A strategy of the right to break up power structures on the left if to separate T from LGB.
This is among the right's first gambits.
1
Trans men and women have been serving openly in the military for years without a problem. They serve with honor and distinction.
The only reason it's apparently a problem now is the religious right, Trump's base, doesn't like them
Will we continue the specious tradition of banning able bodied people--women, blacks, gays, Jews--solely because they are unliked by a segment of society?
2
If it's true the government will pay for military who want transgender surgery, then that should stop and you will automatically weed out those that want to serve their country and those who just want free surgery.
6
Any gender can serve in our great armed forces. Join under the gender nature has assigned to you, serve faithfully and to the best of your ability, and it life still isn't fulfilling, there is also time for hobbies.
We will thank you for your dedication and service, and on weekends we may join your for macrame, karaoke, dog showing, snake charming, NASCAR, volunteering and any other extra-military activities you enjoy.
3
David Leonhardt called the Transgender Ban decision: "Another Merrick Garland decision."
Americans should find a way to remember the name so that future generations would not forget. Find a meaningful date and call it "Merrick Garland Day" - make high school students study how American Democracy allowed Mitch McConnell to ABORT Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court without any hearing, leading to many 5-4 decisions in the following years that destroy people's lives.
Republican would consider it a day of celebration, and Democrats can mourn.
6
Shame! Shame! The Supreme Court is a Republican tool.
3
As predicted....ignorance and hate on transgender reigns supreme from a dumbed down Presidency and a SCOTUS whose right wing majority was solidified as a result of theft by the worst cancer this country is now enduring....the Republican Party.
Serving the US military today is simply serving the economic interests of the oligarchs who are destroying this nation. Fighting for "democracy" and "freedom" is pure myth.
1
Maybe Trump and his cohorts also want to remove the female sex from the military as Napoleon did not allow his women to fight on the front lines and is he not a Trump hero?
1
Courageous citizens that wish to serve their country are being kicked out by a coward person (Trump) who gamed the system to avoid military service.
6
“Such injunctions previously were rare, but in recent years they have become routine,” he wrote. “In less than two years, federal courts have issued 25 of them, blocking a wide range of significant policies involving national security, national defense, immigration and domestic issues.” And just why is that, I ask? I think it might have something to do with a lunatic president who has been systematically disassembling our democracy since he took office at the behest of his cult following, radical right-wing conservative members of congress, evangelical nut jobs and the conservative CEO’s who pull his strings. The only reason trump issued this ban in the first place was because of all the above racist extremists. The same people who still believe that blacks are only three fifths of a human being and the country was better off when they were slaves and being transgender equals homosexual which is ungodly and therefore should be expelled.
I have always lived by the belief that if something is not affecting me personally then I don’t care one way or another. I mind my own business. So being transgender or homosexual or gay marriage does not affect me. I would never have any issue in the least of serving side by side with anyone as long as they knew what they were doing and had my back.
This is the cost of electing trump, and the fault of every liberal who didn’t vote. This is only the start of the conservative SCOTUS overturning many long standing laws. Abortion may be next.
4
Two words for this "administration": Spitefully Evil.
1
If the Supreme Court continues to issue rulings that are grossly at odds with the will of the people, then eventually, the people will stop obeying the will of the Court. This is a disastrous path for the country, and I sincerely hope that the justices of the Supreme Court have considered that their authority is not absolute - it is granted by the people of the United States.
192
@Ken Simpson The Roe decision is a good example of a ruling that is grossly at odds with the will of the people. A majority of Americans believe there should be meaningful restrictions on abortion. That is why it continues to be controversial 45 years later.
On the other hand, the Court's worst decisions were when it followed public opinion - Plessy v. Ferguson and the Japanese internment, for example.
7
Everything in that post is backwards.
A majority of the people do support Roe vs. Wade. As does the US Constitution.
The two 19th-century cases you cite were not influenced by a majority of the people, but by the backward prejudice of the South.
36
@Ken Simpson
SCOTUS is an institution that serves to interpret the Constituion as it is written. It doesn't make laws according to the will of the people, that's what Congress does.
8
I cannot believe the anger of the liberal NYT readers against those of us who support the SCOTUS decision.
Get over it, ladies and gentlemen. We cannot do everything we want to.
Medical transgenderism is a medical condition and as such it disqualified one from a military career.
My brother wanted to be a Navy pilot, but he has scoliosis and was disqualified from joining the USNAVY’s pilot training program. Was he discriminated? NO. Not at all. Common sense. Please.
41
non sequitor!
7
As first an RN and then an NP with scoliosis, this is a dumb rule. I've pushed heavy hospital beds with 250lb patients, 25lb O2 tanks, metal monitors and multiple, heavy metal housings for medicated drips, I did ok. And I weighed 97lbs.
And I was bagging the patient (using an ambu bag to "breathe" for the patient) while pushing, taking the patients out in hallways, over elevator bumps and back down hallways again.
Being a pilot would've been like having an office job to me. At least a pilot gets to sit down on the job. I never did
13
@louisa. This is not common sense. It is clear cruelty. Your brother’s scoliosis was a totally different reason for his inability to serve. You are only fooling yourself if you think differently. 2020? Here we come!!!
16
As an Air Force veteran I agree with this Supreme Court decision and hope that ultimately transgender people are not allowed to serve in the military. I would also like to see the executive order allowing women to serve in combat units to also be reversed.
Being a part of the military is not similar to a typical job with a typical employer. Those who have not served would have a hard time understanding this. In times of war and in combat situations, distractions that affect the effectiveness of the unit cannot be allowed or tolerated.
28
@Scott, there was a time when the military considered blacks a distraction that would "erode cohesion." Your argument sounds ironically similar.
24
Then I must also assume that you are in favor of segregating military units by race, correct? Assuming it's okay for races other than your own to serve, of course.
In other words, stop blaming other servicemembers for your inability to concentrate on your job. Your grandparents figured out how to serve with people of other races. Your parents figured out how to serve with the opposite sex. I'm sure you can figure it out too.
26
Your blaming women for men's inability to control themselves is absolutely prehistoric. Those men are the ones who should be removed as they (according to you) lack the ability to remain focused on the task at hand. It's sad that they are (again, according to you) so weak.
23
Political correctness will be the demise of our nation.
23
Ignorance and fascism will be the demise of the nation.
23
@Concerned Citizen Political correctness is nothing more than intolerance and fascism. So, I guess you nailed it. Congrats.
4
Common sense decisions like this are EXACTLY why I voted for Mr. Trump. Let's hope he gets at least one more nominee..
20
@Thomas Aquinas
How is telling hundreds of our troops that even though they do their job perfectly, from now on we'll consider them to be a threat to our national security, somehow "common sense" ... ?
And how is imposing your own fears onto a majority of Americans who have a more stable mental identity and as a consequence don't need to discriminate against transgender to feel okay themselves, somehow "common sense" - as would happen when Trump gets another nominee?
Finally, this president is not paying border patrol agents for months, and just because he discriminates against a couple of hundreds of our bravest and finest youth in the military, you'd vote for him anyhow? THAT is what you call "common sense" ... ?
Imho, and with all respect, you've lost your moral compass.
By the way, in his treatise "De beatitudine" (Summa Theologica I-II), Thoma Aquinas writes:
"Beatitudo autem imperfecta, qualis hic haberi potest, primo quidem et principaliter consistit in contemplatione, secundario ero in operatione practici intellectus ordinantis actiones et passiones humanas (..)".
In case you don't understand Latin: happiness here on earth is only possible when our "practical intellect" governs our actions and passions.
What you're doing here is the exact opposite: allowing your irrational fears to govern your intellect. Even Aquinas knew that that will NEVER bring about any good...
21
@Ana Luisa
This has nothing to do with my fears or moral compass. It's all about helping our military to become the best fighting force possible. Any needless distraction takes away from that mission. Social engineering should not be a function of the military.
5
@Thomas Aquinas
These things are never black and white. There's no reasoning with people who can only see things one way, especially when they use moral high-mindedness to defend their own narrow-mindedness.
19
I don't understand how the majority in the SC can deny that their decision on this matter is political. Surely it is within the president's discretion to make and implement such policy. However, unless there is clear evidence that NOT enacting Trump's policy immediately will cause harm, then it is reasonable to allow the injunctions to remain in effect while the legal merits of the president's actions are decided in the courts.
Transgender folks have been serving openly in the military since 2016, and there has not been any indication from the military that that has caused any issues.
One of the main roles of the Supreme Court is to protect citizens within minority groups against unjust harms from the majority. It is clear that Trump's ban on transgender in the military, in the way it was enacted, was a capricious act, to appeal to his mob, and stick a finger in the eye of Obama (since Trump feels anything associated with Obama must go).
There is no evidence that harm is being done to the military, our military preparedness, or the country, by maintaining the status quo, as it has been since 2016, while the legal merits of Trump's decree are evaluated. But there IS harm to the transgender individuals if you allow Trump's spontaneous (knee-jerk) action to take effect while its merit is debated.
3
Is the Supreme Court this partisan already, as to have our distrust in it's members confirmed? Are these unelected judges so judgmental of human behavior that they may be tainted with an aura of arrogance, unshakable, demanding they reflect on their abuse of power...to seek a less demanding job, away from harming society's rich diversity?
2
Ever since African American soldiers fought for their country in the Civil War, military service has been a stepping stone to equal socio-political status for marginalized groups. This is about much more than an employment opportunity. This is a way to baldly undercut the newly emergent group's political clout.
4
If the U.S. continues to invade countries solely to feed its war machine, there will come a time when there's no longer a higher purpose to military service. Just another job - an extremely dangerous one.
Then conscription will become necessary, and avoiding service won't even require a nebulous diagnosis of "bone spurs" - it will be a simple matter of showing up in a pair of high heels (or a fake moustache).
1
While I find the antics of Mr. McConnell in the Merrick Garland situation highly reprehensible, none of this would be happening if a few thousand more independents and Democrats in a few states (including mine) had bothered to go to the polls in November 2016. It's a matter of personal responsibility - not to assign guilt to a few thousand no-shows, but to be a big flashing warning light over other elections, and involvement in grass-roots efforts to effect change.
3
This close decision simply allows the lower courts to proceed while the military can decide.
Unfortunate, but not the 'end of the world'... The SC is deferring, for now, to the Executive branch... It, probably is the right thing to do in this case.
2
I read that 1% of Americans serve in the military. So 99% of us are beholden to those who protect us. And you want to limit those who want to serve? For shame, for shame, for shame. We should show our gratitude for their service instead.
5
Why is this Trump’s decision and not the decision of the joint chiefs of staff?
4
The conservative SCOTUS is apparantly eager to misinterpret the constitution in favor of discrimination and injustice and will happily oblige trump's rule by tweet to that end. But blatant discrimination is repulsive and wrong and the American people know it. But this attack on our transgender patriots that are willing to put their lives at risk for this country won't just ruin their lives and set a horrible precedent, it will also serve to further undermine the legitimacy of this court and remind America that we are an increasingly imperfect union run by a minority that is cruel, mean-spirited and espouses ideas that are contrary to everything this nation once stood for. This is a very sad time for this country.
1
the Supreme Court seems to have forgotten the part about liberty and justice for all . . . heartbreaking
1
The liberal backlash to this interim decision could not be more timely for the Republicans. Trump becomes more powerful every day as the extreme left of America feeds him all the fuel he needs to succeed as President.
2
@Tony Francis
Well ... some things in live happened to NOT be about "ratings" and simply about doing the right thing, even if it's unpopular. And rejecting discrimination is ALWAYS doing the right thing, no matter how small the minority that is being discriminated against.
That being said, it's a majority in this country, not the minority, that rejects discrimination against the LGTB community.
That conservatives blocked a SC nomination and now artificially have a majority on SC won't change that fact.
So the question is rather: what motivates you to discriminate? Any concrete arguments?
10
@Tony Francis
Trump is throwing temper tantrums, but that doesn't equate with more power. In fact, unless he compromises , he will get nothing done.
7
It seems this decision might be more about a Supreme Court trying to assert it’s dominance over district courts’ issuing national stays, opinions- as this article indicated. That administration’s argument probably hit home and this was a convenient case to flex some Supreme muscle.
Never mind the resulting military confusion. And never mind that the epic snail pace of our judicial review system destroys lives, delays justice to that point of denial- the amenities must be observed.
Nine. Nine people determining some of the most critical questions of our time. We don’t just need more immigration judges- we need to look at the time lag, the whole appellate system. Maybe more judges, maybe a more specialty-court system....but this wrecker-of-lives process needs it’s own review. Muscle-flexing may seem needed, but the realities that result- cruel. Yes, the DACCA ruling spared this chaos in that discrete area- but it’s like rolling dice. We need a better system.
3
and a chicken hawk makes this ruling? and for what reason? is there reason?. howz about any willing provider of this service?.
An entire class of humans not fit for military service? Come on, now.
7
This whole thing is absurd. Nobody has a ‘right’ to serve in the military. The Military is NOT an equal opportunity employer, and has never been!
Citizens are disqualified for being to old or too young; too fat or too skinny; for having flat feet; for missing or having additional fingers. And what to say about drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a unicorn? Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can’t run the required course in the required time? Can’t do the required number of pushups?
Nothing special about transgenderism. Please, liberal friends, Get Over it!
14
Sergeant Major: those disqualifications you mention are all things that would impede or prevent a person from performing required tasks. Transgender status does not fall into that category. The proof of that is the successful and honorable performance of transgendered persons already serving.
4
Wouldn’t transgender individuals who wish to enlist be subject to the same physical assessments and limitations? Why exclude them without the same merit we exclude cisgendered who wish to enlist?
2
There was also a time when being black meant you were unfit. Why don’t you get over the fact that discrimination is an unfit policy for any government institution?
One word...Disgusting!
Next we will start having witch trials again. We aren't taking just steps backwards, we are disintegrating the very concept of a maturing nation in a progressive world. Not just a shame politically, but a blight on humanity as well.
3
Is anyone surprised that a coward, who was too scared to serve his country in combat, is now telling the military how to run its business.
And his lackeys on the SC are all too ready to do his bidding.
This is the Republican Party. This is what they do.
Happy Shutdown.
8
Now we begin to see the effects of Kavanaugh's dubious appointment. Expect more of the same...unfortunately...
8
I can not imagine how it is to live in a strange body.
3
it seems as though the US military can afford to be choosy. Ask our Israeli friends, who need all hands on deck.
National defense is not a religious matter.
1
Why am I not surprised. This administration is all about intolerance, exclusion and divisive nastiness. Such an embarrassment.
7
The Supreme Court made a political move, caving into Don the Con's flipflop of a decision whose time had come under Obama.
Obama's mandate was the right one. The reality of existing service, gender and honesty is of paramount concern to all of us. Military leaders now understand the importance of truthfulness in its rank and file; military service must not support any form of gender bias or "closeting".
This misguided decision makes any policy, regardless of how important and correct it may be, open to constant attack by bigoted or ill-informed presidents. It creates a wave of uncertainty in this storm of flawed leadership.
1
@Leslie Duval There seems to be an assumption by some that executive decisions by President Obama or his cabinet can by definition not be rescinded or altered by President Trump and his cabinet.
If we have a President Harris or President Warren in 2021 I don't think that they should be permanently bound by any and all executive orders that Trump put into place.
New Presidents have always meant new policies, for good or ill. In many of these situations I think the courts are overstepping their authority.
A slightly unrelated question: why is Selective Service registration mandatory only for men between 18-25? Why not women and what about trans?
6
"The Department of Defense has the authority to create and implement personnel policies it has determined are necessary to best defend our nation."
... unless you're black, female, gay, trans, latino, etc., etc., etc.
Why shouldn't the military be able to determine that it only wants white, blond, blue eyed males of a certain age and size. We can call them aryans. The Statute of Liberty weeps and the Constitution cringes because they used to represent America.
58
@JFM Aryans!!? This post sounds like posts from people who are against LGBTQ people — except it’s on the other side. I don’t think we should insult the people that transgender people serve with. They actually include lots of Latinos, etc.
And so hatred and bigotry continue to be the law of the land in the US. Our descendants will be ashamed of us for this and so much else...all we can do is hope that this will all go away in 2020 when we get responsible, sane leadership again.
6
Professional military judgement in 1948 was that blacks couldn’t be integrated into the services. If Harry Truman hadn’t overrode their objections we would probably still have a segregated armed force. Professional military judgement said gays couldn’t serve. But they are. Professional military judgement said women could only be clerks. It is part of the white male ethos, if anyone can do it I am not as important as I think I am.
8
The court has once again returned to racist views. We need to consider who we nominate to the highest court of the land.
