Donald Trump remains his own worst enemy when it comes to trying to implement his off-the-cuff whimsical base-pleasing policy shifts. His Muslim travel ban, for example, got into repeated hot water because, while the Justice Dept. tried to claim it wasn’t a Muslim ban, it was hard to argue that the man who proudly tweeted he was going to ban all Muslims from entering the country wasn’t in fact trying to ban Muslims when he imposed the ban on a number of majority-Muslim nations.
So, too, with the military transgender ban, where Trump literally announced his intent on Twitter, notably without any input from the Defense Dept., and then only later coming forward with an actual ban policy, using as a justification reasoning that made no sense based on the Defense Department’s own study of the issue.
In the face of suits filed against the ban, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has issued a preliminary injunction against the ban, based on the reasons above, and noting that government discrimination against an identifiable class of people requires more scrutiny than an impulsive tweet implies. Given the arguments presented, the individuals identified in the suit, and the process that the federal government (Trump) appears to have used, Kollar-Kotelly has indicated it’s likely that the suits will succeed.
Doubtless there will be appeals, but it’s good news nonetheless. A “government of laws, not men,” is a valuable thing, and it’s good to see a court recognize that.
Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Just Died in Court. He Helped Kill It
In her judgment, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote there was ‘no argument or evidence suggesting that being transgender in any way limits one’s ability to contribute to society.’
Now all we need is to ban Trump from the White House! Then we're good!!
A bad day for Drumpf.
If they can't (or won't) refuse entry of transgenders, then every single person the military declined due to some medical it psychological claim has a claim to survive the living hell out of the federal government.
Chew on that fact for a bit folks.
You'd rather have a lieing traitor in office than a man who can run a business?
(Which is exactly what American government is!)
The rule of law had triumphed in this transgender issue. Trump couldn't do anything about it but bow to the court's decision.
+Vince Dunn The distinction, as laid out in the ruling, is that Trump diktat identified an entire class of individuals and barred them from military service without presenting any foundation for doing so, and flying in the face of the Defense Dept.'s previous study of the issue that indicated that there was no basis for such a bar. That sort of discrimination is illegal.
Another point: the US government is not a business, and taking a for-profit, do-as-I-say, bottom-line mentality about it stands counter to its foundational elements, as laid out in the Preamble to the US Constitution.
Ok, you made a point. Unfortunately the courts don't make the rules for the UCMJ.
OR do they now?
Last I knew, even though Obama said that you can be openly gay and still serve, the UCMJ says otherwise.
And no matter what the (crooked) courts say, if they refuse to see that it IS a mental issues that needs to be treated with specialized medications (hello! Just look at the meds the transgenders take before, during and for how long after surgery!!!) Then they have absolutely no case to say that they have any more right to serve than say, a person with asthma, flat feet, or any other cronic health issue.
Or has common Sense completely left my country?
+Vince Dunn The UCMJ does not dictate who is or is not admitted into the military; it applies only to adherence to military regulation while serving. Admission standards are set as federal government policy and law, and are subject to Constitutional considerations.
Thus, even if the UCMJ were amended to read that being a practicing Muslim is against good discipline within the military, it is doubtful that such a provision could stand against Constitutional scrutiny. While the courts tend to defer to the military on how best to practice military stuff, and take military judgment on how best to do things militarily, that deferance is not total. So First Amendment protections are restricted in the military regarding, for example, badmouthing the Commander in Chief because that strikes the heart of military discipline, which is seen as an essential function. But a military dictate that soldiers must allow their superiors to see their ballots prior to voting would not be similarly tolerated.
So actions against or restrictions against certain identifiable groups can be allowed, but are subject to scrutiny by the courts, and require justification more than "Well, we prefer it that way." That's true for gays, that's true for Jews, that's true for Asian-Americans, that's true for transgender folk.
But you assume the courts are "crooked."
' it IS a mental issues that needs to be treated with specialized medications (hello! just look at the meds the transgenders take before, during and for how long after surgery!!!)'
Most transgender individuals take gender-oriented hormonal treatment. That has nothing to do with mental conditions, any more than hormonal birth control medication is about mental conditions.
Also, many transgender individual do not undergo surgery.
'Then they have absolutely no case to say that they have any more right to serve than say, a person with asthma, flat feet, or any other cronic health issue.'
But those hormonal therapies do not interfere with the ability to serve in the military, whether in desk jobs or in active combat, the way that chronic health issues such as flat feet or (cough) bone spurs do. Indeed, people with treatable chronic health issues (e.g., diabetes) are permitted to serve.
Actually, it does.
It keeps them from being deployable. Which is a requirement for all branches of the service, no matter what MOS they are in.
+Vince Dunn Except that the individuals participating in the suit have been deployable and, in fact, have been deployed, with no apparent problem in doing so.