http://www.newser.com/story/270284/supreme-court-allows-military-transgender-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 transgender 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—voted to lift national injunctions blocking the ban from taking effect, while Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan voted 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 gender from enlisting, reports the AP. The policy also requires recruits to serve as members of their biological gender, unless they began a transition 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.
A big fat stupid useless win.
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 deviants, its about keeping the military effective.
Blunt, but eloquently stated.
--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 deviants, its about keeping the military effective.
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 deviants, 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.
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 deviants
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.
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 compromised 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.
thom w wrote:
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 compromised 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.
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.
soba1
Loc: Somewhere In So 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 deviants, 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.
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?
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 kill a career. It can for the enlisted folks too but not to the same degree.
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 kill 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.