1
I’ve read a number of the comments on this story and both the for and against arguments are more thoughtful and considered than I imagine trump’s thinking was originally. But isn’t the point that he implemented this ban, announced it on Twitter and as I recall caught the military and Pentagon by surprise. So didn’t he manufacture an issue when there wasn’t one? If so, what was his reasoning? One cannot help but assume it was his own or his administration’s intolerance towards ‘the other’. Or am I wrong-was this something already being debated in the military?
8
Say goodbye to armed forces that reflect all of what we are. Given the difficulty of attracting new recruits into the army, navy, air force and marines you would people eager to serve would be welcomed with open arms. But it's the Trump "administration so it has to go out of its way to stifle the dreams of various Americans Trump doesn't like. His gut tells him they have to go....
4
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration’s request to allow it to bar most transgender people from serving in the military while cases challenging the policy make their way to the court."
Perfectly reasonable legal ruling.
10
A harbinger of sad things to come for the LGBT community. This administration's mad (and successful) rush to fill lower court seats with ultra right-wing appointments, coupled with the ensconcing of a far-right Supreme Court majority, suggests great trouble ahead. It is possible that in the future the Supreme Court will choose to not even hear oppressive lower court decisions regarding LGBT rights. A great wall has, indeed, been erected while everyone has been distracted by smoke-and-mirror twittering. I have been out for 40 years, and I have never felt more fearful for my community as I do now.
13
Some judges need to be voted out. Choosing to serve and doing the work should be enough. But, then, we can kick 800,000 people to the street for a medieval wall.
6
Maybe the whole idea of the military needs to be revised. Military service in Switzerland is obligatory for men of twenty and by choice for women. There is also the possibility for non-military service as well as military taxes for those who can do neither. But it is only a defensive service. Our constitution stipulates that we cannot have an offensive army. We only resort to arms if we are invaded and we do not have any territory elsewhere beyond our natural borders.
31
@Jo Ann
THANK YOU! Having been a youth in the 60s with many friends who joined the Peace Corps, and seeing many others who were dilettantes with degrees but no direction toward careers, I have often thought how much more mature and effective (and patriotic) our nation would be if 2 years post high school were spent in a position that served our nation. We would have actual adults moving forward, and they would do so with some experience under their belt with some knowledge of how to work in society productively. Maybe along the way they would also learn that color of ski, spiritual beliefs and gender identities have nothing to do with the quality of a person or their ability to do a job.
7
The Supreme Court has now clearly demonstrated that common sense and the law have roles secondary to extreme fundamentalist beliefs.
11
I believe that the role of the military is defending the nation, not engaging in sexual reassignment surgery and transgender re-socialization.
The last time a nation was so engaged in such issues, as well as the politicizing of sexual orientation, identity, and increasing liberality, and drug use was during Wiemar Germany, after the mass genocide in Namibia.
6
How dare you. Those brave men and women are protecting your safety and liberty. The cost of their medical care is not significantly different than any other soldier.
5
Whatever the final ruling is on the merits, the article glosses over what message the SCOTUS sent.
A federal district judge is authorized to rule on the law with respect to a specific plaintiff who has a complaint. They are not supposed to issue nationwide injunctions resisting executive policy.
Obama issued his executive order in June 2016, within his authority as Commander in Chief. A couple of hundred of the enlisted came forward and began transgender surgery at government expense. Regulation regarding standards for evaluating recruits has not been written and had not taken effect when Trump reversed the decision.
It was inappropriate for a federal judge to arbitrarily substitute his personal opinion for that of the CIC
3
This is not my country. Working people don't deserve judgements on externals. Anyone that shows up and works hard is all that is required.
10
Shame on SCOTUS. This is not the Supreme Court "Of The United States'. It's not the Roberts Court either. It is the Putin-Koch's Court, and every ruling made while Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are on the bench is suspect, a dishonor to America, and not worthy of support.
The Court is not legitimate: It has members who are there because of our leaders' ties to Russian and American oligarchs.
Restore some semblance of legitimacy - demand Gorsuch and Kavanaugh step down, and wait before appointing any justices until we get a new administration that did not get Russian/KGB assistance in coming to power.
6
Supreme Court
Congress needs to fix the supremes
Add more judges.
No life appointments.
Military should stand up to trump and align with congress.
Trump is going to use military for his current coup for dictatorship
3
Last year I was ready to graduate and join the US Navy and go to officer candidate school. I was excited and it's been something I've always wanted to do. I scored well on the entrance exams and was physically fit and healthy. My legal record is also completely clean. The recruiter told me I was a shoe-in for the job I wanted. But I sent my medical info to the Doctors and I was disqualified, because months beforehand I saw a therapist and he diagnosed me with a mild form of depression called "dysthymia". I didn't even know about the diagnosis and I was never prescribed any meds. But the navy told me to kick rocks and reapply three years later when the policy allowed, if I still wanted to.
But I'm not bitter about it and im not asking the liberal media to crusade for me or others like me that are DQ'd for depression, saying I have some "right" to serve. If I can be DQ'd for that, then transgenders, who typically have many mental and physical issues, should be DQ'd as well. The military is allowed to set its own standards and like it or not, Trump is commander in chief. Transgenders are typically depressed by gender dysphoria and they also require substantial medical care (if transitioning). They also have suicide issues, and the military often makes non depressed people suicidal and depressed, many veterans take their own lives tragically. Let's let common sense prevail in this country.
10
Buckle in. There will be a lot, lot, lot, LOT more Supreme Court decisions like this.
1
A person doesn't have transgender behavior, a person is transgender. Just as a person is black or white or pink.
We have asked brave men and women in the military to hide their sexual orientation long enough, shouldn't we be a little bit more accommodating here?
I can possibly understand the argument that transgender treatment is quite expensive. but a counter argument could be made also under the Americans with Disability Act:
If a person is not allowed to serve because he or she is transgender, then, apparently, the transgender status of a person is a disability - otherwise he or she could serve. Shouldn't the military then be required to make "reasonable accommodations" to allow the person to serve?
2
Equal protection under the law is what these transgender Americans should expect and demand from our government. I understand the court's decision, however, many people who are not educated in the law will not understand it.
If history serves, this decision will be likely co-opted as a political tool of the religious right. If it does, I hope that knowledgeable Americans, and the media, will do their part to educate our fellow Americans so as to combat the ignorance that surrounds this important social/political/legal issue.
The bottom line for every American citizen is simply this: When one person's rights are abridged, all of our rights are abridged. Our rights are worth fighting for, and in the past, our forefathers died for them.
3
Isn't there something in the Constitution that protects against the tyranny of the majority? I thought the protection of minority rights was the backbone, or at least an essential element of a democracy.
3
Those already in service will get to stay, those not yet enlisted have to wait for a legal determination as to whether the COC gets to decide policy or a judge.
1
these words stand our in this article -
"The vote to lift two injunctions blocking the policy issued by lower courts was 5 to 4, with the Supreme Court’s five conservative members in the majority."
Hey Chief Justice Roberts, were you truthful in saying judges have no political ideology a few months ago?
Lady Justice is blindfolded to represent her impartiality in matters of justice and the law. The blindfold symbolizes the philosophy that justice should be rendered "without passion or prejudice."
It sure seems SCOTUS conservative judges have NOT done their best to eliminate prejudice against LGBTQ citizens in all government affairs including branches of our military.
9
The duty of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution, not the hatred and bigotry of the Trump administration. Where in the Constitution does it address transgender Americans and military service? Where does it say they cannot serve? There are no words to address this abuse of power.
10
The US Constitution does not specify how many seats there shall be on the Supreme Court. This is a determination of Congress. If the Democrats regain control of both Houses of Congress and the White House, they should enlarge the court by at least two seats. They should also double the size of the House of Representatives, which would have the effect of greatly reducing the wildly unrepresentative character of the Electoral College and thus of the chances of electing the loser of the popular vote to the White House ever again. A larger House would Leo bring the number of voters per district closer to the international norms of other democracies.
9
While I am personally in favor of transgender rights and am saddened by this decision, I want to stress that the military routinely rejects applicants due to myriad "medical conditions" even if such conditions do not seem that significant or insurmountable in the civilian world. And not everyone can get a waiver to override the rejection. Since many transgender people do require some medical intervention, this decision does not seem that out of line with the military's MO. On the contrary, it just confirm's the military's strong desire to seek recruits who are medically "clean slates" -- as long as it is not faced with a shortage.
8
I am ex military I have no problem with transgender in the military. What makes me really angry is the fact that you have draft dodgers like trump or any of the republicans who never served saying who cannot serve. It’s a darn good thing that women and blacks are already allowed because I suspect they ban that if they could?
If someone is willing to stand next to me and run the risk of being killed or just being deployed for months at a time... then I would be happy to serve with you.
27
@Michmike978
Trump did the right thing by refusing to participate in the slaughter of Vietnamese in an undeclared, illegal war. He's the first anti-war president this country has had since Jimmy Carter. Look at the flack he's getting by trying to end the US involvement in Syria and Afghanistan. The military-industrial complex is a formidable foe.
2
If President Trump was opposed to the slaughter of the Vietnamese, he should have applied for conscientious objector status rather than claiming a questionable (giving him the benefit of the doubt using that characterization) physical ailment.
3
Thank God for this!
4
Why? Please explain.
3
Seriously - look at the photo ... does this seem like the photos of the Army or Marines on the front line in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Is this the sort of force that will outfight America's enemies?
8
Maybe it's time we set up a committee to judge the judges. Where is their humanity? It's difficult enough to be born transgender in a world that hates anyone that is different. How many transgenders commit suicide? Where is your heart Mr. Roberts? What happened to equal rights?
5
I understand that many readers disagree with the President’s decision. I can respect that. I concur with Trump on this matter however. I think the military is neither ready nor able to deal with this issue for many reasons. As far as I am concerned, the Constitution is unambiguous with respect to the President having the final word on this given his power as commander in chief of the armed services. The judiciary needs to defer to his judgement given that the courts are simply not equipped to second guess Trump or any President for that matter when it comes to military issues.
4
Transgender troops. Seriously, We’ve lost our minds in this country. I’m neither democratic or republican, just a person who tries to live with common sense and no matter how people want to spin this, sorry, it makes no sense at all.
8
Banning transgender in the military is like banning people with glasses in the military. If weren’t born that way you have no value to military and your medical condition (eye exams and new glasses ) burdens the military budget.
6
According to data from the Defense Health Agency, DoD actually spent $41.6 million on Viagra — and $84.24 million total on erectile dysfunction prescriptions — last year. So... we may have to ban those guys too.
9
Oh look....9 justices with a combined 0 seconds of military service are backing this policy brought to you by a purebred draft dodger that denies courageous Americans who wish to serve a full and equal opportunity to serve their country, regardless of their sexual identity. What an utter joke the GOP and their judicial hacks have become....now placing their instinctual hatred of those with anything other than the most traditional of sexual orientations and/or identities ahead of reverence for patriotic American service. I guess that whole thing about service to country only counts when there's a political advantage to be gained from it.
12
Not 9 justices....only 5 justices backed it. The more humane justices tried to do the right thing but we’re outnumbered.
2
There are many conditions that exclude people from joining the military—pregnancy for one.
5
I think people believe it is just discrimination based on gender. As a physician I can tell you of the enormous cost of the treatments, the surgeries, the complications. It adds up on medical bills and also just paying the service person when they are not able to serve. Then are were supposed to ship the hormones out to the combat zones. Unnecessary when even those with mild asthma can’t serve.
14
If it does not actually (quantitatively; not talking about subjective "feelings") affect their performance or their fellow soldiers' performance, what exactly is the argument against it?
I manage 30 employees and as long as they show up on time and don't infringe on one another (and the projects are completed) I really don't have any business deciding who or what they ought to be.
Unfortunately, people born in the 1970s are not in charge of the military or courts. It'll take a few decades until they're replaced with a more thoughtful or younger cohort.
5
Leave it to Trump’s handpicked henchmen to continue their scorched-earth program of making life in America unlivable for this and succeeding generations. What a horror!
9
Military is no place for humans to be working out their personal sexuality identity crisis and the military should not be forced to pay for same.
Time out--figure it out, get the operation or whatever is required to fix the psych problem, then come back and reapply. Till then, bye-bye.
10
[The ban] “generally prohibits transgender people from military service but makes exceptions for those already serving openly and those willing to serve “in their biological sex.” Meaning, transgendered people already living as the sex they identify with and post sex reassignment surgery, would be banned.
1
Why? To be cruel. The GOP in a nutshell.
14
@Bright Eyes
People are only cruel when they've been treated cruelly for years, installed a disconnected from themselves to survive, and then, as they're no longer centered, become afraid of everything and everyone who seems to be different, as that necessarily makes you question your own identity.
Only centered people are familiar with regularly questioning your own identity and not identifying with it too rigidly.
Mike Pence who is afraid to go on a one-on-one business lunch with a woman without his own wife being president, Trump who can't "resist" kissing "beautiful women" on the mouth and groping them ... it's all part of the same sexual identity disorder.
Compared to such non-centered living, I'm quite confident that transgender people who made it in the military are a thousand times more centered/grounded than those who are so afraid today that they ask the government to intervene and use its power to discriminate against transgender troops.
Sticking to the "symptom" of cruelty isn't enough here. If we don't realize that 30% in our country has mental health issues when it comes to sexuality, harasses women, hates homosexuals etc., and don't start to urgently help them get a bit more grounded, things will only get worse before they get better.
Because let's remember, they may be "deplorable", but nobody is born this way, it's life that turns you into a bitter old white man/woman. And fortunately, today we know how to help these people. Compassion is the first step
3
I know the liberal thought here is this is sexual discrimination against transgenders. that's the easy explanation. but in reality it's about medical conditions, deployment readiness and cost. many pre transition enlistees enlist so as to apply for transition treatment and medication. transition treatment is a long and costly process. many enlistees are looking to apply for this treatment on the govt dime because they can't afford it. its costly and time consuming. this also affects deployment availability. while on the meds, that are not able to be deployed. this disrupts the entire capability of a company being deployed. currently, diabetics, asthmatics, mentally ill, flat footed, scoliosis, and people with poor eyesight are either prohibited from serving or restricted from certain duties. for these other cases, this is NOT discrimination. the same holds true for transgenders. it's not discrimination, it's about readiness, deployment capability and cost. we understand your agenda. but please, come back to informed reality. then we can work together and move forward
20
Thanks for bringing this to attention- it’s helpful to understand some of the rationale behind the decision. Would it not be possible to just make such stipulations when hiring? For example, many companies offer to pay for egg freezing as part of their many perks. I’m not sure if every women who joins that company is doing so to take advantage of that perk. Could it be the equivalent of an entity explicitly saying they will not include the following “perks” due to financial reasons rather than eliminate an entire group of people altogether? I will admit I’m not as knowledgeable about these issues - just wondering if there was another solution that could adequately address what you’ve outlined.
1
@bored critic Do you think Trump was seriously weighing any of those factors when he announced the ban? Or was he just doing it because his base loves cruel actions?
2
Only the military and the rest of our country lose here.
2
For every transgender person who wants to risk their life to protect this country there are hundreds of “others” who wouldn’t do a single thing to take care of anyone outside of their immediate circle of friends and family. Trump is example number one. Who would you rather support? If a person who steps forward to defend this country isn’t OK with you, then the only question is: what is wrong with you?
10
SCOTUS should be shut with the rest of the Gov.
3
It seems to me that President Trump has no true skills. All he wants to do is UNDO everything done by President Obama. Period. Whether it is good or bad for the country. Can someone compare all Trump policies vs. Obama policies?
10
The ideal world of America as a beacon of progress, liberties and exceptionalism has caught up with its lies and reality. The US has now relinquished its stand for freedom and has abandoned the land of the brave in the name of one man.
5
Seems to me that progress has different definitions depending on who you are. As does freedom. Is freedom the opportunity to do whatever you wish? I don't think so. The problem with this idea is that much of what we (and I mean all humanity) wishes is wrong. Real freedom is that your wishes actually conform to what is right and true. When you compare your wishes to that of a holy God you may realize that they often don't align. God allows us the freedom to be wrong (both personally and corporately) and to experience the consequences of that wrongness. How much better it would be if we
had hearts that actually wanted to do what is right in God's eyes all the time! People acting this way...that is real progress and that is real freedom.
4
@Nathan Howell
Except that many different Gods are officially recognized in the US, and they don't speak the same language, remember?
You have every right to adopt the definition of freedom of the God you worship, but CONSTITUTIONAL freedom is something totally different.
It includes being allowed to serve in the military when all studies out there prove that being transgender does NOT reduce your military capabilities, nor those of your unit.
So from a constitutional point of view, we should ALL be proud of and respect our troops, EVEN when they are part of a minority group or worship a different god ... rather than install government discrimination based on prejudice and fear, as this ban does.
6
Which god? There are so many: females and males, with widely varying scriptures, rules, commands, understanding, etc. And, they all reflect the human cultures that created them.
