Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/01/22/supreme-court-allows-military.html
…
6 Likes
You’re still not forgiven for supporting Trump, Caitlyn Jenner.
37 Likes
Thanks goodness. I’d hate to think that people who wanted to serve their country while I sit at home on my fat ass might not have the proper bits in their pants for me to feel comfortable about them putting themselves in harm’s way for our country’s benefit.
Rest easy, America, the GOP is on the job.
51 Likes
Goddammit.
8 Likes
Denying Americans to defend Americans is just outright wrong.
17 Likes
And all the more despicable coming from a man who did everything in his power to avoid military service himself.
35 Likes
RET USAR here…don’t. Don’t go there. This thread should not be an argument about what our military does (good or bad)…but about the absolute WRONGNESS of POTUS or the Supreme Court trying to decide who the military will accept within its ranks.
At last check, the Pentagon has stated they are against banning anyone willing and able to serve.
39 Likes
The split was partisan: John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh pemitted the restrictions to go into effect, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in the minority.
Not surprised at all. Kinda wish Kavanaugh had suffered an alcoholism-related aneurysm in the brain before his appointment.
25 Likes
I rather wish that Kavanaugh and Thomas would both receive a #MeToo related comeuppance culminating in their disbarment, expulsion, and personal ruin.
26 Likes
The list of names of who went which way was a little superfluous, wasn’t it? Given that it was 5-4 in favour of of the ban, everyone knew which 5 and which 4. If it had been 5-4 the other way I’d still know which 5 and which 4. If it had been 7-2 then I would have needed someone to tell me what happened.
Not so much a criticism of the post, more a criticism of some of the hacks on the US Supreme Court.
34 Likes
I wonder what justification was given? The Supreme court isn’t really allowed to say “because I said so” (except Bush v Gore.) My understanding was that it was incumbent on the President to show trans people were actually harming the military in a concrete, quantifiable way. The Pentagon already tried, and came to the conclusion there was no justification for the ban.
8 Likes
Three things:
-
I’m not sure they need to even make an argument about the harm, only make the argument that trans rights are not protected by statute or the constitution. The whole thing might be moot.
-
If they need to argue that having trans people serve makes the military less ready the conservatives on the court would likely say they are there to assess the law, not the policy analysis, and so they might accept the argument at face value.
-
If they need to assess whether the policy is discriminatory they would probably go with, “We can’t know what is in president Trump’s heart” rather than look at adverse outcomes.
14 Likes
Completely absolutely pointless ban that has no purpose but to hurt people.
26 Likes
They unblocked the stays, but required the Trump admin to go through the entire appeals process instead of jumping it straight up to SCotUS and didn’t rule on the merits. Not great, but there’s no ruling other than they decided a stay wasn’t warranted here.
That said, the ruling does imply if it gets to SCotUS, the 5-4 conservative majority will uphold the Trump discrimination as Constitutional.
11 Likes
possibly. Don’t forget that when it goes through the full run…the Pentagon will be allowed to weigh in and when their legal stance is shown to be “There is no harmful or detrimental side effect of transgender personnel serving…we want anyone willing and able” that may switch those votes.
10 Likes
This is shamefully fucked up.
20 Likes
18 Likes
The traitor will never be forgiven.
2 Likes
In reading about the ban, I came across a fun fact. In the civil war about 400 women dressed up as men to serve in the military. That doesn’t mean they were trans, of course (though I’d wager a disproportionate number were). But people defying the rules to serve in the military is a very old tradition.
I think something that doesn’t get enough attention is how this is poisoning the trust between the military and the government much more broadly. Transgender people were banned in the military until June of 2016. To remove the ban, have people come forward as trans, and then reinstate the ban feels like it the whole thing was a ruse to trap people. Trans people serve at a disproportionate high rate (apparently) and comprise maybe 1 in 125 people in service. Since each of them will have had friends and respected co-workers, this action is going to leave a sizable chunk of the military feeling betrayed.
24 Likes
My semi-informed recollection is that the current Constitutional opinion is that the ONLY thing that can unseat a justice (other than retirement or death) is impeachment. Which, unfortunately, seems unlikely.
1 Like
