand experience and knowing many soldiers and Marines. Also knowing that those who run the day to day matters are the senior enlisted.
You believe you have first hand experience that Mattis lacks? I had presumed you were female. Did I make a mistake?
Jan 23, 2019 08:53:36 #
thom w wrote:
You believe you have first hand experience that Mattis lacks? I had presumed you were female. Did I make a mistake?
I'm saying Mattis is dead wrong on this. As officers go up the ladder they often become more political to continue to get good reviews. One point off a review can k**l a career. It can for the enlisted folks too but not to the same degree.
Jan 23, 2019 14:46:48 #
Rose42 wrote:
I'm saying Mattis is dead wrong on this. As officers go up the ladder they often become more political to continue to get good reviews. One point off a review can k**l a career. It can for the enlisted folks too but not to the same degree.
You are right on target. I was an enlisted Marine and never had to worry about the political atmosphere but my father in law was a very good and decorated Air Force pilot who never made it past LtCol because he did not play the political games. It would seem that to be that promotions to Col and above are political.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.