I think I’ll stick with science, evidence, and reason. So, where’s the evidence that transgender people cannot meet the rigorous qualifications and requirements of military service? Where’s the evidence that transgender people cannot serve with honor and distinction?
.......... (crickets)...........
4
There is a mean-spirited slice of American society that fervently believes that if one particular group is granted equal rights, the rights of all others are diminished.
12
Looks like many people in the country are not learning from our history. From the movie “The Hidden Figures”, if NASA had banned African Americans or women from certain jobs, we may not have gone to the moon. Baseball did not allow African Americans play until Robinson.
Banning any group of people from any activity, we may be missing our future.
The President and the Supreme Court justices took a oath to uphold the Constitution. But I suppose they have not learned it in their history lesson.
8
I think this is too simple. It is easy (and true) to know that you were born a woman or born black. There is a lot about transgenderism that we don't know and may never know. Is it entirely inborn? Is it choice? Is it cultural conditioning? Is it wrong? If something has no element of choice in it at all then certainly it changes the entire way we look at it. I am however not persuaded that there is no human agency in many of the sexuality debates currently in discussion. And I think this is where some (not all) of the rancor and division comes. Do some people fear and even hate what is alien to them? Yep. It is a temptation for much of fallen humanity. But is that what I feel towards transgender people, fear and hate? For the most part, no. Do I think it is possible they might be living in error and denying the reality of how God made them? Yes I do think it is possible. Does this mean it is unwise to put them in the military? I really can't say. I don't know enough about how the military really works. Do I love all those in the world of LGBT? Yes I do because I know that they are made in the image of God, and nothing and no one can take that away not even any confusion that they may have.
3
I cannot wait for the baby boomer culture wars to end. America needs to move forward.
10
In the future when reporting SCOTUS decisions, could you please let us know which justices voted which way? It's not enough to identify them as "the five conservative members". That's no identification at all. They have names, please use them.
9
Good for SCOTUS. The military is not a breeding ground for social experiments. It is a fighting force whose mission is to kill and destroy. Trump's Supreme Court is quitting itself well. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are strict constructionists. After Ginsberg retires, it will be a rock solid conservative majority. Stay tuned.
6
The good news is I strongly doubt many LGBTQ are signing up to fight for DJT.
One can only hope that we as responsible adults let children of all types and sorts and orientations know that the government isn’t a worthy judge of a person’s character or worth, and certainly not at this point in history.
5
Astonishing.
The focus should ALWAYS be on FUNCTION. Not a side issue like sexuality!
"Supreme" Court fails again thanks to the MALFUNCTION of a certain five "justices."
6
Your attitude is exactly why meaningful discussion often does not take place. Because someone disagrees with you, that means that they are malfunctioning? How can there be meaningful dialogue between those of opposing viewpoints if we see those who disagree with us as somehow less valuable, less valid, or mentally deficient? If you've ever had someone try to understand, truly understand your position even when they don't agree, then you can grasp how wonderful it is to be validated and respected outside of complete consensus. Love and respect for others doesn't have to be given in proportion to agreement on sociopolitical issues.
You may not have meant it in the way I am describing but it does come out that way with how it is written.
5
@Dave
No. They made right decision
3
Our little President is insecure about his lack of service and still in obvious pain from his bone spurs- so evident on his numerous Golf dates. So he goes ahead and bans some extraordinary Americans from serving our nation. Pathetic man. Pathetic ruling. We gain nothing- we lose plenty. 2020 cannot come soon enough.
12
@Fred Lifsitz
What does mean. Clinton and Obama didn’t serve during Vietnam and why?
3
Obama was born in 1961. At the height of the Vietnam War in 1968 he would have been 7 years old. You expect someone to serve at 7 or just hate Democratic presidents?
11
This is so wrong. Part of the Republican theocracy plan. What is in my underwear is nobody's business but my own.
8
Too simplistic. What is in your underwear and how you view it has everything to do with your identity. Identity has everything to do with how you relate to yourself, to others, and to God. I honestly don't know how wise or unwise having transgender service members is. I can see the fear that some have that taking a moral position in a governmental context is leading towards some form of theocracy. And I, even I, the bigoted, backwoods, backwater, and backwards Christian that I am, don't want that. It is hard to say that there isn't a moral statement that isn't somehow connected to your personal theology. In this way I see much of the division between secular and sacred, church and state, as illusory. I don't know the right way to take a moral stance, be true to your convictions, govern openly, serve justice, and allow freedom of thought in every policy. Does anyone?
Perhaps 500 years from now much of this debate will be more settled. To say that it is and that anyone who doesn't agree with the progressive left needs to "get over it" isn't wise. Political correctness can be a form of modern orthodoxy that does silence people like me who have valid concerns about community and societal effects from letting people act entirely unrestrained with who they "feel" themselves to be. I have no problem with people thinking whatever they want about themselves. But to suggest that peoples thoughts will always be innocuous isn't reasonable. Ideas always have conzequences.
3
@Nathan Howell
500 years? We'll be debating where to find freshwater and food then. But thanks for your optimism!
5
why do you ignore science over what you think god wants. I really don't get it and I am a God loving Catholic.
1
First they came for the men who thought they were women, and I did not speak out—because I was not a man who thought he was a woman. Then they came after the men who thought they were camels, and that was the last straw.
12
Take heart, trans soldiers. You'll be allowed to serve with dignity again come 2021.
8
@Iris
Don’t hold your breath, Trump will be President for another 6 years.
1
Dark, if that’s the case, than I’m definitely holding my breath.
1
Term limits for supreme court justices. This is a huge perversion of US government.
10
Each one of the 5 will shout to the rafters they are not politically inclined. As a well informed, well read, inquisitor of science I say “Please?!” How transparent this Court is. And I refuse to name it Supreme. Really? What makes it so? Not it’s presidentially motivated decisions. These people, yes good citizens have the rights we were all allowed. Shame on them. Their ignorance, their own self worth, what gives them the right? Yes you should know better.
6
Ultimately as a person of conscience, what good is a life of unbearable guilt – of tolerating killings? For I just can’t truly and honestly persuade my loved ones that it’s fine for the innocent people to cry in pain and die as long as they don’t happen right in front of our own eyes. Even in exchange for our own survival.
Especially when your own government discriminates against you. When your country praises you as a hero, but isn't serious at all about taking care of you after your services are done. Actions speak louder than the words.
True heroes are those who use nonviolence to change the world - like MLK. Until the military takes the vow of nonviolence, resist the flattery of a hero talk.
4
Many people join the services, due to lack of money. They want to get ahead, learn skills as well as earning GI bill educational benefits.
We should not prevent even a small minority from these opportunities.
8
@Dr. M
I didn’t know service was a form of Welfare. We fight wars
2
the doctor wrote opportunity, not welfare. anybody knows the military provides opportunity. and some prove to be heroic and courageous and tolerate LGBT people. others, too bad.
1
I'm surprised this article doesn't mention the military's ban on women in combat. Would a biological female be able to get into combat by identifying as a male? Would males be able to get out of combat by saying they identify as female?
5
I am a Professor of Behavioral Neuroscience and I study reproductive behavior. Sex lies within the brain, not in our external genitalia or in our sex chromosomes. Early in life, hormones act on the developing brain to affect sexual orientation and gender identity. If the brain does not respond to early-life hormones in a typical way, for example because hormone receptors or hormone production have been modified, then the way the brain develops is altered. A person with female external genitalia can can feel like a man and vice versa. Because many of our Supreme Court Justices do not understand science and hold old-fashioned or stereotypical social views, they support laws that injure individual freedom and are not humane.
50
@Michael Numan, what's humane about training soldiers to kill in defense of this country? "Let's have the most humane, caring army this world has ever seen". I mean .... is this the Salvation Army you're referring to? How have we, as a society, gone so far off the rails to lose all context of what made us a great nation. We persevered through World Wars ... because of our humane recruitment policies and compassionate, reasonable training programs? Does that compute? Utopia might seem just around the corner to you, where our military will just be needed to hand out flowers and cookies, but as long as we need soldiers to defend our way of life, personally I'll take my soldiers lethal, highly trained and efficient warriors. As a former soldier, I can assure you that feelings, humane policies and sensitivity don't really further those aims.
7
@Michael Numan -how much $$ do you make peddling that nonsense?! No has a CLUE what it FEELS LIKE to be a female! They/you would NEVER know the fear of a boy in the girls bathroom or women's intuition. Never have our sense of smell, or life construct of menstruation. Never have our bone structure, our neckline, nor skin. Never have an actual woman's sexual experience- only some incomplete concept that, once the gender reassignment surgery is done, will have to "good enough". Money is your God, and you are failng these people.
7
This is a dangerous and stupid 5-4 decision by SCOTUS, showing the heavy hand of Trump. We can only hope it will
be reversed when he leaves office sooner rather than later.
22
Transgender: I volunteer. Train me, give me the tools to do that, and I'll protect our country.
Trump: No.
30
@John Hay
White male border patrol agent: I've trained for years, I have a contract with the federal government, I protect the country each and every day, so give me my paycheck.
Trump: no.
6
It's not just Trump, its the bloody Supreme Court.
4
So now, the transgender people will no longer be free to sign up and kill other people overseas, in operations based in more or less dubious evidence. Now, that is definitely an American tragedy, as everyone should have the right to kill thy neighbor...
4
The coast guard doesn't do much killing
2
Excellent news, why I voted for Trump. Nip this progressive nonsense in the bud.
13
Love will always conquer hate. It blooms everywhere.
5
@Ed
And in which branch of our military are you serving? Just curious.
13
You probably claim to be a male because you were born that way. And I’m going to say that’s nonsense. See how that works?
1
It seems reasonable to understand the biological basis of what is the source of being transgender. This is something that I researched some time ago and wrote about. It can be found at:
http://blogs.poly.edu/markgreen/2016/05/23/science-from-away-transgender-the-facts-2/
2
What an incredible, shameful irony that our president, whose daddy enabled him to slight his way out of serving, now bans folks who actually want to serve and even risk their lives for their country.
21
60 years of progress gone in a blink. Abortion rights are next. Christians are so very christian. Remember the inquisition?
Inequality for all!
14
Justice? I think not! What a travesty!
6
"Supreme Court Revives Transgender Ban for Military Service"
.... the price America has to pay for having the man who "loves beer", and finds original ways of consuming it, on the Supreme Court. Rest assured, that is just for starters!
12
So a constantly lying GOP is now mandating our troops to start adopting their coward behavior too.
All while refusing to pay Coast Guards altogether.
What is next?
7
If the serviceperson can do the work, why is it anyone's business, including the president's or SCOTUS, which gender they identify as, if any?
13
Wow, I don't even recognize the USA anymore. Your supreme court is against it's own people. It's like watching cancer spread in an old friend. This is so sad. My condolences.
27
@Edward I'm an American, and sadly, I do recognize it. The America of the 1950s, before the civil rights era. That's what Trump's supporters want to go back to, lynchings and all. Note that 5 white men on SCOTUS rendered this decision.
13
How can a person possibly defend our country when he/she is constantly thinking about sex and who to have it with? Soldiers are allowed a 5 minute bathroom break, but these people will need longer because, we’ll, you know... When commanders exhort “Men, take that hill!” Do we run the risk of losing every war in our future because some of these soldiers are not men? No matter what you think of our President, I take great comfort that five white men in robes thought this was an important issue that merited their learned opinions.
10
@Scott Weil I'm a woman, and my understanding from men I've talked to is that men are constantly thinking about sex and who to have it with. And they've BEEN the military for centuries. Women, gay people of both sexes and transgender persons might IMPROVE the military.
17
@Scott Weil Well, there is that one black man in the mix of the "five white men in robes" you mentioned.
7
nice use if sarcasm.
1
Before even considering the meits or demerits of transgenders serving in the military, I want the current commander-in-chief to apologize for using fake medical certificates to dodge the draft. He did not serve when he would have been required to. To make up for this abhorrent behavior, he should also enroll all his adult children and their spouses in the army and dispatch them to a war zone.
If someone is prepared to shed their blood and even die for the country should we be insulting the person with these ludicrous bans. I don't think so.
12
The nation needs to stop funding for the military and only have a missile defense ,and a lot of nukes .
The only option left, in the face of Republican bigotry and greed, is to get out the vote and amend the constitution. It can be done. Republicans stoop to these appalling levels (what could be worse than stuffing the highest court in the land with illegitimate judges like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) because they know their time is limited and that the country is increasingly becoming progressive. The Republicans are desperate.
7
how can this be constitutional?
6
What’s funny is that people complain but let them do.
The day America will understand that mass protest and strikes are the only ways to deal with these psychopaths, then the power will change hands.
In a democracy, the politics are supposed to serve the public, not anyone’s interest. THIS is not a democracy.
5
@Janet let's take polls, not the Nate Cohn variety, and see where everyone stands on this issue. My intuition tells me you aren't going to be protesting with the crushing vast crowds you think you'll have.
3
@Janet
Gee, Janet - some of us have jobs and families and don’t see the value of Antifa style mayhem. This is a democracy and the way to make change is to work for it and vote.
1
These newly created second class citizens should be exempt from all taxes and civic responsibilities since their patriotism will not be recognized. What’s fair is fair. Trump’s racism has no bounds.
8
@Indy1
Racism? Transgenderism is a race? This comment is an example of how meaningless words like racist and bigot have become - just generalized code for “doesn’t agree with me”.
1
How many of the brave men on the SC served? How many still like beer? How many abuse women? How many think corporations are people? How many don't think at all?
Hopefully all are thinking about retirement.
9
I guess this means that no transgender person can be president since he/she would not be able to be Commander -in-Chief. Does it also mean that no transgender person may serve on the Supreme Court or anywhere in government?
4
Jody Davis (and Brynn Tannehil in the OP Ed) are aggrieved by the Supreme Court decision for how it affects them because they feel they are qualified to serve.
However, laws necessarily have to be easy to apply. Some 14 year olds may be able to be safe drivers but we don't let them drive. Similarly some 14 year olds may be able to hold their liquor but we don't let them drink. Surely, that's unfair!
What's worse it that rather than focusing on the policy issues, the Times is pulling cheap shots by trying to make us sorry for a few selected individuals.
7
@Amy
This is discrimination, based on nothing other than Trump's desire to please the evangelicals in his base. Furthermore, much like the introduction of this "issue," back in July, 2017, it is being tossed out there, again, to distract from other issues that Trump prefers to not address. I am not "sorry for a few selected individuals;" with this nonsensical and, frankly, cruelly prejudiced move, Trump has once again made me sorry for our pathetic country as it continues to allow for debacles such as this one.
3
Wait, aren't those LGBTQ Republicans who were profiled recently in the Times Magazine going to step in and use their clout to stop the administration from doing this? The LGBTQ-friendly administration they all insisted that we currently have?
6
I am not sure what the point is other than discrimination. the Supreme Court should not be about their politics and beliefs, but those of the people they supposedly serve within the context of the Constitution.
5
A military person's gender is irrelevant. If they qualify for service by passing the various physical and psychological fitness tests, then they should get to serve. I don't know if barracks are segregated by sex in the military - if so, they should be segregated based on phenotypic sex, not gender or sexual orientation or ethnicity etc.
3
I served 22 years in the US Army as an enlisted man and NCO. Over that time I've seen and counseled many soldiers struggling with military life. Some were eventually determined to be mentally ill and others were just having a hard time.
That said, one who is clearly suffering from gender dysphoria should not be allowed into any of the military services. It's not prudent or reasonable to allow known, diagnosed, mentally ill people into the military. It's not fair for them, for their leaders, or for other Soldiers, Marines, Sailors or Airmen to suffer the dynamics that mentally ill troops impose upon their units.
This opinion may be unpopular among some readers of this esteemed publication. But I want to assure those that I hold no malice towards the mentally ill. They should get all the help they need to adjust to their situation and live in freedom as proud American civilians.
16
Your knee-jerk claim of their “mental illness” reeks of malice and ignorance in and of itself.
1
I served four years in the U.S. Army. Saw first hand when the other wall came down in Germany, partied with those people from the other side while we shrugged our shoulders about why we were even adversaries in the first place! Then I went off to the First Gulf War where we started the whole process of war again. My unit consisted of half women, half men. Ours was a forward fighting military intelligence unit. Back then, everyone was in the closet by law, the Lesbian, the Gay Man, the Bisexual and the Transgender (Pre-OP), etc. Sometimes you had a good idea who was what, but it was hush-hush because it was their careers on the line. I can say, as a heterosexual man who thinks of sex 19 times a day according to statistics, with complete clarity and conviction, that people with an LGBT background are some of the best soldiers I ever had the honor of serving with. On average they work harder, my theory for that is: they have something to prove: Their honor and worthiness. @Ed the only reason why you do not understand this is because you shut off your "Army, Brain, Left and Right, Human, Electrical, Olive Green".
