Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 31, 2017

A federal judge on Monday partially blocked enforcement of key provisions of President Donald Trump's memorandum banning transgender people serving in the military. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly blocked provisions of the memorandum concerning the enlistment and retention of transgender military service members, holding that the plaintiffs "have established that they will be injured by these directives, due both to the inherent inequality they impose, and the risk of discharge and denial of accession that they engender." The judge also blasted Trump's initial abrupt announcement via Twitter that came "without any of the formality or deliberative processes that generally accompany the development and announcement of major policy changes that will gravely affect the lives of many Americans."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

In partially granting a preliminary injunction pending appeal, the judge said the plaintiffs -- current and aspiring service members who are transgender -- are "likely to succeed" on their due process claims.

The judge said that the effect of her order was to "revert to the status quo" that existed before the memo that was issued August 25.

The memo indefinitely extended a prohibition against transgender individuals entering the military and it required the military to authorize, by no later than March 23, 2018, the discharge of transgender service members.

"All of the reasons proffered by the President for excluding transgender individuals from the military in this case were not merely unsupported, but were actually contradicted by the studies, conclusions and judgment of the military itself," she wrote.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border. We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me and go ‘Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You've heard this one. You'll say ‘Please, Mr. President, we beg you sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said. "And I'm going to say ‘I'm sorry, but we're going to keep winning, winning, winning, We're going to make America great again."

I don't know about the rest of you but I am sure sick of it.

#1 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-30 08:49 PM | Reply

Since when does a judge have higher authority on military matters over the president?

I have a feeling this has to do with a push to have the militiary finance sex-change operations.

#2 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 07:32 PM | Reply

"Since when does a judge have higher authority on military matters over the president?"

Since the Constitution.

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-10-31 07:41 PM | Reply

Since the Constitution.
#3 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I must have missed that part. Please enlighten?

#4 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 07:49 PM | Reply

"I must have missed that part. Please enlighten?"

Three branches.

Even a President can do something illegal...your's and Richard Nixon's beliefs to the contrary.

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-10-31 09:00 PM | Reply

"your's and..."

should be "your and"

I'm posting between halloween ghouls.

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-10-31 09:06 PM | Reply

Three branches

That's not an answer.

President is Commander in Chief of the military. This is an addministrative matter.
Civilian courts don't have jurisdiction over military cases.
See Article II, Section 2 and Artical III, Section 1.

The issue becomes a matter if the court can get away with exceeding its authority.

#7 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 09:14 PM | Reply

"This is an addministrative matter."

Not if the judge believes it violates existing law.

See how that works?

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-10-31 09:19 PM | Reply

See how that works?
#8 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You ignored:
The issue becomes a matter if the court can get away with exceeding its authority.

#9 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 09:21 PM | Reply

"The issue becomes a matter if the court can get away with exceeding its authority."

We'll see if higher courts overrule.

Oh wait...that means this whole matter is subject to some type of judicial review. Judges will have to decide if they have jurisdiction.

See how that works?

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-10-31 09:24 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

See how that works?
#10 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Sure. The court ruling on itself. That's a joke.

The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.

#11 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 09:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Sure. The court ruling on itself. That's a joke."

The courts tell that joke all the time.

"The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper."

Riiiiight. And 90% of cancers cure themselves*.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-10-31 09:40 PM | Reply

*provided you redefine the word "cancer"

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-10-31 09:40 PM | Reply

Riiiiight. And 90% of cancers cure themselves*.
#12 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

LMAO. Cancers can't cure themselves, silly.

#14 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 09:48 PM | Reply

The courts tell that joke all the time.

Which is to say they do whatever they want, Constitution be damned.

#15 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 09:55 PM | Reply

"Cancers can't cure themselves, silly."

You ought to tell that idiot Ray.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-10-31 10:00 PM | Reply

"Which is to say they do whatever they want, Constitution be damned."

Nonsense. It's called checks and balances.

Your way would be an Executive with no legal constraints.

Meanwhile, you're pretending something subject to judicial review really isn't subject to judicial review. And judges will decide...which proves my point.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-10-31 10:04 PM | Reply

Call it what you want. Not worth arguing over.

#18 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 10:07 PM | Reply

You ought to tell that idiot Ray.
#16 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I'm pretty sure you misquoted me.

So I'll put it this way. If the body can't rid itself of cancer, it dies. No medical treatment can cure cancer.

If you want to argue, save it for some other time.

#19 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 10:14 PM | Reply

"I'm pretty sure you misquoted me."

I'm pretty sure your mind is going. Your claim was clear.

"No medical treatment can cure cancer."

No, but you can kill the cancer cells without killing the host. I realize that's not a "cure", but to the survivor, you're simply parsing words.

"If you want to argue, save it for some other time."

If you want to say something idiotic, save it for some other time.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-10-31 10:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Ray argues about things not worth arguing about. And thinks the military is not subject to civilian rule.

Meanwhile we have a President who believes he is above the law and is using his office to try and hurt innocent Americans. Thank your founding fathers for creating checks and balances so that there is something between you and the full power of someone as evil as Donald J Trump.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-01 10:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"No medical treatment can cure cancer." - #19 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 10:14 PM

Is that something you learned from the pig farmer you love to cite as some sort of medical authority?

#22 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-01 10:42 AM | Reply

Ray's tactic of flaunting ignorance as a rhetorical gimmick is tiresome and unworthy of a response but I agree that the military should not be paying for sex changes. Allow transgendered to serve. But if someone can't function without the operation then they should be rejected just like anyone else who is physically unfit to serve. Recruits have always been expected to enter the service fit to serve.

#23 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-01 11:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#23 | POSTED BY SULLY

The military spends ten times more supplying erectile dysfunction medicines. So I guess you believe those servicemembers are unfit to serve as well, right?

#24 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2017-11-02 02:03 PM | Reply

If you're fit to serve,
And you don't create an undue burden because of your gender,
Then they can't deny you the opportunity to serve.

That's the way it is, and that's the way it should be.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 02:08 PM | Reply

Derek,
I hate to be the master of the obvious, but there isn't a job in the military that requires you to have a -----.
People show up to work every day without one.

How you can compare being unavailable for duty while you get and recover from a sex change operation to a ----- is beyond anyone s comprehension.

Get your operation on your dime and on your time, and then enlist when you're fit for duty.

#26 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-02 02:12 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort