Had you already forgotten about that ‘Trans ban’ in the military? Thanks to SCOTUS, it’s back in the news!
In an environment were the news cycle bucks like a mechanical bull, it’s easy to lose track of the stories that were really big news just a little while ago.
Like the Kavanaugh debacle — doesn’t that seem so long ago now?
Just because we lose track of them as they come swirling at us, doesn’t mean they stop progressing toward a conclusion.
For example, we just heard the three-judge panel ruling that the undercover Planned Parenthood videos were NOT, in fact, ‘deceptively edited‘.
That’s a huge win for Trump’s Pro-Life base.
Here’s another one:
Remember Trump’s much-ballyhooed ‘trans-tweet’? The Left sure does. He’s a ‘bigot’ because of it. Forget that there are already a great number of people with considerable strength and courage that are denied opportunities of military service because of physical or medical attributes over which they have no control.
They just aren’t the kind of person the military is looking to hire.
Cue the left’s objections (here’s one profane example):
I don’t understand what the actual fuck is wrong with a trans person fighting for our country?!?! Shouldn’t everyone be allowed to fight if they want to?! @realDonaldTrump this is why people hate you. This does, in fact, make you a bigot.
— ᕼᗴᑎᑎI ᗷ (@iamhennib) January 22, 2019
Fight if you WANT to?
Is THAT how it works? Are you so sure?
In real life, doesn’t it go something like this:
“Here’s a list. Do you have any of the following disqualifying medical conditions? Oh, you do? Tough luck, kid, you can’t enlist.”
The Commander-In-Chief just wants to add one more medical condition to the list. Is that really such a big deal? Activists sure think so.
They took it to the Supreme Court to find out.
What was the question before the court concerning?
The president abruptly announced on Twitter in July 2017 that the military would not permit trans personnel to serve. Thereafter, former Defense Secretary James Mattis convened a panel of military experts to conduct an independent review of the subject. Their findings served as the basis of Mattis’ February 2018 memo which implemented Trump’s request.
That memo provides that individuals with a history of gender dysphoria — a clinical term referring to anxiety triggered by the conflict between one’s biological sex and the gender with which they identify — may enlist provided they are willing to serve in their biological sex and have not suffered gender dysphoria for a continuous three-year period prior to recruitment. Active personnel who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria may continue to serve provided they do so in their biological sex.
Source: Daily Caller
Is this a final decision?
It’s an interim decision.
Because the Supreme Court did not let the decision about whether or not courts should allow gender dysphoria to bar you from military service to skip directly to the Supreme Court, they DID accept the Trump administrations request to put a temporary ban on the enrollment of persons with the named condition until such time as that is firmly and finally decided at the top court.
Why is this a big deal?
The next court to hear this case will be the 9th circus.
The Ninth Circuit.
By upholding a temporary injunction, this ruling closes an activist workaround.
By preventing lower courts (potentially ‘activist courts’) from opening a temporary window for recruits with Gender Dysphoria to enlist, the Supreme Court avoids having an activist lower court from (yet again) thwarting a Presidential decision only to have that decision upheld at the Supreme court. Regardless of which side the Supreme Court eventually favors, this prevents any temporary window running contrary to the eventual final policy.
Having seen courts play games undermining the President’s Article II powers concerning immigration policy, this approach makes a certain amount of sense… whichever way they eventually vote.
So gender dysphoria DOES disqualify a person from seeking to join the military… at least for now.
What was the ruling?
For those keeping score at home, this WAS a 5-4 ruling, splitting exactly the way you would expect:
“Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan noted their dissent.”–Source: Daily Caller
What was it Obama used to say?
“Elections have consequences”?
Indeed they do.
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:
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.