During that first Gulf War, women were not allowed to fight. That meant that almost all women were removed, by order, from their military forward area jobs before we attacked Iraq from the ground. I know this because I volunteered to fill one of those jobs! How humiliated do you think heterosexual women felt that they could not perform their duty? They were mad!
5
The military has standards for their recruits. They would not hire people who take blood pressure medications, and why would they hire people who have to take hormone replacements?
11
A month or so ago Justice Roberts made a statement claiming the court wasn't political. Of course it's political Justice Roberts, how else would you explain me knowing who the 4 dissenting votes were? Magic? The Supreme Court shouldn't be about the reduction or elimination of human rights, it should be about the expansion or creation of more ways to respect all demographics with whom we must share this country.
7
“Unfortunately, this case is part of a growing trend in which federal district courts, at the behest of particular plaintiffs, have issued nationwide injunctions, typically on a preliminary basis, against major policy initiatives.”
“Such injunctions previously were rare, but in recent years they have become routine,”
“In less than two years, federal courts have issued 25 of them, blocking a wide range of significant policies involving national security, national defense, immigration and domestic issues.”
If you read between the lines the Supreme Courts decision has more to do with reigning in unelected activist judges than offering an opinion on transgender service men and women. It seems that Chief Justice Roberts has finally had enough of the lower courts usurping executive authority and felt obligated to reaffirm the separation of powers. In doing so he and the four concurring justices have acknowledged that there are limits to the authority granted the judicial branch.
3
If anyone thinks that the Democrats actually care about transgender rights, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Their entire strategy is based on identity politics which they use to divide us into separate interest groups. If you’re an illegal, they’ve got something for you. If you’re gay or trans, they have something for you too. What they don’t have is a unifying message that will inspire everyone to work together toward a common goal. They can’t do that, though, because they have a hidden agenda which they know won’t go over so well because it is internationalist and anti-American but they cover it up with goodies for everyone.
10
This is the totally despicable, totally predictable result of Trump's two additions to The Supreme Court who proudly rubber-stamp the official prejudices of the President. We recall, of course, that Trump first seemed to whimsically come up with this anti-transgender pronouncement in July of 2017. Fortunately, though Trump claimed to have consulted with "my generals" over this issue, he ultimately left James Mattis (who was blindsided by the tweeted announcement) to oversee the implementation. Mattis obviously didn't see this as a high priority. And now we have 2.0.
10
@Ann
When referring to resignation of James Mattis, Trump said "what has he done for me?" I am sure he was not bringing to his base attention Mattis's resistance to start a new war in Middle East. Rather, he was pointing out Mattis's reluctance to implement his anti-transgender agenda.
4
If the supposed problems people keep citing about transgender members of the military are true, then why make exceptions for the roughly 9000 transgender people currently serving? Because the claims are not true.
14
I am not surprised but I am dismayed by the ruling of the Supreme Court and automatic agreement of the rightwing conservative justices who will undo every gain for freedom and recognition of minority groups, women and lesbians, gays, transgenders and queer persons.
The majority justices are seeking retribution for years of liberating rulings that gave freedom and recognition to minorities and others.
There is a mean streak a mile wide that runs through the conservatives. We should expect more such rulings the deny individual rights and deny freedom to so many Americans. Clearly this is bigotry, bias, religious dogma and partisan loyalty. This ruling has nothing to do with assuring justice. It was a ruling that guaranteed continued persecution of a minority and the most vulnerable. It was also a denial of science and modern medicine. There is no hope that once the appeals courts sort things out and this goes for a final ruling, that transgenders will get justice.
Our only hope to restore justice besides a Democratic win in 2020 is that one of the conservative justices will leave the court.
Or maybe, and this is unrealistic, but perhaps massive demonstrations in Washington can compel change. I also pray that Ruth Bader Ginsburg holds on!
9
History is cyclical. The Democrats don’t seem to realize that. For fifty years decision after decision expanded the power of the judiciary to carve out rights that never existed. There is no Constitutional “right” to have an abortion, nor is there even a right to “privacy” on which it is based, but liberal justices simply expanded the original language of the fourth amendment which limits its protections to “unreasonable search and seizure” to achieve a desired end. How did we get from there to abortion except that the decisions in question were simply the expression of policy goals dressed up as “law.” Likewise, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has now been expanded to include gay marriage and even gay wedding cakes, and the first amendment which is supposed to protect free speech and to separate church and state is being used against religious groups by forcing them to hire homosexuals or to subsidize abortion against their beliefs, or their tax exemption will be lost. Now the inevitable correction is setting in. It too will run its course in due time, but I can assure you you haven’t seen anything yet.
4
There is a constitutional right to privacy.
1
I'd like to take the medical consideration of fitness to serve in combat one step further: anybody who wants to get sent, by politicians, into lethal combat, should be excluded from the job on sanity grounds.
7
Another 5-4 ruling. What a surprise....not. It's as if justice vs. the corrupt conservative court. Something must be done about that before the court loses all legitimacy as the Federal Society already has.
1
Are women’s reproductive rights next? Probably, with this “new” Kavanaugh court?
We need to be very frightened by what Pence and his cronies on the not-so supreme Court may do to women in coming months.
Could be very much worse than what Trump always brags about regarding his treatment of women.
5
Will anyone with a sense of fairness and decency...and justice... ever respect any decision made by this now majority Catholic boys club of the Supreme Court? The same people who thought Trump would surely become "presidential" once he took office have put their faith in Roberts to suddenly become a moderate. Good luck with that America.
8
This Administration, the current majority on the Supreme Court and Republicans in Congress ought to be equipped only with euphemistic back up lights. No need for headlights since this group has no interest in going forward, only backward. It has the totally unsupportable idea that some halcyon past formed wholly from their imaginations should be the destination for all of us. It's long past time for us to hit their brakes. Since all they're doing is looking back, it should be hard to do so while the attention is totally diverted in that direction.
9
Having gone through decades of 5-4 decisions, I've come to the conclusion that no decision by the Supreme Court should be valid unless it is 9-0.
7
@rosa
so then you'd be willing to give up Roe v Wade, the Voting Rights Act, Obergefell, the ACA approval, etc?
2
@GMooG
I'd be willing to go for a complete overhaul.
Term limits. An expansion of the number. Written exams. Written essays on the top 20 conflicts.
A bunch of atheists on there. Sorry, but what we have now is a strange mix of quasi-secret societies like the Federalist Society, and the rulings on positions dreamed up by the Heritage or NRA.
Actually, given your specific list, every one of them has already been limited and is about to undergo more massive alterations.
The human rights of this country should never rest on the shoulders of one elderly woman or be in the hands of accused sexual harassers.
Watch the situations of your list you offered.
And, yes, I'd be willing to give up United, Scalia's Originalism and Gore v. Bush. Wouldn't you?
1
This saddens me.
Where I hold out hope is knowing that social progress -- which I define as learning to understand, empathize with and respect (in person and by law) people who are quite different from you -- seems to always be one step forward and two steps back, until it finally turns a corner.
We'll get there, I firmly believe.
7
@Lorrae
Oh, gosh, Lorrae, I been holding on for more than 60 years. It's hard, but I, like you, have to have hope for the future, then I realize we are animals.
So now people who have huge sexual identity problems like our vice-president who is unable to go to a one-on-one business lunch as such as his business partner is of the opposite sex, decided to push away all the science out there, and use their own mental disorder as a basis for policy making, declaring strong, mentally thriving patriots such as Brynn Tannehill (see op-ed in the Times today) a threat to our national security.
And those same people argue on television that it is best to not pay border patrol agents for weeks in a row, as long as the legislative process about a new and highly partisan law project (a medieval wall, that all national security experts and border districts reject) didn't come to a close yet.
What a bunch of petty, utterly incompetent people.
HOW did the Grand Old Party fall this deep ... ?
15
A policy initiated by Cadet Bone Spurs who pandering to evangelicals calls out brave trans folks who enlisted to serve America's defense. Many of these trans folks I understand have vital skills for the military in languages and cryptology the military needs at this time. Brawny guys are limited their usefulness these days but of course Trump the old school yard bully was used to beating up smaller guys and his father would bail him out from any consequences. Trump used family connections to dodge the draft using that old excuse bone spurs hard to disprove and he was active in sports . Trump the suspected Russian agent ,erratic lying con artist has the nerve to question the fitness of brave trans ready to risk their lives for our country while he panders to Putin to get a payday. Of course the 5 to 4 supreme court will start eliminating civil rights and if possible take away the women's right to vote and most civil rights and favor blonde white straight christians need only apply.
7
Which judges voted for and which judges voted against?
1
I'd like to see the administration focus this much attention on service members who commit sexual assault (ie, many straight men in the ranks).
13
For all you Bernie people who couldn't stand Hillary or all of you folks who sat that one out and let the nightmare Trump seize the reins...this is what the rest of us were pleading for you to consider. The court is now unfairly stacked against equality and progress and common sense. We have a
pseudo-Christian, drunken, sexual assaulter named Kavanaugh instead of a centrist swing vote like Kennedy was. You let your emotions block your ability to see straight and to see what was coming down the pike if you didn't vote for our side. This is what we were talking about. WE'll be paying for it for a long time.
26
@Tim Prendergast, what a tired, boorish argument at this point. Did you ever consider that //your// choice of candidate was the root cause of the current political landscape? Of course you didn't, it's always everyone else's fault that they didn't vote "The Right Choice", I.e. there person you wanted. What an arrogant, petty persuasive approach.
3
Once, I thought you had to be both intelligent and intellectually honest to serve on the Supreme Court. Obviously, I was naive.
12
Our President, a coward, objecting to those that want to serve their country. The irony is palpable.
The conservative Justices are even more disgusting than our Lilly livered, bone spurred President.
You decide.
13
Trump/GOP/White Supremists Evangelicals are taking us into the past. A past of hate . A past of racism. A past we thought we left behind. Putin is laughing. America is weak and divided. Thanks right wingers; hope you enjoy 1950. Ray Sipe
7
Why can't the transgenders wait to transition from one gender to the other after they complete military service?
9
Why don’t you just accept who they are? Why do these taxpaying Americans have to make you and the military they fund with their tax dollars feel comfortable? They are Americans who want to serve their country; therefore, we should support them. Period.
9
@Southern Boy.
They just want to be who they are.
Just like you want to be who you are.
However, according to you and your sanctimonious, holier than thou attitude, you continually tell us all how you are always right, and everyone else is wrong.
Who says you are right? You should be pitied.
I understand now why people like you live in the south.
4
The military rejects about 80 percent of potential recruits for physical and mental disorders less severe than gender dysphoria. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders diagnoses individuals as suffering from gender dysphoria if they exhibit any two the following symptom:
A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics;
A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics;
A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender;
A strong desire to be of the other gender;
A strong desire to be treated as the other gender;
A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender
(Yes. I know the DSMn now refers to "gender dysphoria" instead "gender identity disorder," but gender dysphoria is, nevertheless, listed as one of the mental disorders in the manual of mental disorders.)
19
@William Case
When the DSM refuses to call gender dysphoria a "disorder" any longer, it's ... well, because they don't consider it to be a disorder, remember?
And why do you systematically skip the fact that it's authors, the American Psychiatrists Association, have explicitly declared that "non-conformity" between gender and biological sex is NOT "gender dysphoria" ... ?
Because that's the case of the hundreds of transgender people serving in the military as we speak, AND that even the Trump administration doesn't even think of firing, nor the SC wants to see fired?
I'm sorry, but the facts are against you ...
Time to confront your own fears about sexual identity and do something about it, rather than projecting inexisting problems onto those who are different.
The FIRST thing our military deserves is to be RESPECTED.
The SECOND thing it deserves and that today the GOP doesn't understand anymore either, it to be PAID - including when the GOP loses and election and as a consequence no longer has the votes to pass its most partisan new law projects.
6
I generally support those that want to serve. However, there is no right to serve in the military.
15
There is, however, a right not to be unfairly discriminated against.
13
But apparently, there is a right to avoid fighting for your Country if your daddy is rich and can pay for a fake diagnosis of “bone spurs” so that you can avoid serving at all.
1
I can’t imagine being transgendered in the military. You’re asked to place yourself and your fellow soldiers in grave, life-threatening danger to play the Pentagon chess game of global dominance under the precipice of the values of freedom and equality, when the nation sending you to do just that so obviously doesn’t consider you an equal person with equal rights, and a lot of its people hardly consider you a person at all. Human beings who happen to be transgendered deserve better. Especially ones willing to sacrifice for the rest of us.
227
@Ryan Swanzey
Amen!
8
Great comment!
Slight correction: One shouldn't use the term "transgendered" because it highly suggests that one was altered or forced to be transgender. Think of it like this: You can doctor someone up, as in, the solderer was doctored-up on the field of battle. That makes sence, but transgender people are not transgendered-up, they're just born that way.
11
@Ryan Swanzey "You’re asked to place yourself and your fellow soldiers in grave, life-threatening danger to play the Pentagon chess game of global dominance under the precipice of the values of freedom and equality, when the nation sending you to do just that so obviously doesn’t consider you an equal person with equal rights, and a lot of its people hardly consider you a person at all."
Sounds familiar...
1
This might be far afield of this article, but I increasingly find myself disgusted at a foundational level with our political system. The senate is an inherently unrepresentative body in which less populated states have disproportional power. The same states favored in the Senate are disproportionately represented in the house due to gerrymandering. The last two Republican presidents have been elected through the electoral college upon a minority popular vote. These presidents have appointed four Supreme Court justices who will increasingly tolerate policy based on thinly veiled religious Christian dogma espoused by a minority of the country. The LGBT community might be the most obvious first target, but women and choice will not be far behind. More broadly, I expect the courts to be lax on equal protection and less of a backstop against bigotry of all kinds (whatever its root cause). It’s truly a deplorable state of affairs.
15
Nothing you say is new. It’s just the same old thing we’ve been hearing since Trump won. But has it just dawned on you that we are not a strict democracy but a Republic based on an historical compromise between competing state interests which were inscribed in a document called our Constitution? It was fought over tooth and nail in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 amid conflicting regional and economic interests which have never really gone away, but through all that the Union survived. Do you seriously think that this political nonsense we’re going through now, the cries of doom, the weeping and wailing over petty ridiculous issues like transgender rights which are being exploited for mere political gain can possibly make a difference in the long sweep of history? Are you so short-sighted?
4
@How Low Can He Go
Don't fall for the exact kind of cynicism that the GOP and Putin want you to fall for.
The main problem here is that a whopping 50% of the American people didn't vote in 2016.
In a democracy, you can only have a government for the people if it's a government by the people.
If "we the people" don't engage, then an immoral, corrupt minority will control the government, until we wake up.
That's not a bug or flaw in the system, it happens to be the best functioning system ever invented, until now ..
If a couple of ten thousand more voters would have turned out and voted in certain swing states, Hillary would have easily won the electoral college vote too.
We REALLY have to become more "politically literate", and start voting, IF we want the government to go in a direction that benefits the entire nation (including minorities), and not just the most corrupt among the financial elites.
The GOP had fully shown what their idea of governance was under Obama (and already under Bush). Lying about national security, creating massive deficits, destroying the economy, obstructing Democrat SC nominees ... it was all there for everybody to see already.
We don't need to become disgusted with the political system, it's ONE political party that has become totally disgusting, and our political system gives us the constitutional power to get rid of that party VERY soon. Now, we just have to focus and engage .. !
4
Almost 1,000 comments most expressing some kind of outrage.
I have to believe most people posting here have no idea that transgender dysphoria is treated as a medical condition, and as such disqualifies someone from military service.
Seriously, people. Get a grip.
26
@AACNY-I think you are missing the point that we have many military members that are serving with medical conditions that require medications.
9
@AACNY
These are people who want to serve our country and, as has already been shown, many transgender people already are doing so, and quite well. This, like the vast majority of POTUS' policies, has at its roots a desire to hurt some portion of the population that does not conform to the white heterosexual conservative ideal.
That's bigotry in raw form. What's more, it's not smart. The persistent and insistent need or POTUS to divide the country reeks of a rigid dystopian mindset and a society that inculcates that perspective can ultimately only survive through suppressive means, thus undermining any remaining pretense of a democratic republic. And, it's also not smart because the weaker the bonds between people in the populace, the weaker the country as a whole.
This policy, like many others, is all a part of a piece. Wake up. Seriously, get a grip.
9
@AACNY
You seem to be new to this debate.
1. There is no such a thing as "transgender dysphoria", the DSM only mentions "gender dysphoria".
2. That's after they eliminated being transgender as a "disease", and then eliminated it as a "disorder". So no, it's just a NORMAL thing, UNLESS you feel a lot of distress and happen to be transgender. Then, your distress can be taken care of through normal talking therapy sessions, or otherwise.
