Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Directive on Transgender Troops

[skeeter]

The ruling does not compel the military to pay for gender reassignment surgery. 

This is more or less SOP for a lower court addressing a case where the change will impact those currently serving, thereby jeopardizing their careers.  It keeps the status quo in place pending a decision on the merits.   While the judge presumably believes that the plaintiffs have a better than even chance of prevailing, the government's burden - to show that the change in policy is justified for military reasons - shouldn't be impossible to overcome.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/29/military-could-spend-up-84-million-annually-reassignment-treatments/91218672/

[Fantom]

Who in the hell is the Comander in Chief, a duly elected President or an unelected judge?

This one Trump needs to ignore as he will win on appeal.

   President Trump needs to publicly come out and state that He ..as President, is the Constitutional Commander in Chief. That the only powers capable of countermanding his order are SCOTUS and Congress in joint action.  Low level judges have no say.

[Fantom]

The ruling does not compel the military to pay for gender reassignment surgery. 

This is more or less SOP for a lower court addressing a case where the change will impact those currently serving, thereby jeopardizing their careers.  It keeps the status quo in place pending a decision on the merits.   While the judge presumably believes that the plaintiffs have a better than even chance of prevailing, the government's burden - to show that the change in policy is justified for military reasons - shouldn't be impossible to overcome.

The only equal branches of government to the President  are SCOTUS and Congress. It takes both to overrule the other.

As far as the military... the command structure is clear. President Trump should ignore this unConstitutional invasion of a lower court gadfly. Let SCOTUS/Congress correct him if they desire... that is the only  Constitutional way.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The only equal branches of government to the President  are SCOTUS and Congress. It takes both to overrule the other.

As far as the military... the command structure is clear. President Trump should ignore this unConstitutional invasion of a lower court gadfly. Let SCOTUS/Congress correct him if they desire... that is the only  Constitutional way.

Contrary to what you might believe, the branches are NOT equal.  Were never designed to be and will never be.

They instead are independent and co-dependent, with some checks and balances on each other.

By design, the Congress is the most superior to all others as it is the representative of the people and states and can discharge any from the other branches.  Executive is next with the military control and the bureaucracy.

Judicial is a far third, deservedly so.  And I agree, Trump should simply ignore the intrusion that some unelected judge's decision that he knows how to defend this country better than its commander in chief.

[Fantom]

Contrary to what you might believe, the branches are NOT equal.  Were never designed to be and will never be.

They instead are independent and co-dependent, with some checks and balances on each other.

By design, the Congress is the most superior to all others as it is the representative of the people and states and can discharge any from the other branches.  Executive is next with the military control and the bureaucracy.

Judicial is a far third, deservedly so.  And I agree, Trump should simply ignore the intrusion that some unelected judge's decision that he knows how to defend this country better than its commander in chief.

By co-equal, I am speaking of the very same checks and balances you speak of. Yes, Congress is the preeminent power, the Executive is next.. He who rules the roost so's to speak. The Judicial really has no power... unless the Executive ..executes it.

But things do change a bit. The States have no power in Congress since the 17th. So we have to look at the terrain we are currently deployed in.

We have devolved into a black robed oligarchy. Where pissant judges can decide the very foundations on which we live. This is not a good thing.

What is the answer... not one I am willing to say on a public forum.

[Chosen Daughter]

   This is rich.


Roy Moore: Impeach judge blocking transgender military ban

By Olivia Beavers - 10/31/17 11:02 AM EDT 

Alabama Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore is calling for the impeachment of the federal judge who partially blocked President Trump's ban on transgender people serving in the military.

“The decision of a federal judge in the District of Columbia enjoining President Trump’s executive order on transgenderism in the military is absolutely ridiculous and is a perfect example of the outlandish doctrine of judicial supremacy whereby judges exalt themselves over the Constitution they are sworn to uphold," Moore, a former state Supreme Court chief justice, said in a statement on Monday.

<..snip..>

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/357985-roy-moore-impeach-judge-blocking-transgender-military-ban

Roy Moore spot on.  Chance to see him in action.

[Chosen Daughter]

The court has zero jurisdiction over the military.

