It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court rejects Trump's transgender troop ban

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+11 more 
posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
It's just becoming a regular thing right? The Trump administration blocked again:


The Pentagon cannot enforce the Trump administration’s ban on transgender troops serving in the military, a federal court ruled in a decision released Monday that advocates called a “colossal victory.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction against the ban, saying the military cannot remove transgender service members from the ranks and that it must continue to provide medical care for them. The recruitment of transgender troops will still be delayed until Jan. 1, under a delay previously ordered by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

www.politico.com...

I'm still unsure about the motivation of the transgender ban? I'm fairly certain transgenders have been serving the military for sometime now. I'm not familiar with any major issues, cases, where the military has been hindered by transgendered troops amongst their ranks? This entire thing just came out of the blue from the administration.

This is a preliminary injunction and recruitment still delayed but for now the ban and removal of transgendered person(s) will not be enforced.



+9 more 
posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
He is not having a good start to his week is he?



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


LOL

This was pretty predictable, in my opinion. But, it's just temporary, until the courts can hear the whole case.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Good strategy.

He has no real issues with this, so he declares it a ban.

Then the courts stop the ban.

Perfect.

He stops the issue and never pisses off the extremists.

The courts get the "blame".




posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
The free surgeries upon arrival is a design just to drive a wedge.

I call it out as evidence that trans folks are being used as DNC divisive agenda sacrificial lambs.

Good job Saint Obama.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

For some reason that never occurred to me, he can still pander to the fringe right without ever having to seriously try and go through with it, if that was by choice thats bloody brilliant.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Good strategy.

He has no real issues with this, so he declares it a ban.

Then the courts stop the ban.

Perfect.

He stops the issue and never pisses off the extremists.

The courts get the "blame".



The plan is working perfectly, including Manafort this morning.
The DNC rats will all be drowning pretty soon.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
I'm still unsure about the motivation of the transgender ban?

Travel ban all over again. Trump wanted a cheap win for his intolerant base and most likely assumed since he is commander in chief of the military that he can do these things. So he enacted it without consulting anyone (like his generals for one).



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

It's a pretty common theme for presidents, really--sign things into law or pass executive orders that pander to a certain base of voters, and leave it for the courts to handle the aftermath and legality. It's a win-win for the politician, and a lose-lose for everyone else.


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I think the problem was people coming into the military and then asking taxpayers to cover their sex reassignment surgeries, hormones, psychological counseling, and all that stuff.

Very distracting from protecting the nation.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
He is not having a good start to his week is he?

Has he had a good start to ANY of his weeks?



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Good strategy.

He has no real issues with this, so he declares it a ban.

Then the courts stop the ban.

Perfect.

He stops the issue and never pisses off the extremists.

The courts get the "blame".



#alternativefactsmatter



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agree with the policy or not, he doesn't have to consult with anyone in the military when giving orders like this. I mean, it makes sense to meet with a judge advocate general or so, just to ensure that he can legally do something, but no meeting need take place if the commander in chief wants to make a change to hiring policy.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Good strategy.

He has no real issues with this, so he declares it a ban.

Then the courts stop the ban.

Perfect.

He stops the issue and never pisses off the extremists.

The courts get the "blame".


Disregarding how silly this sounds when you say it out loud, do you actually think that intentionally undermining one of the three pillars of our government (the judicial system) in order to score a cheap, political victory is a good idea?
edit on 30-10-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm not familiar with military law or benefits on this thing but I suppose the motivation is mainly based on Transgendered individuals getting free reassignment surgery? So this is why they sign their lives away and put themselves at risk? If that's the case they deserve to have their surgery covered.

That aside, wouldn't it have just been easier for the Trump admin to push for a ban on coverage for Reassingment surgery??



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The free surgeries upon arrival is a design just to drive a wedge.

I call it out as evidence that trans folks are being used as DNC divisive agenda sacrificial lambs.

Good job Saint Obama.


Jesus tap dancing Christ...



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Personally I think if they're willing to put their lives on the line, risk their welfare, then they deserve coverage for reassignment surgery. Also, what percentage of the budget does reassignment surgery take out of the military? My guess, next to nothing.

Further to the above, why ban transgendered person(s) as a whole for this single benefit? Why not ban the benefit itself? Why target an entire class of people joining and serving the military?

It's just not making logical sense you know?



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

Look at both trans moves, both done totally past the mark and totally uncompromising in just the right way that people would protest, predictable maximum partisan bickering ensues, and then later when someone like Trump comes in later and tries to dial it back they get slandered as monsters.

All totally predictable.

Including the part that in the center of the pit underneath everybody are the trans people, most of them out there I would assume wouldnt be trying to have 'the whole world' focused on them especially not when the policies were deployed in the precise way to cause 'half the world' to resent them when otherwise most of them probably wouldnt have even cared.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

If the people who run the military, the generals and Admirals have no problem with transgender Soldiers & Sailors serving, then this entire issue should be put to bed.

What are they saying?
edit on 10/30/2017 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: xuenchen
Good strategy.

He has no real issues with this, so he declares it a ban.

Then the courts stop the ban.

Perfect.

He stops the issue and never pisses off the extremists.

The courts get the "blame".


Disregarding how silly this sounds when you say it out loud, do you actually think that intentionally undermining one of the three pillars of our government (the judicial system) in order to score a cheap, political victory is a good idea?


When did that ever stop Obama?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join