Althouse: "The Supreme Court on Tuesday revived the Trump administration’s policy of barring most transgender people from serving in the military."

January 22, 2019

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday revived the Trump administration’s policy of barring most transgender people from serving in the military."

"In a brief, unsigned order, the justices temporarily allowed the ban to go into effect while the case moves forward. The vote was 5 to 4. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. The policy, announced on Twitter by President Trump and refined by the defense secretary at the time, Jim Mattis, generally prohibits people identifying with a gender different from their biological sex from military service. It makes exceptions for several hundred transgender people already serving openly and for those willing to serve 'in their biological sex.'"

The NYT reports.

56 comments:

Yancey Ward said...: It is a rational regulation.; 1/22/19, 10:49 AM
Achilles said...: The enemies of our military have many faces.; 1/22/19, 10:51 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: Historically speaking, in 1944, we stormed the beaches of Normandy to liberate Europe from the clutches of the Third Reich, but I guess because no gays or trannies were allowed, it was not a legitimate exercise.....; 1/22/19, 10:56 AM
MikeR said...: Wait, Stephen Breyer is still on SCOTUS? What's with that - when is he retiring?; 1/22/19, 10:57 AM
Kevin said...: Now if they can only get around to clarifying Trump's power over DACA...

I guess they're still waiting for those neither red nor blue judges to research the limits of Executive Authority.; 1/22/19, 10:58 AM
Kevin said...: Was Ginsberg steamed?; 1/22/19, 10:59 AM
Gunner said...: If our military will collapse without a couple dozen computer weirdos, then we pretty much deserve to be conquered by someone else.; 1/22/19, 10:59 AM
Big Mike said...: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

I imagine we will be seeing that sentence a lot until Ginsburg departs the Court. Makes me feel good.; 1/22/19, 11:03 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Are any of the justices in a coma?

If so, then how did that justice vote on this issue?; 1/22/19, 11:05 AM
Kevin said...: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

Nevertheless, they dissented.; 1/22/19, 11:05 AM
Humperdink said...: "Was Ginsberg steamed?"

Nope, pickled.; 1/22/19, 11:06 AM
rcocean said...: We dodged a bullet when Trump got elected. I thought Breyer and Kagan would be somewhat reasonable, but the last few decisions have shown they're just as left-wing loony and "Untethered to the Constitution" as Ginsberg and the Wise Latina.

The damage that would've been inflicted on the USA if Hillary had put the 5th Lefty on the Court would've been unimaginable. No doubt they would've declared every immigration law or restriction "Unconstitutional" to the cheers of the Bush Family and the Democrat Party.; 1/22/19, 11:06 AM
Humperdink said...: I would like to extend a hearty thank you to the Vladiator for swinging the election to Trump (sarc).; 1/22/19, 11:07 AM
rcocean said...: Scalia foresaw all this nonsense back in the 1990's. What right does a judge have to tell the Commander-in-Chief how to run the military? Where is that in the constitution?

And when did being Trans-gendered become a "protected class"? Did congress pass a law, or is this another 'Invisible ink" constitutional right?; 1/22/19, 11:09 AM
Gospace said...: That it wasn't 9-0 indicates the 4 dissenting voices weren't voting based on the Constitution or concern for military readiness, efficiency, and discipline. A UCMJ Article 134 in the civilian world would be unconstitutional as h---. In the military justice system, it's rational and allowed. The military doesn't hire the handicapped. Doesn't make reasonable accommodation for the disabled. And, IMHO, along with that of a lot of other people- shouldn't be putting women in combat units or on ships. Proof that it detrimental to operational readiness continues to pile up.; 1/22/19, 11:09 AM
rcocean said...: BTW, I thought Ginsberg was dead. Looks like Savage and Fox News were wrong.; 1/22/19, 11:10 AM
narciso said...: Well probably more like captain pike.; 1/22/19, 11:12 AM
Chuck said...: Open question; would this have gone the other way with a Kennedy “personal dignity” ruling if he were still on the Court?; 1/22/19, 11:13 AM
rcocean said...: Thomas made a good point that these District Judges issuing Nation-wide injunctions against the President and Federal Government only started in 1962, and were relatively few and far between for the next 40 years.

Thomas said the SCOTUS needs to address the issue. Lets see if Roberts addresses the issue or is another Bush left-wing sleeper agent.; 1/22/19, 11:13 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented

They're not even pretending to be judges anymore. They are super, duper, unelected Senators, who want certain policy prescriptions, but never seem to want to win a campaign to enact them.; 1/22/19, 11:14 AM
rcocean said...: Yeah Chuck, and if we'd followed the Never Trumpers advice and let Hillary win, we wouldn't have to ask how Kennedy voted on anything.

There'd be a solid 5 Left-wing votes on every issue. "Conservative" Never-Trumpers would be delirious and the court moved the USA Leftward at light speed.