Read the DSM and you'll see.
3. IF it would be a "medical condition" that "disqualifies someone from military service", then why is the GOP arguing that there is NO problem AT ALL with the hundreds of transgender who are serving in the military as we speak ... ?
You see, the GOP narrative doesn't make any sense.
As a consequence, discrimination based on lies doesn't make any sense either. It's immoral. That's why a majority in this country are outraged, you see?
21
Does anyone still respect the Supreme Court? If you do, I have two words for you: Dred Scott.
15
Yeah that's a great idea.
"Since my life is already so hard transitioning to my "real" gender, I think I'll join the military and see if I can get blown up.
7
Maybe they are capable of wanting more than one thing at a time. Why is their desire to serve contemptible or dismissible?
5
What happened to liberty? Can Trump pick out any other group of citizens and restrict their freedoms? Land of the free or home of the opressers?
10
The idea that an opportunistic coward who used family wealth to avoid service now denies brave Americans the right to serve their country is repulsive. It is totally in keeping with this reprehensible man who could not serve Russia better.
Would he have fired Alan Turing for being gay and perhaps lost WW II? How in the world would sexual identity or preference prevent a person from serving?
19
I like beer. Yeah, i still drink beer. People of America, it is time for defiance, which means challenging the law in the street's. TSA, please go on strike.....air traffic controller's start calling in sick....airplane mechanic's, make sure the public knows that at this time yo...you cannot due your job of maintenance and that flying i more dangerous, all pubic unions except medical and military walk out, strike and grind this country to a dead halt. Mess up business, bring tourist business way down.....and any other way you can get the children who govern us (ha) to get serious. Picket every single Congress person on both sides. Let them know the people are taking their power back.
9
This is bigotry, plain and simple.
23
With Liberty and Justice for Some
19
MEH....If the draft is ever enacted again there will be 1000’s of transgender people.
3
I will never understand why President Obama did not fight at all for Merrick Garland. This, unfortunately, is a sad postscript to his presidency, for which we will have a right wing SCOTUS for many years to come.
14
@alank
What makes you believe that he didn't?
The fact that he didn't stop paying border patrol agents for months, as the GOP is doing?
Those kamikaze methods are NEVER acceptable.
It's a president's FIRST job to implement already existing law, period.
If "we the people" would have turned out to vote in 2016, Kavanaugh would never have gotten on the SP and Garland would sit there today.
In a democracy, "we the people" only have the government we deserve ...
4
@alank
Fight how? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives any nominee the right to a vote, or to a hearing.
How big an issue is this? Are there really that many transgender going into the military? Young people caught in this identity trap are trying to determine how they will live their lives. Doesn't seem like the military environments would be particularly attractive to those young adults.
Do we really need a law about this??
7
@seleberry natural-born have to share open showers with them, so, YES.
I write this while wearing a Coast Guard Auxiliary uniform.
I had wanted to join active duty after 9/11, but as a single parent with sole custody it was not an option. I joined the Coast Guard Auxiliary last spring when I first heard of this opportunity to serve. I hope to use my skills as an educator and an EMT to serve my community and country.
As a transgender woman, I hope that I will continue to be allowed the privilege of serving in uniform. I will do so unless I am forced to stop and then will fight to regain that right if it is taken away.
Semper Paratus.
23
@Mx.
A proud nation thanks you for your service!
Discrimination against African-Americans in the military, women in the military, homosexuals in the military, transgender people in the military ... as Obama always said: the arch of history bends towards justice.
One after the other, these immoral practices have been torn down, and will continue to fall away, until each and every citizen who is mentally and physically apt to serve, can do so, and will know that a grateful nation will always deeply respect and honor him/her.
THAT is what "caring about the troops" means, concretely.
And of course, no longer paying Coast Guards as soon as Congress doesn't have the votes pass highly partisan bills such as a wall is totally unacceptable too.
I hope the Democrats will propose a bill that criminalizes shutdowns, as is the case in most other Western countries.
The utmost form of disrespect of the military is to decide to turn their paychecks into bargaining chips ...
3
If you take the ideology out of this, what's the difference between a transgender person and a person with Crohn's disease, ulcers, diabetes, flat feet, scoliosis or any other disqualifying condition that requires constant medical treatment and/or surgery?
14
@Thomas
Being transgender is not a disease that is the difference, plain and simple.
7
@Thomas - the open showers, for one. Crohn's disease, ulcers, diabetes, flat feet, and Scoliosis are (not yet) sexual fantasies and you can claim a trans thinks he knows what/how a female thinks but it's speculative fantasy.
Everyone is always screaming about their rights. Well, we have a country to run. We have wars to fight. As a society we have common interests and goals that sometimes call upon us to sacrifice our own individual interests. After the Vietnam War the draft was abolished by Congress for political reasons, but it can always be reinstated. Is this forced labor? Or slavery? Guess what? It’s not only legal but Constitutional because the military is necessary for our security and our very existence so in the event of a national emergency, get ready to be drafted because your individual right to lead your own life free from your obligations to your country is not absolute. Where do transgender rights fit into all this? Where are they on the scale of importance to national security and to our interests in military readiness and preparedness. Very low, I would say. Close to zero. Yet we are all in a lather over their “right to serve” as if it is the most important thing. Democratic politicians, however, naturally exploit the issue. That’s what they do. They appeal to our selfish natures and divide us for political gain, but even they don’t really believe in it (trans rights in the military) themselves. To them it’s just a cynical electoral ploy. So whatever your individual interests and rights may be, don’t allow yourself to be used by those who do not put their country first.
8
This is blatant discrimination. Transgender people are human beings and should be allowed to serve along side other human beings.
11
Completely reasonable ruling.
12
@Michael
Yeah .. "reasonable" in the GOP's Newspeak, where no longer paying border patrol agents all while claiming to want stronger, not weaker borders is called "reasonable" too ...
1
What is the experience of other countries with this? On gays' service in the military, other countries were ahead of us and showed that it is not a problem, so there were objective case studies independent of what we *thought* would happen or not happen, whether we were for or against. What about this? I have not seen any coverage on that point. There must be some international experience. Or is there not? How about it, NYT? Data, please.
3
There was a time when doing your job was more important than deciphering genders. During the Reagan era, I attended a party with some high level generals which was hosted by a guy whose boyfriend was serving hors d'oeuvres while wearing a tiny pink apron. No one gave him a second look. Everyone's job was more important than focusing on some perceived idiosyncrasy which had nothing to do with accomplishing the mission.
5
According to Trump we need more wall builders for an emergency - but not trans wall builders. When will the country tell this so called deal maker “You’re fired?”
1
Ask yourself, does Brett Kavanaugh meet the criteria for removal.
3
There are two issues here: whether transgender individuals may serve in the military, and whether Federal district judges are exceeding their authority by issuing frequent policy decisions that they apply nationally.
There is no question that the answer to the second question is yes. For t his reason, SCOTUS was absolutely correct in staying the injunctions. Mr. Francisco's comment is accurate and important: "Unfortunately, this case is part of a growing trend in which federal district courts, at the behest of particular plaintiffs, have issued nationwide injunctions, typically on a preliminary basis, against major policy initiatives. Such injunctions previously were rare, but in recent years they have become routine"
SCOTUS needs to rule definitively on whether district court judges are exceeding their authority; the likely answer is that they are.
SCOTUS did not rule on the merits of the cases, whether or not transgender individuals may serve in any capacity in the military. Given the unique nature of the military, this is a difficult question; there is no facile answer.
Incidentally, to those who are worried about inequality when it comes to military service, be reminded that there is still mandatory selective service registration required for men, but not for women. Now, that's prima facie discrimination. Interesting that so many advocates of equal rights ignore this issue.
15
@Alex Re inequality, note also that the military is by design probably the least equal social structure as it is hierarchical. To add insult to the injury, the top guy of the hierarchy is no one else than Mr. Donald himself – a hardly a social justice worrier..
4
@Alex
1. The Constitution doesn't allow any discrimination based on gender.
That's why 4 Justices disagree that Federal district Judges wouldn't have the authority to judge here.
2. ALL scientific reports studying whether transgender people can serve in the military as well as homosexuals and heterosexuals and bisexuals, have proven that they can and do so.
So no, this is not a "difficult question" at all, it's just one of the many questions that science has solved.
Conclusion: there are NO excuses for this kind of immoral discrimination at all.
6
@Ana Luisa
There is no basis for your point number one. As a matter of constitutional law discrimination is not per se illegal. For purposes of this article, we can set aside private party discrimination (more likely to be legal). If the party doing the discrimination is governmental, then one must look at the nature of the discrimination and apply a test. Racial discrimination will be subjected to “strict scrutiny” to determine whether it is justified. Discrimination based on sex is held up against a lower standard—whether the government has a compelling state interest in discriminating between the sexes. Discrimination based on other factors (non race, non sex) need only be justified by showing that the government has a rational basis for making the distinction. I am not suggesting that discrimination against transgenders individuals is constitutional but discrimination is not per se unconstitutional. The question is what is the standard to be applied and how does the government’s purported rationale hold up against that standard.
1
To me, the most disturbing fact is not what the justices decided, but that the justices made their determination along the Left-Right divide. This means that objective JUSTICE, at least in this case, has become subservient to the political orientations of the justices.
It looks that we still have a way to go to act what we preach, even at the Supreme Court level.
8
One thought: Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
We'll look back 20 years from now & realize how moronic this decision is.
14
@deburrito
A little bit of a challenge with common showers and no privacy.
I hope those who sat out 2016 because Hillary wasn’t a warm enough person for them, or cast protest votes for the Greens are enjoying the effect that their tantrums are having on society.
31
Elections have consequences. And this is the consequence of putting a charlatan in charge who rose up through the ranks by appealing to people's worst prejudices and instincts. Be ready for further rollbacks of hard-fought gains.
20
What kind of country is this? Since the draft ended, our military comprises the most patriotic of Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, political persuasion, gender, and anything else that contributes to our diversity. Excluding those who want to serve because of their gender is but one more example of the total absence of tolerance demonstrated by Trump. While this decision by SCOTUS to throw it back to a lower court does not end transgender participation in the military, if Trump had his way he would ban them entirely. In view of the fact that Trump evaded military service with a bogus medical excuse, this is particularly shameful.
11
The Supreme Court’s dismantling of civilized society is well underway.
11
Anyone that doubted whether mitch was a greater threat to our democracy than DJT just got their answer!
11
The military may only select who is qualified to serve based on fitness and intellectual capacity. The notion that somehow transgender persons serving in our military are not qualified only because they chose not to live as their birth gender is a continuation of the disgusting prejudice that has consumed this country since our beginning. That five SCOTUS justices agreed with President Trump on this matter proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are going backwards as a nation and as far from greatness as is possible. Excuse me while I go vomit, I am so sickened my this malevolence.
12
I honestly feel nothing but kindness and love for transgender folk. I hope they live great lives and are able to find peace and happiness in the midst of the incredible challenges they surely face on a day to day basis.
With that said, I agree with this decision. The battlefield is not a place for people who are already facing the extremely taxing emotional, physical, and mental challenges that come with being transgender. It’s not about the individual, it’s about the safety of their teammates. If your teammate has a mental breakdown in the middle of a firefight you’re more likely to die. For the sake of our troops that risk ought to be mitigated as much as possible.
I read somewhere that 50% of trans people have attempted suicide at one point. That statistic breaks my heart, but all the same, I don’t feel it’s morally right to send someone with those kinds of challenges into a wartime environment.
20
@Jon K this may be the most benighted comment I've read on these boards, which is saying something.
And always beware the person who says, "Some of my best friends are...., but--"
6
Steve Bucklin wrote "I am a veteran who believes in universal service to the country. It can be military or non-military service."
Agreed Universal Service, and the military should get the pick of the litter and the best pay. But Peace Corp, VISTA, AmeriCorp... all should be respected.
And if you want to go to college for "free",
4 years of service = 4 years of state college.
By the time a citizen is 18 years old, they have been given so much, it's time to start giving back in appreciation, and learning outside the classroom about the real America and the real world, shoulder to shoulder with other Americans.
And for the sad wayward souls tormented with maladies, like bone spurs, service could be done like working in a homeless shelter, driving a school bus, or perhaps a city garbage truck?
But Everybody serves.
5
Apparently not someone who faced the Draft in the 1960’s-70’s. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
1
Anything Obama approved, Trump is trying to undo. On almost every issue. This should surprise no one, esp. the Supremes decision.
6
What an absolute disgrace.
5
Actually this is good news. Transgender people should be banned from the military. Gays should be banned from the military. Women should be banned from the military. Men should be banned from the military. The military should be dissolved.
11
Trans people should unequivocally condemn the US military, the greatest violator of human rights around the world.
5
Anyone whining about this apparently knows nothing about military standards or has served with during the time of trans service. Openly gay service members was a non-issue, and proved very effective in allowing soldiers in my units to be more open. Trans soldiers, however, were disruptive, inconvenient, and detrimental to readiness. Trans soldiers were in a constant state of being medically unfit due to their condition. They were constantly gone due to medical needs. The units were forced to bend over backward and adjust all standards to one soldier that might not even be in their company. Everyone was alerted to the presence of a trans soldier and told to do anything they could to not offend them or make them unhappy for fear of losing their job. Women suffered the most, as they were forced to use the same bathroom and shower facilities as trans soldiers who had not yet even transitioned. So, any references by straight male soldiers that offended women were immediately processed through SHARP, but forcing them to shower with a male was ok because... trans.
Do you know how many conditions are not allowed? ADHD - no service. Bad back - no service. Anxiety disorder - no service. Suicidal tendencies - no service. Think you're a woman trapped in a man's body and part of a demographic with the highest suicide rate in society - "Why can't they serve?!?!" Nobody says you don't have rights. Your condition is just not compatible with the needs of the U.S. military
31
@Christopher Evans thank you for writing this. The level of make believe on this topic is just bewildering.
17
Thanks for the reality. The policy is no more discriminatory than the ban on asthmatics or those with flat feet or severe scoliosis. It's a medical resources issue.
11
@Christopher Evans
The level of outrage here is certainly commensurate with the level of ignorance. Transgender dysphoria is treated medically. Medical issues are disallowed.
8
So, instead of "Don't ask, Don't tell", it is "Don't be".
Astonishing that the Supreme Court has ceased to be the defender of human rights in favor of using government and the courts to legislate religious beliefs.
30
I'm against the prejudice against transgender people in this ruling, and yet I'm also against the broader issue of the fetishization of the military in this country that seems to infect all levels of society (how, for example, do sports and the military have anything to do with each other?) When you join the military, you are, more often than not, signing up to be a pawn in a rich, white man's power game. I don't say this to disparage our troops, and I am glad we do have a military... but I feel like we've all bought into the neoliberal propaganda that says one is "serving their country" when they join the military. How about we start focusing on the broader issue of how the US is an empire that, very often, wages war for the enrichment of its oligarchy?
13
@Alex, "white man's power game"?? Hmm, that's strange, when this "white man" voted for Pres Obama, I assumed as Commander In Chief, that he'd be perfectly suited for authority over military matters, and I never thought once about it.
Comments of racial agitation like this are not only shockingly common here, but they somehow garner multiple reader recommendations? I just don't get this politics of lashing out, it's counter productive and almost seems like deliberate social sabotage. But yes let's keep slamming "white men", that's sure to affect positive change.
4
@Mike S You raise some valid points, but I also think you're missing mine...
Of course Obama was suited to be Commander in Chief. I wasn't implying that only white men are effective or "good" at waging war.
My main point was that the oligarchy in this country that is pulling many of the strings behind the scenes to influence international relations (not to mention domestic) policy, is primarily composed of older, white men. A prime example of this is Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton during the Iraq War.
Make sense?
It is a scam to seek and receive government payment for a transgender operation which would otherwise be a personal expense. I have some difficulty understanding why a person should be subject to a critical decision made by someone who is unsure of his/her gender. I would question their decision making ability. It is time to stop the social engineering of our military. It is supposed to be a feared fighting force as it is. Why change it to satisfy a psychological whim. If a transgender wishes to serve his/her country their are many more ways to accomplish that. Not the Military.
13
Legalizing discrimination isn't a good look for the Supreme Court, particularly with two justices having credible accusations of sexual harassment and abuse in their backgrounds.
The country has shifted dramatically on this, and young people in particular are very tolerant as well as loyal to their peers. If the military wants new recruits, it won't alienate young people or minorities.
7
I'm trying to come to grips that the 5 justices that are now making the majority of this horrific decisions are Catholic, they think they are not letting their religion dictate but I think they are lying to themselves. It is all about their religion and that anyone that is not male and straight they have a problem with.
14
@thingsthatwow Not really. Lots of atheists would vote the same way.
