With several judges telling the President that he “can’t” exercise his own exercise Article II prerogatives, why wouldn’t he ask for a decision on his Commander-in-Chief powers?
Asking to go directly to the Supreme Court would skip being heard in the Ninth Circuit.
Why would he want that?
Because lower courts are making rulings that are impacting what he can and cannot do at a nationwide level. And some would say that the lower courts that have ruled against him were intentionally chosen to hear them because of their known biases against Trump’s policy. (Yes, we’re looking at YOU ‘Ninth Circus’.)
So, can the Commander-in-Chief make policy about whether or not getting the military mixed up in — and financially responsible for — sex-change-related issues would impact overall combat readiness or not?
With reports out just this week about USA losing its overall competitive military advantage against Russian and China, this is no ‘trifling’ question.
The president announced on Twitter in 2017 that the country would no longer “accept or allow” transgender Americans to serve in the military, citing “tremendous medical costs and disruption”.
The administration has since limited the policy to transgender individuals with a history of gender dysphoria.
Following legal challenges, judges in federal courts in three jurisdictions – Washington state, California, and Washington, DC – have refused to lift injunctions issued against the president’s original ban to allow the updated policy to be enforced.
Source: BBC
Should our nation’s scarce military resources be diverted into the various costs relating to gender-reassignment surgery, hormone blockers and all the rest?
Or does someone in such a situation have — like, say, ‘flat feet’ — compromised combat readiness which would disqualify one for ordinary military service?
Solicitor General Noel Francisco of the Justice Department filed petitions asking Supreme Court justices to take up the issue in three separate cases that are still in lower courts, CNN reported.
Francisco argues that lower court rulings imposing nationwide injunctions are wrong and warrant immediate review by the high court.
The administration’s attempt to get the issue before the Supreme Court in their current term could mean a decision by June 2019 – if the justices agree to take up the matter.
The policy, which Trump announced on Twitter in July 2017, was later officially released by Secretary of Defense James Mattis.
Source: DailyMail
By the way, since Facebook has unpublished ClashDaily’s page, your best bet to keep in the loop is to Subscribe to our ClashDaily Newsletter right here:
Become a Clash Insider!
Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.
We’re also moving onto a new platform, MeWe. It’s like Facebook without the data breaches and censorship.
Sign up and you can still get all the ClashDaily goodness by joining our MeWe group.
Do you love what we’re doing at Clash?
Do you want to kick in to our ‘war chest’ so that we Happy Warriors can maximize the size of the footprint we leave on Leftism’s backside? Here’s a link for ya to do just that.
Stay Rowdy!