Seriously, why does ANY social conservative care what Mitt Romney, George Bush, and all the Fakecons at National review say?; 1/22/19, 11:17 AM
gspencer said...: When originalists dream,

With Kavanagh now in place we now have a Firm Five (though Roberts is a little iffy here and there, IMO). Ruth the Buzz, who delusionally thinks she’s in charge of the length of her life span, may suffer a snip of the Abhorred Shears of Atropos sooner than she thinks, with DJT naming her replacement (yes, the Senate will remain GOP). Breyer, longing to spend his final days eating Breyers® Ice Cream with his grandkids and realizing that he will now be facing a Solid Six, responds to the loss of the Buzz, by crying, “What’s the use; I can no longer effectively legislate on behalf of the Democrat Party from the bench,” and resigns. The Don goes into action, and the Solid Six becomes the Solid Seven.

Thomas, Alito, and Trump could execute a strategy here. In late-2022 or mid-2023, Thomas & Alito, each of whom will by then be in his mid-70s, come to DJT (yes, there will be a second term), announce their plans to retire, thereby giving the Don time to line up their respective replacements. Thomas & Alito condition their retirements on the Don’s promise, channeling M. Corleone, to “settle all family business” and to replace them with people in the mold of Scalia, with each nominee to be in his/her mid-40s. In time Roberts does the same, though he’ll be coming to President Mike Pence. An originalist bloc remains in place for decades creating solid originalist precedents.; 1/22/19, 11:23 AM
walter said...: So RBG will be animated in a lego movie and a documentary on her is nommed for an Oscar.
Meanwhile, the back soon status has no updates.
Is she voting via "facilitated communication"?; 1/22/19, 11:38 AM
cacimbo said...: I thought you are automatically turnout down for military service if you require any medication. If you are trans you take meds - doesn't that automatically disqualify you? Just like diabetes would?; 1/22/19, 11:55 AM
Anonymous said...: The RBG thing reminds me of a joke that McCain told during one of the campaigns it was something like:

REporter: Senator, if you are elected President sooner or later Alan Greenspan is going to die. What would you do then?

McCain: Prop him up and hope nobody notices.

I expect that if RBG dies in chambers, that her left wing clerks will order dry ice and keep writing opinions for weeks.; 1/22/19, 11:57 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: This is good news. The military has no business accepting recruits who are mentally ill.; 1/22/19, 12:13 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "If you are trans you take meds - doesn't that automatically disqualify you? Just like diabetes would?"

What struck me about the regulation is that you could still serve under your biological sex- this precluded people who have actually taken real steps to change genders rather than just claim to be the other- think Jamie Farr.; 1/22/19, 12:13 PM
n.n said...: Homosexuals, bisexuals, transvestites, neo-gendered? The transgender spectrum is rarefied, yet colorful.; 1/22/19, 12:15 PM
John henry said...: Back in the 70s when Doonesbury was funny Raul Duke (Hunter Thomson) was ambassador to China.

Mao was in a semi-coma and Honey, Duke's girlfriend, was his translator and the only one who could understand him.

In one strip she mentions to Duke that he is talking gibberish and she just makes stuff up. "I guess I am really running China thes days" she tells Duke.

So who is RBG's Honey and whose girlfriend is she?

John Henry; 1/22/19, 12:16 PM
chillblaine said...: This is a FANTASTIC victory. The Leninists want to make gender identity a protected class like sex. Finally some sanity. I have no problem calling someone, them or they, but the mission of the military is on preparedness, not social engineering.; 1/22/19, 12:30 PM
brylun said...: Seriously, how do we know Ginsburg is still alive? Weekend at Bernie’s?; 1/22/19, 12:33 PM
Drago said...: This is almost, almost like Donald Trump was elected President or something and has all the same Constitutional powers as democrat presidents.

Almost.; 1/22/19, 12:40 PM
Humperdink said...: The military as a social experiment is slowly reaching a conclusion. At least until the next election.; 1/22/19, 12:50 PM
steve uhr said...: Since women and gays are allowed to serve, I don't understand the logic of not allowing transgender people from serving in the military other than pure discrimination. Could someone educate me? I doubt many soldiers give a damn.; 1/22/19, 1:19 PM
Humperdink said...: @steve. If you doubt many soldiers don't care, you might want to ask a few.; 1/22/19, 1:29 PM
gilbar said...: The military doesn't hire the handicapped. Doesn't make reasonable accommodation for the disabled.

The military doesn't hire the middle aged; Doesn't handle the over weight; Doesn't handle the 'intellectually challenged'. Steve Uhr doesn't understand logic; 1/22/19, 1:32 PM
Humperdink said...: steve uhr said: "Since women and gays are allowed to serve..."

"A record 16 out of 100 Navy women are reassigned from ships to shore duty due to pregnancy, according to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group."

https://dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/exclusive-deployed-us-navy-has-a-pregnancy-problem-and-its-getting-worse/; 1/22/19, 1:35 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: steve uhr said...

Could someone educate me?

Based on your past commenting history, I'd have to conclude no.; 1/22/19, 1:37 PM
gilbar said...: and IiB wins the thread! :); 1/22/19, 1:39 PM
LCB said...: I agree with this judgement, but you're wrong. There were gays on the beaches at Normandy.

Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
Historically speaking, in 1944, we stormed the beaches of Normandy to liberate Europe from the clutches of the Third Reich, but I guess because no gays or trannies were allowed, it was not a legitimate exercise.....; 1/22/19, 2:24 PM
Maillard Reactionary said...: "The Supreme Court on Tuesday revived the Trump administration’s policy of barring most transgender people from serving in the military."

Women, minorities hardest hit.; 1/22/19, 2:36 PM
Matt said...: Sometimes in our childish and debased sociery, the grown-ups do win.

Temporarily, of course.; 1/22/19, 3:53 PM
Jim said...: Blink once to concur; blink twice to dissent.; 1/22/19, 4:02 PM
Jim at said...: I don't understand the logic of not allowing transgender people from serving in the military other than pure discrimination.

Because if a person is so confused as to what sex they think they are, the last thing I'd want is them in a position to cover my ass during an actual shooting war.

But that's just me.; 1/22/19, 4:38 PM
John Ray said...: Gospace nailed it. Period. During military service, there is no time or space for: civil rights such as enjoyed by everyday citizens; special meds to keep "they-power" operational; or sensibilities and disabilities of certain humans. Since Washington was a general, we here in the U.S. understood that. Indeed, since time before written history, warfare leaders understood that.; 1/22/19, 4:58 PM
Oso Negro said...: @steve. It’s about unit cohesion. The presence of one woman will alter the behavior of a group of men. This is not always a bad thing, but a an unnecessary distraction in combat. And someone will always be fucking someone. It will be the same with the trannies.; 1/22/19, 6:04 PM
AndyN said...: LCB said...
I agree with this judgement, but you're wrong. There were gays on the beaches at Normandy.

Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
Historically speaking, in 1944, we stormed the beaches of Normandy to liberate Europe from the clutches of the Third Reich, but I guess because no gays or trannies were allowed, it was not a legitimate exercise.....

With 63,000 Americans landing at Normandy, even at 0.005%, which is the low end of the APA's estimate for the occurrence of gender dysphoria, there may have been hundreds who would today identify as transsexuals.; 1/22/19, 7:19 PM
gilbar said...: AndayN erroneously said...
With 63,000 Americans landing at Normandy, even at 0.005%, which is the low end of the APA's estimate for the occurrence of gender dysphoria, there may have been hundreds who would today identify as transsexuals.

So, are you aware that you're assuming that the 63,000 at Normandy represented an Exact representation of the general population?
How many of the 63,000 had flat feet?
How many had heart murmurs?
How many were blind? deaf? dumb?; 1/22/19, 8:15 PM
bonkti said...: One percent of 63000 is 630. Your 0.005% is about 0.325 soldiers.; 1/22/19, 9:39 PM
Gretchen said...: Transgender is either a mental health disorder or a physical one.

1. People with mental health disorders are not allowed in the military. The left is always screaming that mentally ill people shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

2. People who have medical conditions that necessitate the use of daily hormonal medications -- like diabetes, to maintain health are not allowed to serve. Military members must be deployable.

Why should transgender been seen as separate or special?; 1/22/19, 10:35 PM
Trumpit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/22/19, 10:37 PM
Trumpit said...: No sane person would voluntarily submit to castration. But it's quite sane to castrate right-wingers. It removes any possibility of testicular cancer later in life. It also tends to make them more manageable. If you've ever seen a pathetic right-winger trying to dry hump someone's leg, you'll know what I'm talking about. Trump and "hump" rhyme for a reason.; 1/22/19, 10:40 PM
n.n said...: With 63,000 Americans landing at Normandy, ... there may have been hundreds who would today identify as transsexuals.

Rather neo-genders, homosexuals, bisexuals, and transvestites, but their transgender orientation would not have been a defining feature. Or maybe it was, and Klinger was a planned-root groundbreaker.; 1/23/19, 2:04 AM
n.n said...: The transgender spectrum, including homosexual (i.e. mental attribute), bisexual, transvestite, and neo-sexual (e.g. physical attribute through Nature and anthropogenic corruption), may be caused by a genetic, phenotypic, or conscious (i.e. "choice") divergence.; 1/23/19, 2:10 AM
Trumpit said...: "The left is always screaming that mentally ill people shouldn't be allowed to have guns."

That doesn't bother you?; 1/23/19, 3:12 AM
JAORE said...: Since women and gays are allowed to serve, I don't understand the logic of not allowing transgender people from serving in the military other than pure discrimination. Could someone educate me? I doubt many soldiers give a damn.

I'll skip the morale and unit cohesiveness issue. You ave made it clear you ain't in the market.

Try this (already touched upon):

If the individual has actually transitioned (i.e. had the surgeries) or is undergoing hormonal treatment it creates a real problem for deployment.

As noted above, Diabetes is disqualifying. Many diabetics control their condition well and function with relatively normal lives. But that is dependent upon an ongoing monitoring of their condition and readily available insulin. That can not be assured in deployment. Similarly neither can the drugs needed by transgendered individuals in the stages I note above.

While many in the military never face actual combat, that's the base reason for the military.; 1/23/19, 4:58 AM