Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Directive on Transgender Troops

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.   

What's the harm in keeping status quo pending outcome of legal challenges?

What world do you live in when our military is run by a judge?  Do you even read what you are writing?

The military is not some social experiment.  It is there to protect us.  There is no foundation existing in this country for a judge to decide he/she/it knows better on how our military should be run.  It is exclusively an Executive decision.

[Jazzhead]

What's the harm in keeping status quo pending outcome of legal challenges?

What world do you live in when our military is run by a judge?  Do you even read what you are writing?

The military is not some social experiment.  It is there to protect us.  There is no foundation existing in this country for a judge to decide he/she/it knows better on how our military should be run.  It is exclusively an Executive decision.

Military commanders did not request the change.   Does Trump know better than his military commanders how the military should be run?   

[Free Vulcan]

Military commanders did not request the change.   Does Trump know better than his military commanders how the military should be run?   

He is commander in chief. He says, they do. Obama thought he knew better in how the military should be run when he implemented his rule on transgenders, and I don't recall his military commanders having the option to overrule him.

A judge has no jurisdiction over military matters.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Military commanders did not request the change.

How in the hell do you know that?

[Jazzhead]

He is commander in chief. He says, they do. Obama thought he knew better in how the military should be run when he implemented his rule on transgenders, and I don't recall his military commanders having the option to overrule him.

Yes, that is correct.  But the court's ruling wasn't a ruling on the merits.  It was a temporary ruling to keep the status quo in place until there was a ruling on the merits, since good soldiers relied on the prior rule, and changing it now will destroy their careers. 

[Jazzhead]

How in the hell do you know that?

Read the news reports in the wake of Trump's tweet.  (Yes, he signaled the rule change, that threatens to destroy careers, by means of a tweet.)   

[Smokin Joe]

Read the news reports in the wake of Trump's tweet.  (Yes, he signaled the rule change, that threatens to destroy careers, by means of a tweet.)   

Dude, Trump, as POTUS, is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He has the highest rank in the military. Period.

[Free Vulcan]

Yes, that is correct.  But the court's ruling wasn't a ruling on the merits.  It was a temporary ruling to keep the status quo in place until there was a ruling on the merits, since good soldiers relied on the prior rule, and changing it now will destroy their careers.

That's not a legit legal basis for a ruling. The judge has no authority to stay or rule on anything in these matters.

[DiogenesLamp]

Military commanders did not request the change.

They didn't request it when Obama ordered it either.   Obama shoved it down their throats anyway,  with no concern over the damage it would cause to the Military.   

 Does Trump know better than his military commanders how the military should be run?   

They agree with him,   but with the weaponized media,   they see no benefit to them in saying so.   

[skeeter]

That's not a legit legal basis for a ruling. The judge has no authority to stay or rule on anything in these matters.

JH's opinion is another variation on the theme circulating in most progressive heads - judges are the final arbitor in every aspect of our lives and must be obeyed irrespective of the grounds for their rulings.

They cannot afford to allow their vision of the future to be subject to words in an antiquated text or to the caprice and whim of the average America through his elected representative. Judges are their last hope.

[Free Vulcan]

Read the news reports in the wake of Trump's tweet.  (Yes, he signaled the rule change, that threatens to destroy careers, by means of a tweet.)   

How does a tweet merit a court ruling? How do you 'stay' a tweet over something you have no jurisdiction over in the first place?

The military makes decisions that destroys careers all the time, so that's not a legit excuse either. What is obvious is that it's a politcal ruling.

[DiogenesLamp]

Read the news reports in the wake of Trump's tweet.  (Yes, he signaled the rule change, that threatens to destroy careers, by means of a tweet.)   

I absolutely do not care about the "careers"  of transgenders.   They are mentally ill,  and have no place in the military.   They need to be under medical care until their minds can grasp the concept of a "Y"  chromosome. 

[Bigun]

JH's opinion is another variation on the theme circulating in most progressive heads - judges are the final arbitor in every aspect of our lives and must be obeyed irrespective of the grounds for their rulings.

They cannot afford to allow their vision of the future to be subject to words in an antiquated text or to the caprice and whim of the average America through his elected representative. Judges are their last hope.

Yep!  Our founders fought a long and bloody war to free us from a king and then proceeded to establish more kings via the federal courts!  /s

[Jazzhead]

That's not a legit legal basis for a ruling. The judge has no authority to stay or rule on anything in these matters.

Please explain  -  no one to my knowledge is challenging the court's authority over the matter.  What do you know, Wise One, that others do not? 

[Jazzhead]

JH's opinion is another variation on the theme circulating in most progressive heads - judges are the final arbitor in every aspect of our lives and must be obeyed irrespective of the grounds for their rulings.