That is what I was thinking.  I think of transgender people and I think of confused people.  So confused they can't even figure out who they are.  That puts our military men and women in danger.  If you are so confused how are you going to make split second decisions in a war?  Also makes our military look like a joke.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

By co-equal, I am speaking of the very same checks and balances you speak of. Yes, Congress is the preeminent power, the Executive is next.. He who rules the roost so's to speak. The Judicial really has no power... unless the Executive ..executes it.

But things do change a bit. The States have no power in Congress since the 17th. So we have to look at the terrain we are currently deployed in.

We have devolved into a black robed oligarchy. Where pissant judges can decide the very foundations on which we live. This is not a good thing.

What is the answer... not one I am willing to say on a public forum.

all Trump has to do is to disregard the ruling of a judge who has no authority to direct him.

Like a California judge ruling this Texas guy is speeding in North Carolina.  It means nothing.

[Smokin Joe]

Why were these strange, confused people ever allowed in the military ... and why would they even want to be in the military?

I'm with Moore on this but exactly how do we get rid of crazy, overreaching judges?  It's probably not easy.

The judge is ruling outside their jurisdiction and the chain of command. Troops are covered under the UCMJ, a different justice system from the Constitution. The judge is not in the chain of command and cannot overrule the CinC.

I'm with Moore, too. This is egregious judicial overreach. The Military cannot function if civilian judges can pop in and rule on things or issue capricious injunctions. You cannot fight a war that way.

[Fantom]

all Trump has to do is to disregard the ruling of a judge who has no authority to direct him.

Like a California judge ruling this Texas guy is speeding in North Carolina.  It means nothing.

Yep.  Hope he does.

One could even apply... 'Sanctuary State/City" conceptualization to it.

[Fantom]

The judge is ruling outside their jurisdiction and the chain of command. Troops are covered under the UCMJ, a different justice system from the Constitution. The judge is not in the chain of command and cannot overrule the CinC.

I'm with Moore, too. This is egregious judicial overreach. The Military cannot function if civilian judges can pop in and rule on things or issue capricious injunctions. You cannot fight a war that way.

Trump should put the National Guard on that judges doorstep.

[Concerned]

For all who claim that this court doesn't have jurisdiction over this case, does anyone know if the Government made that argument in court?  The below article was linked in the link in the OP and it notes several arguments made by the Government (including questioning the standing of the plaintiffs -- that was rejected by the court), but doesn't identify the jurisdiction of the court itself as an argument made.  I'm not an attorney, but it seems like if the court so obviously doesn't have jurisdiction over this case, the Government would at least argue that so they could appeal the case based on that argument.

https://apnews.com/31fe75346ad147ba9db0396d62aa741d?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

[IsailedawayfromFR]

For all who claim that this court doesn't have jurisdiction over this case, does anyone know if the Government made that argument in court?  The below article was linked in the link in the OP and it notes several arguments made by the Government (including questioning the standing of the plaintiffs -- that was rejected by the court), but doesn't identify the jurisdiction of the court itself as an argument made.  I'm not an attorney, but it seems like if the court so obviously doesn't have jurisdiction over this case, the Government would at least argue that so they could appeal the case based on that argument.

https://apnews.com/31fe75346ad147ba9db0396d62aa741d?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Are you trying to argue that a judge should not be the one to recognize he is ruling outside his authority?

[Concerned]

Are you trying to argue that a judge should not be the one to recognize he is ruling outside his authority?

No.  I'm not trying to argue anything.  I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  I simply asked if anyone knew whether the Government argued that this court didn't have jurisdiction over this case.  It seems to this layman that arguing this in the original case would strengthen their argument during appeal, but again, I'm no attorney.

[Smokin Joe]

For all who claim that this court doesn't have jurisdiction over this case, does anyone know if the Government made that argument in court?  The below article was linked in the link in the OP and it notes several arguments made by the Government (including questioning the standing of the plaintiffs -- that was rejected by the court), but doesn't identify the jurisdiction of the court itself as an argument made.  I'm not an attorney, but it seems like if the court so obviously doesn't have jurisdiction over this case, the Government would at least argue that so they could appeal the case based on that argument.

https://apnews.com/31fe75346ad147ba9db0396d62aa741d?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

IIRC, it was repeatedly ruled no citizen had standing in cases which questioned the provenance of the last occupant at 1600 PA Ave. I am beginning to think the courts populated by a significant proportion of jesters, not judges.