6
@thingsthatwow
It's hard to fathom what would ever make you link the SCOTUS Justices' religion with the military's ban on a medical condition.
Progressives have gone insane on this one.
6
When President Truman integrated the military the claim was made that letting Blacks serve alongside Whites would destroy our armed forces. It didn't. Then it was women. It didn't. Then it was gay men and women. It didn't. Now it is trans people. It won't.
The only thing that destroys us is bigotry, grounded in fear and hatred about "them." But the negative images we project on to "them" are merely our unacceptable, disowned, and projected parts of "us."
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
41
@Peter Wolf
Polls in the Military Times show that millennials/Gen Z as well as women support transgender military personnel.
This is in part an age issue. Older people (Trump et al.) have far more bias against transgender military.
How many armies have you seen made up of old people? Or those with bone spurs?
If the young people who serve have no problem, then it is all about bigotry.
5
@SMB I agree (despite being an old folk).
3
Undergoing a transition is a personal choice, one which the government has no obligation to pay for. Particularly when it is abused by, for example, men who want to make more money as prostitutes, or who do it for shock value, or entertainment purposes. The entire practice is highly questionable, and the ethics of the medical personnel involved are suspect. I think it is time to step back from this wave of development and re-evaluate its merits and demerits. And not in a social-political context, either. Turning it into a civil rights issue clouded the debate and blocked the perception of the human costs, the social impact cost, and the damage that can be done. I have yet to see any discussion of how transitioning goes against the principles of self-acceptance, honesty, and self-love, or what happens when the transition is failed, or is no longer wanted. There is never any open conversation or debate, because any disagreement is instantly labeled as trans-phobic, a ridiculous terminology.
15
If the military intends to stay out of an individual's personal matters such as this, then active duty personnel should not he entitled to Viagra and fertility treatments. That way, they can direct their energy toward doing their jobs.
11
This is wrong and contrary to everything America stands for.
10
Is it wrong and contrary to everything America stands for when people with anxiety, depression, attention deficit, asthma, diabetes, severe scoliosis, etc. are excluded from service? If not, why not?
5
I know I will be attacked for this, but I think this is fine. People who are transitioning require extensive surgical and psychological care. It's not the time to be out trying to defend your country. I feel like post-transitional people who are adjusted to their new bodies and lives could be considered for duty. Also, I don't want to have to pay for this. I've kept my sex/gender and no one but I will have to pay for any elective choices. It's a huge burden to be put on our already-troubled military.
17
Women have been officially allowed to serve in combat since 2015. As such, an American soldier's gender is irrelevant.
9
Another reminder that divided Democrats at election time have real consequences. Unfortunately, we'll have to live with an extremely right-wing, activist, political Supreme Court for decades. You can expect many more decisions like this for a long time. Hopefully, a lesson was learned in the last election.
7
Many seem to think that arguments against transgenders serving are only religious in nature, but that is not the case. One only needs common sense to see how this throws a monkey wrench into everything.
13
Disgusting. America is establishing a caste system even though we are all created equal.
6
So exasperating and depressing. What is wrong with them? Who cares what someone does in the privacy of their own home! Surely, not me. This fight was fought and won, why dredge it out again (as was Roe vs Wade). People people who care about our country, must be allowed to serve, no matter their sexual preferences.
I worry there are too many religious crackpots influencing our politicians and some of them are our politicians. Stop it.
4
Fascism seeks to out and destroy everything that does not confirm to the norm. The people who uphold these policies of segregation have no logical reasoning to support their decisions. It's a lynch mob mentality to discriminate against individuals that are different than us and thus make us uncomfortable in their presence. They use whatever rational they can find in their uneducated minds to justify their boorish behavior. The rights of the individual to exist as he was born shpuld be protected by the supreme court. Shame on the court!
4
Brett kavanaugh is already paying dividends hey charles and david koch?
Brett kavanaugh just might be your most cost effective purchase.
Bravo.
And all it cost you two were your souls.
10
Government by the WORST for the WORST.
8
What's next?...banning rich boys with fake bone spurs from serving?
7
David Brooks's latest column is titled "How We Destroy Lives Today". That headline belongs on this article.
3
brett kavanaugh and neil gorsuch*:
The best justices money can buy.
9
It proves show far fascist the world has become, just like the 1920's. Hate everyone and be loved by the ignorant masses. And I have to live under this.
Now I know how intellectuals felt in germany in the 1930's.
6
I can't believe that with so much going on in the world, our SCOTUS chooses to spend their time on whether transgender folks can serve in the military. Oh wait, yes I can. Pathetic waste of resources. Spend your time on something that actually is going to harm someone if it isn't rectified. You'd rather pick on the easy targets like gay men who want a cake baked and a bakery refuses them service. Or transgendered people because you don't fear their backlash and it fits with your hypocritical "I'm a Christian" spouting off. The SCOTUS used to be a respectable institution. I'm ashamed, once again, of the US.
3
I'm sure mitt romney's five republican sons will enlist to offset this hateful ruling's impact.
5
The first cruel and inhumane - of surely many to come - from "Donald Trump's court". Republican judges somehow have developed the ability to totally ignore the immoral consequences of their actions...One wonders how they sleep at night?
3
Looks like Bret Kavanaugh stands with Trump rather than sit impartially on the bench. What a surprise.
5
There's a reason that bullies pick on those least able to defend themselves:
--Humiliating, degrading or assaulting those incapable of striking back requires the least effort but attracts the most attention;
--Those who witness the attack are doubly cautious about incurring the wrath of the bully: (1) They don't want to be included in the victim's class; (2) They doubt their ability to defeat the bully who will resort to unfair tactics.
Thus, the bully, by rejecting the rules of society, the social contract ("political correctness"), bends the will of others to his needs and forestalls challenges to his dominance.
Clearly, Donald Trump, the Republican Party, the Supreme Court, the NRA and the Kremlin understand these concepts very well and have utilized them to their benefit, forcing the rest of us to suffer the consequences.
Women, minorities, trans-gendered people, Muslims can march all day long by the thousands. Until they find a way to fight back, they will be the bullies' victims.
5
The ONLY reason that this is happening is so that Trump can hold on to the despicable Christians that hate and fear anyone that anyone that does not look like them, pray like them, or love like them. The ever-persecuted Trump Christians have abandoned the tenants of their faith for political gain by tethering themselves to the most amoral man to ever sit in the Oval Office. As long as Trump continues tossing them chum, they willingly turn a blind eye. Apparently, Trump Christians are praying that their God is not paying attention. Otherwise, they will one day, hopefully soon, have a great deal to answer for.
7
"...cruel obsession..." Pretty much describes the trump way of running the government. Period.
4
So it begins. If the people think this is just about Transgenders better think again. This government wants to roll everything back to the 1950's. People with like minds has been placed in the Supreme court. Reinforcing their needs to roll back the clock, dismantling everything we have gained as human beings in this country. Treating children like criminals because they were not born here. Enhancing human trafficking (no they don't know where most of the children gone). I really don't know where the country I've loved gone. To me this is a total nightmare and very frustrating. I would like to see some semblance of us moving forward to a better future before I leave this world. I hope we the people are willing to fight for every inch we have gain because if we don't we will loose everything we have gained in humans rights in our land. Tolerance, kindness, and compassion for everyone in my neighborhood when I was growing up. It didn't matter the color, the religion or what sexual preference anyone had. Yes, this was in the USA in far away land called the Bronx, NY. We had them all. I guess, like Dylan's song "The times they are a changin" Not for the better.
6
The illegitimate Supreme Court strikes another blow for small mindedness and tyranny. Four of the five majority votes came from Injustices nominated by "Presidents" who "won" in stolen elections. Massive vote suppression and the help of the Republican Injustices helped put Bush in the White House in 2000 and then in 2004. Then, of course, there is The Donald ... Need I say more than his name?
4
Regression pure and simple, society has evolved it’s supposed to be more tolerant but the justices of the highest court in the world, seems hellbent on dragging us back to a time when tolerance and acceptance was sparse . Here we are in Ireland with a gay president and the USA are banning people who are trying to be their authentic selves . What has happened to the world
6
Does anyone think TG people who join the military are ignorant of how much harder they will have to work, how much more ferocious they'll have to be, how motivated, how dedicated, how all eyes will be on them? Such a soldier is a soldier you want in your outfit.
9
We already knew brett "the perjurer" kavanaugh hated 15 year old girls but I had no idea he hated LGBTQ service members too.
6
One wonders if, thrust into a situation in which each had to consider a qualified transgender candidate for a judgeship, any of the Supreme Court's 5 conservative judges would vote in favor (yay).
One doubts it.
(To which one adds: Pathetic.)
4
The military claims to be all about discipline. Where is their vaunted discipline in this case? They claim that transgender soldiers would become a discipline problem, which is a fancy way of saying that they cannot maintain discipline among a diverse group of soldiers. Well shame on them for failing to do their job! Soldiers who dress or act in unusual ways but obey orders and do a good job otherwise are serving their country and anyone who says differently is not a Patriot.
12
Part of the problem here is that the military is a big peacetime jobs program for poorer rural states - that's where the bases are and many enlistees come from. We aren't in an existential war for survivor where every able bodied person could be conscripted for a life or death struggle.
If this were the case, no one would care about this at all. Since the military is a footnote right now, life all footnotes, the fight over what would be a nonissue at an important time takes on lots of significance.
1
We lose all wars. All deaths are a consequence of futile policy. What a waste! Banning everyone from military service would be ideal. Good for our country, good for the world. Vietnam, Afghanistan Iraq Syria Libya Yemen all unmitigated disasters.
In this and this only I agree with Rand Paul.
If we must have a military let minimum
age for enlisting be 50. Also no women with young children should be allowed overseas.
There may come a time when the military will be up against the wall and need people PERIOD who are willing to serve their country, including people with easily-remedied heel spurs. It will take an act of Congress to change the law to coerce these people to serve via a draft.
We are witnessing the ideological dumbing down of American institutions and values. It will be very hard if not impossible to remedy damages being done on a daily basis by politicians, including those in black robes.
5
The Opportunist In Chief exploiting another way to divide the USA - this time by gender identity. He's already divided us (or deepened the divide) severely by political party, race, religion, financial status, private:public, region, education, gun rights views, health care views, etc. If there is an opportunity for him to drive a wedge, he will take it every time.
Our enemies couldn't do a better job of dividing us than Trump & Co. are doing. United We Stand. Divided We Fall.
And I'm not a liberal. One not need be on the left to see what type of divisive so called leader sits in the White House.
8
We were already divided. He is just exploiting it. The Union vs the Confederate States. The civil war never ended.
3
For SCOTUS they're issuing a ruling of discrimination, a day after MLK day! I do not think the Gov/military should be paying for gender change operations and treatments. To me falls on the edge between needed and elective procedures.
For Trump and conservatives it's a means to segregate the military further from the general population, attempting to bid military personnel as "special" from the rest of Americans. They're playing an insidious game of divide and conquer with the American people.
4
I opposed to this ban as a civil rights issue, The prohibition and discrimination against transgender people makes that clear
But I had not really been paying much attention to the exceptions and the exceptions make it clear that discrimination against biological women is intended as well
"The policy, announced on Twitter by President Trump and refined by the defense secretary at the time, Jim Mattis, generally prohibits people identifying with a gender different from their biological sex from military service. It makes exceptions for several hundred transgender people already serving openly and for those willing to serve “in their biological sex.”
This says that the military wants to be able to discriminate on the basis of biological sex . There are 2 separate classes in the military, male and female. Soldiers are not being recognized for what they can do but whether or not they have a y chromosome.
6
The military doesn't want the burden of paying for hormone therapy, psychological therapy and whatever. However in banning an entire group the military risks alienating the brightest and most prized soldiers & officers.
4
@Codie
Did it ban "all"?
The Army didn't meet it's recruitment goal last year. At the same time we will likely see the entrance standards drop to include acceptance of those with a previous drug use or a criminal record we are likely excluding those who have valuable skills and would serve honorably because of their gender identity. Sure makes sense to me.
5
Transgender decisions have absolutely nothing to do with male or female gender. It is simply a personal decision, never explained rationally to AHEAD OF TIME AND FOR A LIFETIME personally decide the very opposite. NOT TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A PERSON OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. In and of itself, it doesn't matter. Many people don't don"t engage in sex. It is their insistence that it is a matter of having anything to do with being male or female, and portraying themselves as one of the opposite sex that is bizarre to say the least. And that emotional sexual responses to one of the same sex, are indeed sexual. They are not, generally. Yes, there is a small minority of people in which their DNA did duplicate male female as it was designed to do. But they are not a real problem, and we need to help them live however, they choose to do, given the hand they were dealt.
It is choosing to make a personal decision to not have sex in advance as a general rule and acting like pretending to have a sexual response with one of the same sex, however convinced they may convince themselves that it is. In fact to me, gay men that act like females or the reverse, DO NOT ACT LIKE ANY WOMAN I have run across. And often what they do do, is obviously a man trying to be a woman, but with no idea what being a woman is like.
1
There is no way our military should get involved with those seeking gender reassignment surgery. This is a medical issue and not something our armed forces should be compelled to deal with.
6
@AACNY. And personnel using Viagra or taking fertility meds should not taxpayers to foot the bill.
5
I disagree with the Transgender ban. To me it does not matter what your gender is or what gender you prefer. If you are willing to fight for America, God bless you and thank you for your service.
7
We can't have people with personal secrets guarding national secrets. Let them serve openly.
1
@Norman. ..as is demonstrated by the president.
1
The stench of trump and the extreme members of the Supreme court have shown US how they can drag back the country decades with their retrograde policies, judicial activism by the loaded court....This is the real damage trump can do and has done with his busy body operative court appointments.
7
While the Supreme Court's decision is obviously troubling, I think some may be unclear as to what it signifies -- or, more accurately, what it doesn't. To quote a lower court's holding, it is “not a final determination on the merits” of the transgender-ban policy. In other words, allowing the ban to remain in effect for now doesn't mean the Court will ultimately conclude it is valid as a matter of law.
Speaking as a lawyer who specializes in constitutional interpretation, I don't think there's even a vaguely plausible legal basis for such an outcome. Doing so would require the Court to throw its own stare decisis (established precedent) out the window, which it only does in the rarest of instances. Perhaps ironically, most of the cases in which they've done so were for purposes of *reversing* horrific civil rights-related wrongs, not the other way around. (Plessy v. Ferguson, the infamous 1896 decision that cemented the "separate but equal" segregation doctrine later effectively overturned by Brown v. Board, is one example.)
Second, the Court explicitly denied the Trump administration's request to hear immediate appeals of related cases at the trial-court level -- bypassing the federal courts of appeals, in other words, which the Court only does for matters of critical importance. Put another way, "the Supreme Court saw through the administration’s contrived efforts to gin up a national crisis," as a GLBTQ activist quoted in the article note.
In sum, all is not yet lost.
7
@Jeff,
You act as though we haven't lived in this koch-owned country for the past decade?
We are well aware this is just more ignorant rightist petulance and nothing will come of it but LGBTQ Americans still have to deal with the fact that many of their fellow republican citizens, most claiming to be christians, HATE them!!!
Republican cowards, like trump, who are far too gutless to enlist but who still manage to look down on citizens who chose to serve.
I am sorry you LGBTW citizens have to deal with this public display of hatred by our president and the highest court in the land.
3
Many people who voted for Trump were just looking at one issue (e.g., the wall or a hatred of Hillary). They didn't see the big picture. They didn't realize the ramifications of their vote. We are seeing them now. Next to go: abortion rights.
15
this comment is hopelessly naive. of course the Trump voters saw the "big picture." we just want that big picture to look different than what you wanted to look like
3
It’s a hate crime, plain and simple.
28
@New World
Do try to be less out-of-control hysterically irrational and stoop shrieking nonsense
There are bona fide reasons why females should not have to live in close quarters (sleep, bath, dress) with biological males who fantasize they are female
There are bona fide reasons why the military does not accept enlistees who need daily medication for ANYTHING (or who might need such medication like pre-diabetics)
11
@New World is it a hate crime when ANY medical condition is not met? The military screens every applicant and has a very long list of disqualifies to include failure to meet physical fitness standards (you must meet a certain height and weight to start with to include not being under 5' tall), having AIDS, diabetes, ADHD, or any condition that needs to be medicated into submission or regulated on a daily basis.
6
How truly sad.
To all transgender service members who voted for Hillary, I am deeply sorry that you are having to endure this bigotry.
24
When the draft is reinstated, I'm showing up for recruitment in makeup, pantyhose, and a Steelers t-shirt.
26
@John
Oh no, all those brave GOP Navy Seals will get SO scared that they'll run away and forget who they are and what their job was supposed to be ... !
2
John this priceless
1
Wow what a lot of intolerance in these comments.
