Judge rules transgender people are protected, keeps hold on troop ban

[AvgGuyIA]

Well, so long as they are following the same rules as everyone else and not asking for any special treatment, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to join the military, as long as they pass the psychological/physical requirements.

Transgenders automatically fail the psychological requirement. trump should ignore the judge. Unelected Judges should never overrule the decisions of a president. They can't overrule the Congress and how it performs its duties. Show me where it says a judge can act like the President and Congress all rolled into one?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The SCOTUS erred in permitting them. Eventually a case will arise to cause the Court to revisit the decision

Just as soon Ginzburg dies and is replaced by another Trump Judge.

 

[BULLDOG]

The SCOTUS erred in permitting them. Eventually a case will arise to cause the Court to revisit the decision

Just as soon Ginzburg dies and is replaced by another Trump Judge.

Pretty sure any future Supreme Court Justices won't be approved any where near as quickly as the last one.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The SCOTUS erred in permitting them. Eventually a case will arise to cause the Court to revisit the decision

Just as soon Ginzburg dies and is replaced by another Trump Judge.

Pretty sure any future Supreme Court Justices won't be approved any where near as quickly as the last one.

Why not?

 

[BULLDOG]

The SCOTUS erred in permitting them. Eventually a case will arise to cause the Court to revisit the decision

Just as soon Ginzburg dies and is replaced by another Trump Judge.

Pretty sure any future Supreme Court Justices won't be approved any where near as quickly as the last one.

Why not?

Payback is hell.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Trangenders fail the sanity requirement to enlist.
Transgenders invade the privacy rights of soldiers.
Putting a man in the women's barracks is really dumb.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The SCOTUS erred in permitting them. Eventually a case will arise to cause the Court to revisit the decision

Just as soon Ginzburg dies and is replaced by another Trump Judge.

Pretty sure any future Supreme Court Justices won't be approved any where near as quickly as the last one.

Why not?

Payback is hell.

Nuclear option. Boom. Done.

And yes, it will be applied.

 

[Lysistrata]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Since when? the concept covers everyone and his or her immutable characteristics. Doesn't everyone have a biological sex, age, race, ethnic background, and although it is just now being recognized, a sexual orientation. The only covered characteristic that one is not born with is religion, which is chosen and changeable at will.

14th Amendment, Sec. 1. Arbitrary designation of a "protected class" elevates the status of members of that designated class above that of non-members.

The SCOTUS erred in permitting them. Eventually a case will arise to cause the Court to revisit the decision.

Which of the characteristics I listed above don't you have? The "designated" classes are those I listed. There is no such thing as a "non-member" in general. When you file your discrimination charge with the EEOC or a state agency or file a lawsuit, you designate the type of of discrimination that you are alleging, i.e., " on the basis of sex," Example, if you are alleging that your nasty female bosses denied you a promotion because you are a guy, you would put "male." This is one of the first questions on the EEOC intake form. It is only in the legal analysis of your complaint, prior to a finding on your case, that the concept of a "non-member" is introduced, and that is only for the purpose of introducing evidence that compares how you were treated with how female employees were treated in similar circumstances.

I worked in the areas of employment, labor, and discrimination law for over 20 years. I've seen hundreds, if not thousands of cases, and even wrote synopses of them for publication in legal journals. Your assertions are inaccurate.

See 42 U.S.C. 2000-e

And this explanation only covers the employment side.

Of course, if a specific group of people is being targeted on the basis of a common characteristic that doesn't fit into one of the characteristics mentioned, or doesn't involve employment, group members can still file a direct claim under the Fourteenth Amendment for denial of equal protection of the laws or denial of due process.

 

[JoeMoma]

Having said that though, I do think these are people (transgenders) who are not very stable to begin with.

I knew a guy who was an officer in the Illinois National Guard, who calls himself :"Jennifer" today. He rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel and his (very wealthy) family funded a military museum in Chicago.

Personally, I didn't like him, but he did the job he was supposed to do.

When did he become “Jennifer”, before or after he rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Well, so long as they are following the same rules as everyone else and not asking for any special treatment, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to join the military, as long as they pass the psychological/physical requirements.

Considering the fact that they are willing to experience all that comes with the territory, I second this.

God bless you and our troops always!!!

Holly

P.S. And hey, if they don't make it back alive, they are just how ever many less transgender people to deal with for those of you who resent them enough.

 

[JoeMoma]

Well, so long as they are following the same rules as everyone else and not asking for any special treatment, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to join the military, as long as they pass the psychological/physical requirements.

Considering the fact that they are willing to experience all that comes with the territory, I second this.

God bless you and our troops always!!!