PS, thanks for the clarification, our posts crossed in the aether.

[bigheadfred]

What part of the Constitution, pertains to the military, and to transgender rights (or any other special rights in the military)?

In this, won't it be taken to the next higher court for appeal?

And at some level of court consideration, wouldn't it be right to consider the mission of our military, above social agendas?

And to consider if transgender is mental illness? And whether our military is a social agenda experiment?

And to consider if it is wise to allow the military to house an employ people that are 41% likely to attempt suicide?

This ain't that hard to figure out.

"Okay platoon, this is where we cross"...



"Bobby Sue, you take point"

"Okaaayyy...Sally Joe...you're next..."

[corbe]

   Where the hell you been @bigheadfred I didn't see you in Timeout last week?

[Fishrrman]

Weird wrote:
"Impeaching would do nothing takes two thirds of senate to convict"

Impeach the judge anyway.
It only takes a majority of the House to impeach, and the Pubbies have that majority.
FORCE the judge to stand trial in the Senate, even if there is no conviction.

That in itself should "send a message" to that judge, and to others.

[Bigun]

Weird wrote:
"Impeaching would do nothing takes two thirds of senate to convict"

Impeach the judge anyway.
It only takes a majority of the House to impeach, and the Pubbies have that majority.
FORCE the judge to stand trial in the Senate, even if there is no conviction.

That in itself should "send a message" to that judge, and to others.

Abso f'n loutely!  Do YOUR damed job and don't worry about what might happen later on!

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Weird wrote:
"Impeaching would do nothing takes two thirds of senate to convict"

Impeach the judge anyway.
It only takes a majority of the House to impeach, and the Pubbies have that majority.
FORCE the judge to stand trial in the Senate, even if there is no conviction.

That in itself should "send a message" to that judge, and to others.

It's half past midnight and I Should get some sleep. Now you got me all excited and worked up, just envisioning this Star Chamber Robe standing tall before Congress and repeatedly taking the 5th to every question they ask him.

[Smokin Joe]

Hizzoner's a her.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued her ruling Monday.

Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_Kollar-Kotelly
They're pretty good with the 5th, too.

[Jazzhead]

Contrary to what you might believe, the branches are NOT equal.  Were never designed to be and will never be.

They instead are independent and co-dependent, with some checks and balances on each other.

By design, the Congress is the most superior to all others as it is the representative of the people and states and can discharge any from the other branches.  Executive is next with the military control and the bureaucracy.

Judicial is a far third, deservedly so.  And I agree, Trump should simply ignore the intrusion that some unelected judge's decision that he knows how to defend this country better than its commander in chief.

The courts are "weaker" only in the sense that they rely on the executive for the police power needed to enforce their decisions.    But defiance of the rule of law by the President of the United States is a dangerous thing - it's a fascist kinda thing - and Trump would be nuts to take your advice over something as stupid and trivial as this.   

There is nothing unusual with a lower court blocking enforcement of a rule change that will destroy careers pending a decision on the merits.   If the rule is later deemed illegal,  what effective remedy will there be for good folks arbitrarily turned out of their jobs?   

The military can apparently live with a handful of transgenders in its service,  so what's the harm in keeping the status quo pending the outcome of legal challenges?    This is, of course, a signature issue for social conservatives who enjoy these petty little battles.   I could care less about transgenders.  I've never encountered one in my life, and they represent no potential harm to me or my family.    So my attitude is live and let live.  I have no maniacal compulsion to persecute them as some social conservative do,  and have no objection to letting the legal process unfold while protecting the rights of those who are serving honorably.   

[Smokin Joe]

The courts are "weaker" only in the sense that they rely on the executive for the police power needed to enforce their decisions.    But defiance of the rule of law by the President of the United States is a dangerous thing - it's a fascist kinda thing - and Trump would be nuts to take your advice over something as stupid and trivial as this.   