Please answer the following:
(1) During basic training, the new enlistees live in an open dormitory - 40-50 beds in 1 room - with an open shared bath/toilet area (step out of the shower & there is NO privacy
(2) After basic, unmarried lower-rank enlistees typically live in a dorm-style housing -- shared bedroom with 1-3 roommates..
Are women suppose to accept having a biological, anatomical & physiological male sleeping right next to them in the same room or standing there when they step out of the shower? In there while they dress?
In any other situation, if a woman was forced to dress, undress, sleep or bath with a biological, anatomical & physiological male right there, the NYT readers would be screaming "Sexual Harassment"!!
The presence of a physical, biological & anatomical males who want to pretend they are female can present a risk to real females of sexual assault. Most recently it was the David Thompson AKA Karen White in the UK - put in women's prison & committed sexual assaults
(3) Once these people start hormone therapy, it is pretty much they need the hormonal drugs for life. Sudden cessation of such medication causes mood swings, irrationality & other behaviors.
You CAN'T enlist in the military if you are pre-diabetic/diabetic - even if it is controlled by insulin. Can not enlist if daily meds are needed for ANYTHING
Deployments can result in required medication being unavailable or interrupted
33
Somehow, despite your points of disagreement, the military has managed to shower and dress for a whole year.
6
@AnnS The people that are being dischared from the military are already serving and have finished basic and AIT the have been openly serving and the problem is not the military but the president made this decision out of the blue.
5
AnnS@. How right you are!! With no privacy, perhaps with no other Individual to identify with, no privacy in the shower or dressing how difficult and uncomfortable that would be for so many people on so many levels. Not to mention the cost of treatment that would have to be footed by the tax payer.
7
Thanks Kavanaugh. Not.
10
wrong figures once again for dramatic effect:
Rand Corp did a 2016 study and found:
Using the limited available information, they created an estimate suggesting that there could be between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender individuals in the military, out of about 1.3 million personnel.
On top of that, they calculated that there could be between 830 and 4,160 in the reserves.
So, that would make a maximum estimate of 10,790.
They also estimated that each year, between 29 and 129 service members in the active component would seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.
From the studies that are available, it seems that 15,000 might be too high an estimate. But it would still represent only 0.75% of active and reserve personnel.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-40950946
8
The Trump administration continues to demonstrate it's willingness to pander to its (shrinking) right-wing religious base, regardless of the impact on national defense, which it also claims to champion.
Let's assume Trump eventually prevails in the courts and transgender people are banned from serving in the military and mass pogrom ensues to root them out. At present, a typical US Army division consists of 15,000 combat plus 8000 support troops. While the number of transgender service members is not precisely known, a 2017 UCLA study estimated there were about 15,000 serving in all branches of the armed services.
Think about that: Not only would Trump's benighted religious-driven & bigoted policy ban future transgender recruits, it would have the effect of wiping out the equivalent of an entire combat division. In a full-employment environment where military recruiters -- even under the best of conditions -- have huge shortfalls in their requirement objectives -- where & how does Trump intend to find their replacements?
Replacements certainly won't be found among immigrants who have heretofore enlisted in hopes of getting a quick path to citizenship.
Were such a massive personnel casualty inflicted on an American unit by an enemy in combat -- due to a blunder by their own commander in chief -- the outrage would be uncontainable. Then again, perhaps such a mass casualty is exactly the result that Trump -- and his friend Vladimir -- intend.
6
To everyone saying transgendered people don't necessarily have a right to serve in the military and they can discriminate against who they want, you are correct, but is it a wise decision? Tammie Jo Shults was not allowed into the Air Force because in the 1980s they discriminated against women and did not admit them. Luckily the Navy did allow her to join and she trained to be fighter pilot and instructor. Fast forward to last year when the Southwest Airlines plane blew an engine and had to make an emergency landing. Tammie Jo was at the controls, and because of her experience, she calmly landed the plane. Did it matter that she was a woman? No. Experience is what counts.
23
I hope the children and grandchildren of the five justices who voted for this ban will be volunteering to serve in our armed forces. The idea to ban a qualified transgender or transitioning person from volunteering to serve their country, even temporarily, is beyond ridiculous.
19
The supreme court make politics’ judgment because politicians elect them. "You elect me, I defend your ideas and actions" Shameful.
13
Five male Roman Catholics , disguised as Supreme Court Justices , once again allow their religious beliefs to trump their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
We saw this in Obergefell where the familiar dissenters rallied around a church that indulges in pederasty , misogyny , and homophobia rather than discuss the dictates of the first and fourteenth amendments that compelled the majority in yet another 5-4 decision.
And we saw it again in the case of Windsor where the majority again recognized how unfairly the partners of gay unions were treated in the probate courts.
Now that we have a Catholic and Conservative male majority , it will be interesting to note whether the forthcoming rulings on such matters as Roe will favor the Constitution of the United States of America...or the Pope.
23
@Laurence Voss There are also three Jews on the court. If Garland had been confirmed there would have been four. Most of the people who noticed this and commented negatively on it were openly anti-Semitic.
Why is it appropriate to get upset about the number of Catholics on the Court or claim that they somehow put their religion over their judicial and philosophical understandings of case law and precedent? This seems like socially acceptable bigotry.
You would likely not have opened your comment saying "Three Jews, disguised as Supreme Court justices, once again joined a horrible ruling today..."
5
@Liloz:
There are actually six Catholics on the Court. Justice Sotomayor has made it clear that she sets her religion aside , as the Constitution demands , when considering legal matters.
The five Catholic Conservatives make no such exception. In the Obergefell case , all five disregarded the only legal issues in the matter and dissented on religious and historical grounds having nothing to do with the matter at hand.
You seem disturbed by negative remarks concerning a church that is neck deep in child sodomy cases in every country worldwide within which it practices. A church that treats women as second class citizens and makes no secret about it's homophobia.
When it becomes difficult to distinguish between a formal religion and a RICO organization , that is bad enough. When the dictates of such a religion are shoved down the throats of our citizens by a court whose majority identifies with the religion rather than the Constitution , that is intolerable to all but the small minority of citizens that agree with such outdated beliefs.
And yes, had the Jewish religion made such inroads into our governmental affairs , they too would have been called out.
2
@Laurence Voss You're missing the point.
There is no evidence that the Catholics on the Supreme Court OR the Jews on the Supreme Court put their religion before their jurisprudence. Yet, you feel quite comfortable insulting the Catholics and suggesting that they are the only ones who are being influenced by their religion.
Most decisions on the Supreme Court are not that divided. Many are unanimous or 7-2. 6-3.
If you are going to say that it's legitimate to attack a Catholic's religion because you happen to disagree with a particular Catholic judge's decision, don't get upset when the Coulter's and Theodore Beale's of the world attack a Jew's religion on the same grounds.
The idea that 33% of a court is made up of a 5% minority is already enough evidence that some have made too many inroads into out governmental affairs. I don't think we want to go down that road.
The Catholics on the court tend to vote as they do because they are conservative, not because they are Catholic. Liberal Catholics would vote differently. If Ben Shapiro or Mark Levin were on the court instead of Stephen Breyer, their votes would be different, even though all three men are Jewish.
1
And so it begins... The reactionary roll back of gay and reproductive rights, gender equality, and anything else the so-called conservative justices will get their hands on. Onward Christian soldiers...
14
There is no description to do justice to the depravity of Trump.He declined to serve his country when it was at war, but he now refuses to let patriotic Americans serve their country if they are trans-gender.This is a tiny, tiny population but he will stoop to any depth to sow dissent and discrimination.
19
Allow me to translate:
Dear base, while I did offer DACA recipients another three years in America in an effort to force Democrats to reopen the government, I only did it to get my silly wall.
Trust me, I still hate them.
And to prove I still hate "those" people, I'll have my supreme court ban transgender Americans from serving in The armed forces.
We need republican patriots like ronald reagan, john wayne and clint eastwood.
You know...men.
Sincerely,
Electoral president don trump
14
I like beer. I advocate for the use of torture. I groped woman. I'm a Christian zealot. I am the supreme court. A court designed to represent the worst that this country has to offer and it shows. This court will divide our nation, encourage discrimination, continue to legalize corruption, and finalize the destruction of the American republic, its institutions and its values.
28
I'm ambivalent about anyone taking up arms under the current commander-in-chief. Kill and die at Trump's whim? Seriously?
But transgender people have been serving just fine for years. Let them continue, and stop making them political punching bags.
Like the wall, the transgender ban is based on lies. The wall is based on the lies that we're terribly threatened by immigration and illicit trafficking, and that a wall would solve those problems. Both are false. The wall is a monument to racism and misdirection.
The transgender ban is based on the lies that transgender people undermine combat effectiveness, that transgender people join to get the government to pay for sex-reassignment surgery, and that that is inordinately expensive. Again, all of those are false. The ban is a monument to phobia.
In both cases and others, Trump is stoking fear and hate to motivate his base and distract from his many, many failings and crimes.
Not only is there no compelling need for the ban; it has no rational basis whatsoever. The Pentagon spends more on one non-functioning F-35 (let alone the Zumwalt-class destroyers at $8B a pop) than on all the surgeries there would ever be.
16
Well, there you go. "Conservative" supreme court justices letting prejudice and denial of humanity be the law of the land. I guess America is great again. If they could just get rid of those irritating"native Americans and same sex marriage, the job would be complete.
11
Another example for all those who said there was no difference between Hillary and Trump, do you seriously believe this would have become an issue if Hillary had been elected? And, Donald, how does enforcing this disgusting policy keep us safe?
14
This does not feel like my America. What a sad, backwards-looking decision for our country.
13
Though trans people are the easiest target for the authoritarian class to kick, this decision is more about SCOTUS reasserting the power of the third branch than any particular human rights violation.
2
The Supreme Court having been supremely compromised by the illegitimate installation of Gorsuch (fruit of the poisonous Mitch) all of its conclusions ought rightly to be regarded as provisional, pending review by the people who wuz robbed!
12
I fail to see how this makes us stronger or safer. Gender identity has nothing to do with a person's ability to do their job. More pointless antics from a spiteful man. Russia is sure getting their money's worth though. Must enjoy watching us look at all the wrong things, willingly divide ourselves. Pick sides. Spew hatred and intolerance. This does not make us better.
7
After reading about Trump supporting LGB & 1T in NYT Mag who say that this administration is the most supportive, I wonder what they they think of this policy.
3
The Court no longer stands for justice to me. It stands for arbitrary, mean-spirited discrimination. If the Court ultimately decides to uphold this ban, that decision will be wrong, regardless of what legal gymnastics and mumbo jumbo it employs to get there. W. R. O. N. G.
5
You have to hand it to the right wing, they know how to frame an argument.
Now we are fighting a civil rights battle on who gets to throw their life away advancing American corporate interests through military means, abroad.
3 years later, we can claim victory!
Meanwhile, the next decision is made to outlaw abortion or whatever, distracting the energy of the left for another decade or so.
No forward progress.
6
It absolutely sickens me that the Supreme Court now supports discrimination based on factors which have absolutely no correlation with an individual's ability to carry out a specific role or task. Let's ban people with odd-numbered shoe sizes from being doctors. Or prevent people who have the letter "K" in their name from being accountants. This ruling makes as much sense. But while we're at it, can we please ban people with Orange hair and skin from being president and to immediately move from office any such individuals with those characteristics?
7
After being drafted, I served in the US Army from 1967 until 1969. While I was opposed to the Vietnam war, I had no beef with the very professional people, officers and ncos, whom I encountered. It was the one institution in our society that appeared to judge people on the basis of merit, whether they could do the job or not, and not on the basis of other irrelevant factors. It was ethnically and racially diverse, and there was no question in my mind that there were gay soldiers known to be gay in their small units where they were tolerated without any difficulty.
Banning transsexual individuals from the military is so foreign to this institution, and therefore, once again, Trump, with his ignorance and lack of understanding and operating purely from prejudice, threatens the integrity of one more important institution -- an institution fundamental to what's good about us and what makes us a great nation.
But of course Trump's father paid a doctor to help Trump get a deferment so Trump knows absolutely nothing about the military. And contrary to his really preposterous claim, he would not make a great general.
14
This is an honest question. Everyone is saying that Trump has banned transgender individuals from joining the military...but I dug deeper to learn more about why he did this. He banned people who were diagnosed as having gender dysmorphia as well as transgender individuals who were seeking to undergo gender reassignment surgery.
Now, you could argue that blocking people with gender dysmorphia is just blocking transgender people from the military by calling someone who is transgender mentally ill. I can see that as problematic.
But, wouldn't it make sense to want to block people who want to use government money to undergo expensive gender reassignment surgeries? Depending on what someone wants, gender reassignment surgeries can cost over $100,000. The military blocks people with a variety of medical conditions from joining, probably a combination of inability to serve and also the fact that the government shouldn't have to pay for extreme medical expenses. What are your thoughts on this?
9
@Joanne Yes, if your last paragraph were true, the ruling would make sense. But this is not a ban on people who need expensive surgeries. It is a ban on trans people, including those who do not plan on getting surgery and those who already got it.
3
Your argument assumes that transgender military personnel expect the government to pay for their surgery, which is untrue.
There are plenty of people serving in the military that have a myriad of diagnoses from the DSM V - and they receive government-paid diagnoses-related health care.
This is another of Trump's incendiary stunts to divide people further and maintain his wealthy, evangelical base.
Just recently retired after 21 years in the Army. I have seen and served with many personalities over the years. Not one is more different than the other. They were all battle buddies to me. I could care less about what they do with their personal lives. I just know when it matters we all will have each other's flank.
The only thing I believe would be an issue is the SHARP policy.
5
Is the US military an EEOC employer? Should it be? Are equal rights for every conceivable minority the sine qua non for that which all Americans want and deserve: the finest, cost-effective military practicable to defend this nation - in an increasingly hostile geopolitical environment? Formal LGBT admission to the nation's military ranks will incurr special costs for their special needs, inevitably degrading combat readiness and effectiveness.
8
What is the reason to ban transgender people from the military in the first place? No explanations given that refute or undermine the fact that those who are already serving are excellent at their jobs. If this is for some fundamentalist religious reasons, the separation of church and state has to be invoked. That the military can decide who serves and who doesn't is a reason given as a technicality that undermines the credibility of the court's reasoning since the military has known of more than a thousand transgender people in the military for a couple of years plus now, and they have served as well as and sometimes exceptionally in their posts. What real reason other than political gain for fundamentalist religious votes can there be for the real reason behind this?
1
The ban was yet another haphazard "Twitter" decision by DJT to satisfy his base. None of the implications, none of the details, none of the complications - be it civil rights, judicial precedents, combat readiness, legality - were considered before issuing the decision.
The results is the usual chaos around this administration. Arguments are shifting constantly and confusion reigns.
3
In addition to the 14,700 transgender troops, this decision will have a profound impact on the morale of those soldiers who are the children, parents, siblings, spouses, or friends of transgender persons. Their reality should not be left out of consideration.
2
My husband is cisgender male. He would be awful in the military. He is timid, never shot a gun before, and would never be able to take a lethal shot. But if he wanted to enlist, he could. They would find a place for him if he got through boot camp. I don't understand the "biological" argument here. Transitioned trans men have testosterone just like my husband. I as a cisgender woman could also enlist and they'd find a place for me. Transitioned trans women have the same anatomy as me.
Other than just having a personal problem with transgender people, what is the logical reason for not wanting them to enlist? Not everyone serves in combat zones, so the idea of not having unit cohesion isn't enough.
7
Willing to serve “in their biological sex?” There is less liberty for human service members than the service canines who accompany them. Patriotism has definitely become an abstract for openly political manipulation.
1
Outrageous, but unfortunately not unexpected, now that Kavanaugh is on the court
2
The Supreme Court should stay out of biology, an area that is not judicial and about which they know zero and has nothing to do with the law. If they don’t stay out, they have no honorable place in America because they are ignorant. Their role is the law and who breaks it. It has nothing to with sex— even abortion.
These are personal matters and personal decisions.
9
so who makes and see defines the laws then? And by what standard. what you're suggesting is anarchy
4
When Trump tries to institute a draft to support his upcoming wars with Iran, North Korea, China and Mexico (over them not paying for the wall), I wonder how many potential draftees will claim they are transgender to avoid service (from those that didn't avoid service because they are wealthy)?
7
Good question, but “bone spurs” seems like a viable option as well.
4
So let’s get this straight.
Trump and his sons have never served the public in the military or any other way.
But transgender people — or any military volunteer — are willing to give their lives for an Administration who loathes them.
Ok, got it.
22
This has nothing to do about gender identity. It is about the ability to deploy and physical health.
The US military routinely, as part of policy, denies enlistment or continued service in certain situations, to those with medical needs, including medication needs, because it impacts the ability to deploy as well as adding logistical complications.