Holly

P.S. And hey, if they don't make it back alive, they are just how ever many less transgender people to deal with for those of you who resent them enough.

I don’t resent transgendered people, I just think they are nuts!

 

[Manonthestreet]

How can you be an effective soldier when you are constantly in the hospital or off getting your body mangled?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Since when? the concept covers everyone and his or her immutable characteristics. Doesn't everyone have a biological sex, age, race, ethnic background, and although it is just now being recognized, a sexual orientation. The only covered characteristic that one is not born with is religion, which is chosen and changeable at will.

14th Amendment, Sec. 1. Arbitrary designation of a "protected class" elevates the status of members of that designated class above that of non-members.

The SCOTUS erred in permitting them. Eventually a case will arise to cause the Court to revisit the decision.

Which of the characteristics I listed above don't you have? The "designated" classes are those I listed. There is no such thing as a "non-member" in general.

I am an American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage. Definitely NOT a protected class.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Agreed.

It's a good example of the madness of LIbEralism, that purports to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, by specifically defining certain groups as being more equal than others. It's the same madness that purports to uphold the First Amendment's protections of free speech and freedom of religion by demanding that expressions of religious faith and beliefs be suppressed and censored in certain contexts.

LIbEralism truly is a mental disease. It's no wonder that they identify and sympathize with those who are so f•••ed-up in the head that they don't even know the difference between men and women, and are confused as to which they are.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Well, so long as they are following the same rules as everyone else and not asking for any special treatment, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to join the military, as long as they pass the psychological/physical requirements.

To not know the difference between men and women ought to be seen as prima facie proof that one is seriously messed up, mentally and morally, and on that basis, unfit for service in the military.

That aside, once one of these freaks has “transitioned”, h'orsh'/it requires, for the rest of h'orsh'/it's life, medications and treatments to maintain that “transitioned” state. More mundane medical issues, requiring similar or less levels of medical maintenance, disqualify one from joining the military. Why should an exception be made for this condition?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You can by law force association in the military, but you cannot force attachment. Bigotry or not, that sentiment won't change.

We should stop even giving any credence to the notion that this has anything to do with bigotry. It does not even approach any rational meaning of bigotry to recognize basic, immutable biological facts, and to be disturbed by those who deny such facts and demand that others deny them as well.

By crying “bigotry” over such nonsense, those on the left wrong have rendered it and related terms meaningless, and made it nearly impossible to credibly call out genuine bigotry when it may appear.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is perfectly normal and healthy for an individual who in good faith and good conscience believes that who he is as a person – his feelings, thoughts, and self-perception – is inconsistent with his birth gender, and seeks express himself in accordance with the gender he identifies and is comfortable with.

A person who, “in good faith and good conscience believes” something that is very obviously, provably false, in the face of overwhelming and undeniable proof that it is false, is insane. That is pretty much the definition of what mental illness is.

 

[Lysistrata]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Since when? the concept covers everyone and his or her immutable characteristics. Doesn't everyone have a biological sex, age, race, ethnic background, and although it is just now being recognized, a sexual orientation. The only covered characteristic that one is not born with is religion, which is chosen and changeable at will.

14th Amendment, Sec. 1. Arbitrary designation of a "protected class" elevates the status of members of that designated class above that of non-members.

The SCOTUS erred in permitting them. Eventually a case will arise to cause the Court to revisit the decision.

Which of the characteristics I listed above don't you have? The "designated" classes are those I listed. There is no such thing as a "non-member" in general.

I am an American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage. Definitely NOT a protected class.

You are protected as to every characteristic you mentioned, except for being heterosexual, as sexual orientation has not been added to federal law, so a suit for discrimination on that basis would depend on the state law in your state. You can base a discrimination claim on one characteristic or on any other combination of characteristics in your description of yourself. I think your mistake is in thinking of "a" protected class. You are a member of several.

Unfortunately, in some circles these days, there is a tendency to blame "discrimination" any time somebody doesn't get what s/he wants. Remember that there is an order of proof that must be met to prove that unlawful discrimination was the actual motivation of the accused. Example: the fact that a single woman of Asian heritage got the job you wanted doesn't prove that discrimination played a part in the hiring decision. She may simply have superior qualifications and did better on the test and the interview.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They used that to try preventing blacks from being integrated into the military. Didn't work out too well for them.

Do you not realize how racist that comparison reveals you to be? What you are implying is that being black is comparable to being so severely mentally-defective as to not know the difference between men and women.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Referring to transgender Americans as not being healthy or normal…is a manifestation of bigotry…

No, it is not bigotry. It is recognition of basic, undeniable, biological facts; and of giving higher credence to hard science than to the delusions of those who are mentally-diseased.