Discussion: SCOTUS Allows Trump Admin To Enforce Its Transgender Troops Ban

He’s delivering. Now they’re safe from setting foot on a battlefield, can’t be drafted in either, I suppose.

I know you were.

2 Likes

Where’s Caitlyn Jenner in all this?

Seems to me that, barring one “oh, gee, I am so disappointed” public comment, there’s been nothing but crickets for a long, long time.

Hope she’s enjoying the men’s room again.

5 Likes

I had the same thought. Why stop at transgender troops, why not go after gay and female soldiers? Those are favorite hobby horses of the RWNJs too.

2 Likes

I would be willing to put some (small) money that at some point within the year, the regime brings a request to SCOTUS to hear a case that rolls back gay rights whether in the military or in civilian life. Bet on it. As a feral trumper was recently quoted as saying,

He’s not hurting the people he needs to hurt.

The regime is working on it but apparently, not hard or fast enough

8 Likes

Not unless you reduce the court to 7 or expand it to 15. Those last two assholes were picks of an actual illegitimate president, so they’re nothing more than fruit of the poisonous tree.

3 Likes
3 Likes

And if the war is lost because the translators are all Muslim or gay, so be it, that’s just God’s will for our being sinful and tolerating them in society in the first place, but the important thing is keeping the military pure.

2 Likes

This policy makes no sense. I can’t think of many (any?) Transgender people who want to "serve as their “biological sex and are not seeking gender transition.” That pretty much negates the whole premise of somebody being Transgender.

3 Likes

And there we have it. The first big Kavanaugh score.

More to come, I’m sure. There are still plenty of gay and bi people to prosecute. Why not destroy their lives to suit the Dominionist agenda, too?

Pence is probably popping a monster woody right now. :-/

2 Likes

If any of these people refuse to appear in front of these various House committees, who’s going to make them?

1 Like

Trump keeps appointing justices, while the Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats won’t start impeachment proceedings.

“Too early” I am told.


“We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there “is” such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

Impeachment Now.

There’s only one body of opinion any court should have heard testimony from, the military leadership, SecDef and the Joint Chiefs, they’re the only people charged with and capable of judging military readiness. Consequently, I’m sure they were the only ones not asked to testify.

3 Likes

In future, I think extending federal civil rights protections to LGBT individuals ought to be a priority. I wonder why this hasn’t come up before?

1 Like

This court would take back gay marriage if it could (they can’t) so I’m not surprised by this decision, but it just shows how much longer it’ll be before these fuckers get with the times and advance civil rights for everyone, and how I’ll probably be dead before that happens.

4 Likes

Grow up. We need two things: the solid, undeniable factual basis and the political capital. We have neither at this point. You can argue all you want the technicalities of what we DO know. We can all sit around in our smoking jackets, sipping brandy by the fire, hemming and hawing on TPM and smugly agreeing that “mmmyessss, mmmmmyesssss, any educated American worth his salt would agree that such behavior should constitute a “high crime and’or misdemeanor” justifying impeachment and removal from office.” THAT DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER. Fat lot of good any of that intellectualizing does any of us when there’s a Mueller report that still hasn’t been released, we’d look like we’re jumping the gun, the Mueller report could conceivably make it look like impeachment wasn’t justified while something less like censure would be, we don’t hold the Senate and can’t get a conviction on it unless and until the public has so turned on the GOP that they’re forced to save their own necks by voting for conviction, the public hasn’t reached that stage yet, failure to do it all correctly and get the necessary result could backfire and harm 2020, a total misfire would set precedent the GOP would abuse until the end of time, etc. etc. etc., and 100 other practical realities your pantwetting completely ignores.

Moreover, nothing about impeachment proceedings in the House would stop Trump from appointing justices and McConnell and Grassley railroading them through the Senate while the Dems remain powerless to stop it. NOTHING. On that level, your post doesn’t even make sense.

Impeachment is meant to be a kill move…a finisher…the finalizer. Mortal Kombat’s sweep the leg. Call of Duty headshots. Drago’s final blow to Creed’s nose. Ross cheating on Rachel when they were on a break. Ser Ilyn Payne bringing Ice down on Ned Stark’s neck. It avails us nothing if it falls short of that effect.

7 Likes

Like '16, SCOTUS will be an important campaign issue in 2020.

3 Likes

It has. There was a major law (ENDA) that the Democratic Congress tried to pass in the 2009-2011 session barring employment discrimination but it didn’t end up being approved. I think, in fact, that there was a bit of a breakdown about covering LGB persons but not Transgender persons.

3 Likes

1 Like
Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available