Bullshit.  The Court's view of the 14th Amendment has always been subject to being overturned by act of Congress or a Constitutional amendment.  The facts are that the expansion of the 14th Amendment's protections to the states has been amplified, extended by the courts for over 70 years with no action taken on the part of Congress.

That's how it works under our Constitution, bub.   It's not your way or the highway - or Roy Moore's, that unfit would-be king.   

[Jazzhead]

I absolutely do not care about the "careers"  of transgenders.   They are mentally ill,  and have no place in the military.   They need to be under medical care until their minds can grasp the concept of a "Y"  chromosome.

You do, however, care about due process and the rule of law?   

[Free Vulcan]

Please explain  -  no one to my knowledge is challenging the court's authority over the matter.  What do you know, Wise One, that others do not?

The courts have no jurisdiction over military matters. It is the plenary power of the President, and they certainly have no jurisdiction over a tweet.

Just because a court says it has jurisdiction, doesn't mean it does. They have no power for example over how Congress does it's internal business, such as assigning members to committees.

Saying so doesn't make it  so.

[skeeter]

Bullshit.  The Court's view of the 14th Amendment has always been subject to being overturned by act of Congress or a Constitutional amendment.  The facts are that the expansion of the 14th Amendment's protections to the states has been amplified, extended by the courts for over 70 years with no action taken on the part of Congress.

That's how it works under our Constitution, bub.   It's not your way or the highway - or Roy Moore's, that unfit would-be king.

Article II, section 2, clause 1. Look it up.

[cato potatoe]

My understanding is these cases are reserved for the military courts, which have their own appellate process.  If the civilian court judge is ruling outside her jurisdiction, then Trump has a duty to ignore her.  Otherwise he sets a terrible precedent. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Bullshit.  The Court's view of the 14th Amendment has always been subject to being overturned by act of Congress or a Constitutional amendment.

Democratic actions which are far harder to obtain than a Liberal Judge just ordering "make it so."   


This is why the left does not resort to the proper democratic process for obtaining their changes to law.   They rely on the dictatorship that the courts have now become.    It's easier,  and less work than getting the public to agree with what you want. 


You want the "easy way"  to get ideas you agree with enacted,  and then you demand we use the "hard way"  to get them thrown back out again.   How about we both use the same process for enacting and removing laws?   You know,  the Democratic one. 

 The facts are that the expansion of the 14th Amendment's protections to the states has been amplified, extended by the courts for over 70 years with no action taken on the part of Congress.

Which proves more that congress is ineffective than it does that these court rulings are legitimate.   Congress has not been able recently to enact a budget or repeal Obamacare,  so the fact that Congress fails to act does not prove anything.   

That's how it works under our Constitution, bub.   It's not your way or the highway - or Roy Moore's, that unfit would-be king.

Opposing tyranny is not tyranny.   

[DiogenesLamp]

You do, however, care about due process and the rule of law?

Yes,  and that's why I am opposed to Judicial overreach and the making up of laws by the Judiciary.   

[Jazzhead]

Dude, Trump, as POTUS, is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He has the highest rank in the military. Period.

He's still not above the law.   Why, if you say you're a conservative, do you want him to be? 

The plaintiffs' complaint is that the rule has no military justification, but rather is a political sop to social conservatives. 

I have no opinion on the merits of the complaint.  I have no dog in this hunt. 

Again - the merits of the plaintiffs' case will be decided in due time.  In the meantime, the ruling that so many are whining about merely keeps the status quo in place pending that decision.   That's because good soldiers relied on the prior rule to reveal themselves as transgenders and continue to honorably serve.   

[Taxcontrol]

I am of the opinion that President Trump needs to establish transgender-ism as a disqualification for security clearance as a NATIONAL security policy.  Further, for the military, this (along with homosexuality) should disqualify the person from being deployed to a country where the Muslim population is >20%. 

[Jazzhead]

I am of the opinion that President Trump needs to establish transgender-ism as a disqualification for security clearance as a NATIONAL security policy.  Further, for the military, this (along with homosexuality) should disqualify the person from being deployed to a country where the Muslim population is >20%.

Why?  I've heard arguments that service by homosexuals/transgenders may damage unit cohesion -  now you're saying they represent a national security threat?   C'mon, let's get real.   

[Emjay]

Why?  I've heard arguments that service by homosexuals/transgenders may damage unit cohesion -  now you're saying they represent a national security threat?   C'mon, let's get real.

Yes, why not get real.  There are certain requirements for people to serve in the military.  Those requirements were established for a good reason.  Military people should be emotionally stable.  They need to be.

Someone confused about his or her own sex is not emotionally stable.