There is nothing unusual with a lower court blocking enforcement of a rule change that will destroy careers pending a decision on the merits.   If the rule is later deemed illegal,  what effective remedy will there be for good folks arbitrarily turned out of their jobs?   

The military can apparently live with a handful of transgenders in its service,  so what's the harm in keeping the status quo pending the outcome of legal challenges?    This is, of course, a signature issue for social conservatives who enjoy these petty little battles.   I could care less about transgenders.  I've never encountered one in my life, and they represent no potential harm to me or my family.    So my attitude is live and let live.  I have no maniacal compulsion to persecute them as some social conservative do,  and have no objection to letting the legal process unfold while protecting the rights of those who are serving honorably.   

Just curious, but when/where and what branch did you serve in?

 I didn't and am content to let this be resolved within the Military Chain of Command.

Trump is Commander in Chief. The Judge is not in that chain of command. Our military isn't a social club, and even operates under a separate judicial system under the UNMJ, not the same laws the rest of us live under. Within that context the judge has no authority and is ruling outside her effective jurisdiction.

[Jazzhead]

Trump is Commander in Chief. The Judge is not in that chain of command. Our military isn't a social club, and even operates under a separate judicial system under the UNMJ, not the same laws the rest of us live under.

What military rules have these folks broken?    They volunteered to serve, and as far as I know are serving honorably.   The military itself  -  under direction,  I assume, from its then-Commander in Chief - permitted transgenders to come forward and serve as such openly.   Now the rule is proposed to be changed, in a way that would destroy the careers of those who followed the prior rule.   And a court now has stayed the new rule pending adjudication on the merits, in order to preserve, at least for the time being, those careers.

But you still insist on persecuting these folks when they've done absolutely nothing dishonorable or inconsistent with the rules under which they have served?   This purging of transgenders wasn't recommended by military leaders,  it has been ordered by a civilian President - a chickenhawk, no less (since you raise the issue of my own military service) -  kowtowing to a political base of intolerant social conservatives.

I  profess no opinion on the merits of the rule change.  Perhaps there are sound military reasons for banning transgenders as a class from service,  and perhaps the rule should be that civilian courts should generally defer to the considered judgments of military commanders.   But military commanders didn't order or recommend this change - and it is well within the authority of this court to stay the order pending a final decision whether the rule represents military necessity or pandering to a bigoted political base.     

[Smokin Joe]

What military rules have these folks broken?    They volunteered to serve, and as far as I know are serving honorably.   The military itself  -  under direction,  I assume, from its then-Commander in Chief - permitted transgenders to come forward and serve as such openly.   Now the rule is proposed to be changed, in a way that would destroy the careers of those who followed the prior rule.   And a court now has stayed the new rule pending adjudication on the merits, in order to preserve, at least for the time being, those careers.

But you still insist on persecuting these folks when they've done absolutely nothing dishonorable or inconsistent with the rules under which they have served?   This purging of transgenders wasn't recommended by military leaders,  it has been ordered by a civilian President - a chickenhawk, no less (since you raise the issue of my own military service) -  kowtowing to a political base of intolerant social conservatives.

I  profess no opinion on the merits of the rule change.  Perhaps there are sound military reasons for banning transgenders as a class from service,  and perhaps the rule should be that civilian courts should generally defer to the considered judgments of military commanders.   But military commanders didn't order or recommend this change - and it is well within the authority of this court to stay the order pending a final decision whether the rule represents military necessity or pandering to a bigoted political base.   

No, I think the military would be better spending its budget on body armour, ammunition, and weapons than rearranging the genetically determined original equipment of the troops. Rules and requirements change. When the rules changes compromise the mission, the rules should be changed or changed back.

I question the wisdom of having our national security in any way dependent on people who have issues so fundamental as thinking they can change their gender with surgical intervention anyway, and the mission of the Armed Forces is not to absorb the costs to provide people with such reassignment. There are enough people out there who have no such issues who can carry the load. Those surgical resources and skills would be better utilized caring for those who have served and been injured in the line of duty.