People who take ADHD meds are not allowed to enlist. Diabetes medication - not a chance. Many mental health diagnoses are also banned. People are not allowed to enlist for something as simple as having a cavity that is unfillled.
The DSM-V lists gender dysphoria as a medical condition (agree or disagree) but it is one whose treatment recommendations include hormonal medication, surgery and often prescribed counseling. No other medical condition requiring this level of care is allowed to enlist.
Equality means being treated equally. Not receiving special treatment or exceptions.
23
@C. Childers This ban doesn't seem to be specific to trans people who need those treatments, though. It is a blanket ban on all trans people, which includes many who do not need those things, or who used to need them when they transitioned years ago but who do not need them now. Frankly, I doubt very many trans folk choose to wait until AFTER they are enlisted in the military to then start transitioning; I'm sure for the vast majority, they transitioned beforehand or perhaps are not planning to do a full physical "transition" but simply verbally identify themselves a certain way. So no, this isn't about banning people who are physically unfit to serve; it is about banning people who violate social norms.
5
@C. Childers
The Supreme Court just confirmed that the hundreds of transgender people in the military, are PERFECTLY able to serve and do an outstanding job.
So IF this would be comparable to ADHD, can you please explain the difference between the transgender people already in the army, and those who are willing to join it tomorrow ... ?
As to the DSM-V, here's the crucial info you're missing: it replaced the words "disease", and then "disorder" with "gender dysphoria" to refer to those people who feel a deep distress about their own gender.
Fact is, the only stress that many transgender people are having to deal with is caused by the distress felt by people who have SUCH a weak sexual identity that they don't even dare to go on a business lunch with a woman alone.
You really think that the mental training you get in the US army doesn't require you to learn to deal with this kind of distress, and that our heterosexual troops are all suffering from the same mental weakness as our vice-president ... ?
1
Narcissistic Personality Disorder is also listed in the DSM V. Are narcissists similarly barred from military service?
5
“Such injunctions previously were rare, but in recent years they have become routine,” he wrote. “In less than two years, federal courts have issued 25 of them, blocking a wide range of significant policies involving national security, national defense, immigration and domestic issues.”
Mr. Fransisco, the reason nationwide injunctions have become more frequent in the past two years is because the current administration seeks to impose its will regardless of law. The solution is simple: Stop imposing unlawful policies. Problem solved.
3
not completely. there are some renegade judges. one in Hawaii and another in California who just want to block EVERYTHING trump does because the are obstructionist against trump
3
The point is that an appointed federal judge on a lower court is not the coequal of the POTUS or the SCOTUS. The Supremes are telling the lower courts that the new strategy to block the executive branch by shopping around a test case to liberal district court justices who issue injunctions against national policy is unacceptable. It undermines the role of the judiciary as an independent apolitical body and it wrongfully empowers hundreds of district judges to act as a rogue executive branch. The judiciary needs to rehab its image as apolitical or how can any conservative or liberal person feel they received justice? RBG herself started near the ideological midline and “shifted” left based on her moral compass and personal beliefs. We want a judiciary that has the freedom to do that and not act as political pawns.
8
What a colossal waste of time to have our highest court in the land arguing whether or not physically able (and willing!) Americans are able to serve in our military just so Trump can have this petty victory in order to appease the Radical Right.
14
many only enlist be abuse they then apply for expensive transition treatment, which they cannot afford, to be paid for by the govt. it also inhibits their ability to deploy
1
Remember - 1 the base loves this and 2 it’s easy to parley it into “all the Ds care about is bathrooms and trans rights”.
2
This is a disgusting, disgraceful and barbaric ruling from the Supreme Court that will legitimise persecution.
People from a persecuted minority are likely to be the best defenders of human rights because they know what those rights mean.
Justice Roberts recently stated:
“What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”
Perhaps Justice Roberts should define for our benefit what he means by “level best” and “equal right” in GOP parlance.
He also claimed:
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”
No sir, you have Stone Age justices.
7
@ Mitchell-Lowe- you are so right-,especially about Stone Age Judges
2
Here is a sample of decisions to come under the new SCOTUS majority. If a case comes before this court involving any group that doesn't conform to standardized conservative notions of 'moral' behavior they will be discriminated against. This case is particularly alarming given the group in question is seeking to serve their country in the armed services. I'm just curious. How many of the 5 Justices themselves served their country?
7
@Dennis W
I'll answer my own question. None.
3
John Roberts, aware "his" Court will be judged by history, has cast a couple of votes in an effort to convince the gullible the he, unlike Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, is not a Right-wing hack and religious bigot. I am not fooled and I don't think future historians, political scientists, and legal scholars will be either.
A growing number of Roberts Court decisions will join other infamous SCOTUS decisions like Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. United States in eventually being overturned and branded as bigotry. And every story about the bigotry of Roberts et al. will be accompanied by a footnote acknowledging the key role that Mitch McConnell, another extraordinary bigot, played in making it possible for the SCOTUS' Right-wing hacks to rule on the side of racial, gender, and religious prejudice.
7
@ Ellis6
You’re counting on decisions being overturned. That means you think representative democracy has a future. Overly optimistic, don’t you think?
Im 100% in support up transgender rights and equality. I stand behind my transgender brothers and sisters. This article doesnt tell us enough to determine the intent of the Supreme Court here, though, and we should be careful what conclusions we draw.
This may be a separation of powers/legislation question above all else, having nothing to do with the rights in question. Yes, of course, the fact that all are created equal has been firmly established. However, “transgender” is a concept not yet written into the Constitution. I believe it should be.
There is a valid argument, however, that the courts are too often doing the job of the legislative branch. Why would legislators risk tackling any social issues if they can rely on the courts to do their work for them? That dereliction grants immense power to POTUS and SCOTUS. There is long-term wisdom in forcing the issue back to congress. We need clear legislation. We need a strong legislative branch. The courts have to uphold legislation that has been passed as long as it is not in conflict with previous (some may reasonably feel that is occurring in this specific case, others may argue it is not). The President, simply, must execute the laws passed by congress, not rule like a monarch by executive action or lack of enforcement. This balance is not happening right now. Congress has become weak, to the detriment of us all. Its there where real change needs to occur.
5
Another administrative decision made in the name of flash over substance. Transgender soldiers make a choice to serve - they are not conscripted. They should be respected for their initiative, not singled out.
Let them serve openly and with dignity so long as they don't have non-gender based physical injuries that prevent them from doing so - like oh I don't know - bone spurs....
6
Yet another Trump scapegoat/"hate the other" policy that cannot survive the briefest scrutiny. If a soldier is so psychologically fragile that they cannot handle working with another HUMAN BEING because that human being's identity makes them uncomfortable, then how can they handle the stress of combat? I would not want such a fragile person in the military.
2
President Trump has been able to appoint two conservative,Supreme Court justices and a plethora of federal judges, and we are now beginning to see the return of common sense--as this ruling demonstrates. Now if only Ginsberg would retire, President Trump could cement his legacy for decades to come. We learned from the Kavanaugh hearings to expect the Left to resort to character assassination, guilty until proven innocent presumption, and outright mendacity against any conservative nominee, but quite frankly, their recourse to rabid hysteria has become not only tiresome, but expected: in short, boring.
3
President Trump has already cemented his legacy: a mercurial, racist, misogynist, unstable, lying, lazy, failed businessman and failed negotiator.
And I'm not from "the left."
4
I find Trump's zeal with this issue curious and a bit obsessive. Is there a need for such urgency in immediately eliminating transgender military personnel? Are they draining the coffers with their surgery requests? Are they grossly incompetent as a group due to their transgender status? As with most things Trump, can you please show us facts when you make a proposal so it can be researched and acted upon? I'm a reasonable person. Between the wall and the transgender military and just about everything else proposed ... it all seems so emotion-driven. Is there any actual business conducted having a significant impact on anything?
2
The urgency in question is another way for Trump to divide people - this time by gender identity. He's already divided us (or deepened the divide) severely by political party, race, religion, financial status, private:public, region, education, gun rights views, health care views, etc. If there is an opportunity for him to drive a wedge, he will take it every time.
2
I don't see a problem in the SC saying that the case needs to be briefed, argued, and decided by the appellate courts before the president's order is summarily reversed by a district court judge or two. Remember that Trump won't always be president; the SC giving the commander-in-chief the benefit of the doubt on military issues while litigation proceeds is generally good jurisprudence. The fact that Trump is currently the commander-in-chief shouldn't be enough to short-circuit a thorough court process. Let's see how the case goes in the Ninth Circuit and see whether it's reviewed by the SC. This will help bring out all the facts and issues and facilitate a sound ruling (we hope).
7
Because sexual identity and sexuality have so much to do with fighting or being willing to die for other people. Yeah, that makes sense. You'd think the warmonger party would be thrilled to have more flesh to sacrifice on their bogus wars. Especially since it's never their own kids that get sent off to die.
9
@Sarah Warmonger party? It's Trump who wants out of Syria and Afghanistan, and the Democrats who bleat that it's a bad idea while the liberal media take him to the woodshed. It's time to update which is the "warmonger party," because it certainly is not the Republicans of 2019.
3
@Sarah
In case you haven’t noticed, Democrats seems to be the ones who are warmongering these days.
Trump wants us out of Syria and Afghanistan, while Dems prefer the status quo.
4
You miss the point of this article. Re read and try to understand its implications on the basis of sexual identity. Remember....we are all born equal and should be treated accordingly.
1
Here we go again. Another “crisis” cooked up by President Bone Spurs, based on nothing but an impulsive decision.
What in heaven’s name disqualifies a trans person from serving their country? In fact, they might even have a stronger commitment to serving, knowing the challenges they might face. Remember the old Avis ad, “ We try harder?” Or, Jackie Robinson, knowing that he had to comport himself perfectly, since he was one of the “firsts.”
This is a sad day. A day of prejudice and ignorance. We can certainly look forward to more of these days, as long as Trump and Pence and the Republicans are in the driver’s seat. It’s what happens when bigoted people (mostly men) have power, and that includes The Supreme Court. Next will be challenges to a woman’s right to have agency over her own body.
So many steps backwards. It’s mighty depressing.
11
@Kathryn the answer is the high level of medical needs.
3
@C. Childers - I think there are plenty of people who have medical conditions who are in many positions in military service. Blood pressure meds, diabetes meds, allergy meds, etc. I don’t think transgender people volunteer for the military because they want free meds. And it’s certainly small numbers of people who are trans who want to join up. I believe that’s a specious reason.
1
The Supreme Court should not be involved in sexual issues be they gay, lesbian, transgender, or related to abortion. They should keep their noses out of people’s private lives unless the individuals are breaking the law.
Personal lives are personal and that includes the transgender. Hopefully the Supreme Court realizes that gender is a medical genetic issue and none of their lawyer business. If they don’t then the Supreme Court is bigoted and as unAmerican as Trump.
2
This is not a policy question.
It’s a cultural contest.
Sooner or later, conservatives will lose - society evolves.
7
It is time for us to start allowing these people to live their lives in peace.
12
If there is a clear danger posed to the integrity of our armed forces, then surely the several hundred active duty transgender soldiers should be ejected immediately. The only reason I can think that they wouldn't be, is that they don't actually pose a threat, and this is just red meat for Trump's base. But surely that can't be the case.
7
Five middle-aged, conservative, Christian, straight men upheld a ban on transgender soldiers.
What a shocker!
Any bets on what will happen to women's reproductive freedoms?
13
justice department says "“The Department of Defense has the authority to create and implement personnel policies it has determined are necessary to best defend our nation.”"
So it can bar women from combat positions? Blacks from enlisting? Homosexuals from serving? Just substitute any suspect class for "transgender" and you see how irrational, ridiculous,contemptible, and contemptuous the Trump policy is. Maybe we should rename it the "Injustice Department" since that is what they seek to enforce-see the withdrawal of consent decrees that Justice had with a number of police departments, rescinded by Trump/Sessions; Trump/Sessions imprisonment of innocent children; and a host of other attacks on the people of this country
5
I'm a straight Catholic and my only reaction is this is pure bigotry and hatred...and illegal.
13
This is another failed attempt at deflection from the elephant in the loving room: The real failure of our current Administration.
5
Part of what is so galling about the policy is that djt did his damnedest to avoid military service but demeans those who willing to serve. He sees military service as beneath him but above transgender people.
Who is next on his list of people to demean? As if the list isn’t already way too long.
7
What all these outraged commenters fail to grasp is that their policy arguments are, and should be, irrelevant to the Court (in this case, at least a majority). Note also that this is essentially a procedural ruling, rather than a full ruing on the merits (although I suspect any subsequent decision here will mirror this order's voting breakdown).
The judiciary's proper role is not to decide whether the policy choices of the executive branch, and the laws enacted by the legislative branch, are the wisest possible or optimal - and the fact that judges will differ in their views on that question makes such a constraint even more necessary. The judiciary's role here is to determine whether or not the policy decisions of the executive are Constitutional or legal. Given that transgender personnel were not allowed to serve for virtually all of this country's history, it's a stretch to suggest that there is anything in the Constitution mandating that they may serve. Not only that, but transgender is not a class for which Congress has enacted special protections that would constrain the president from reinstating this policy.
It's very disturbing that litigants are allowed to seek out a sympathetic - and unelected - judge who will adopt litigants' blatantly political arguments in order to thwart an elected president from making policy decisions that are rightfully his to make. I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court issues a definitive ruling stopping this practice.
5
@Airish
Your argument goes off the rails when you say "Given that transgender personnel were not allowed to serve for virtually all of this country's history, it's a stretch to suggest that there is anything in the Constitution mandating that they may serve." At some point in time, it was historically normal to own slaves, enforce segregation, deprive women of the vote, bar homosexuals from the military, bar women from combat positions, bar homosexuals from marrying and a host of other discriminatory practices that have fallen by the wayside. We should not support discrimination against entire classes of people. We should make particularized decisions about specific people.
2
Does the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment not bar the exercise of arbitrary discrimination? The burden on the government is to show that barring transgender individuals is necessary and not based on the bigotry flavor of the month.
1
As I understand it, this ruling is not final, but a temporary stay on Trump’s ban. They will likely rule on the constitutionality of the ban itself later this session. Furthermore, what people don’t seem to be getting is that the current trans people who are serving will be “grandfathered” in, and any trans person who wishes to join the military now may do so if they join with their biological sex. Although Trump’s ban clearly comes from a place of bigotry, there is a real discussion to be had about biological sex and gender identity and sex-segregated spaces. It is understandable that trans individuals do not wish to be grouped together with those who share their biological sex but are not trans, but women also are allowed to object to people of the opposite sex being in their spaces. It is a tricky discussion when two groups of marginalized people are involved, and we as a society need to approach it with empathy and understanding for all those involved, as well as critical thought and open discussion.
4
I am a student, age 24, so my opinion probably isn't that valued, but I have many trams gender friends and the article is, shall I say, demoralizing, the ban. But even as I have asked my friends this article is nothing but biased propaganda. Theban is necessary to divide the people's ability based on gender (as men have,biologically, more muscle mass and intelectual power). The gender that ced person has identified as may not have the same biological abilities as the identified gende. It is only fair to separate ny biological gender. Case closed
1
The military did not ask for this. Trump asked for this. That a dishonorable man can callously ruin the lives of honorable citizens who seek to serve and defend their country with honor, is beyond reprehensible. If it means automatic disqualification from service, they surely will not be asking about gender identity in the event of another draft.
8
They don't take people with asthma, depression, or flat feet, either. Why should they take someone who needs to take off-label pills every day?
12
@Kathryn McDonald So I guess it's time to ban everyone who takes pills from the military? Where are you going with this? Taking pills is not at all equivalent to the other things you list, all of which can impact one's ability to fight. If someone takes pills, but passes through all of that intense military training with flying colors, should they still not be allowed in, because pills?
Trump, "President of Some of the United States" disallows a class of American citizens to serve their country putting themselves in harm's way, while he used suspect deferments to avoid serving. "Shameless" hardly suffices for a sobriquet. For those who may be interested (sic) I served two years active duty U.S. Army.
4
The phrasing of this (and similar stories) severely underplays the fact that this was the primary, well-understood policy for the military until very, very late in President Obama's term. This is not a novel "ban", but a reversion of an executive order (or C-in-C policy, not sure).
Calling it "Trump's ban" is quite misleading. You'd think the potential for that would be low since the policy change was so recent, but in this age of 5 second attention spans and half-day news cycles, it's quite easy to forget. The Times should give more context rather than implying to those not paying attention that this is entirely de novo.
3
The vote was 5-4, with the Court's five conservative members in the majority and the four liberal members in dissent.
Soon to be six conservative members. Enough of a margin to put some common sense back into society.
6
It seems to me an adult who shows the necessary ability to serve in the military, if there is an available spot, should be allowed to serve. End of sentence.
6
@Yunkele
It seems to me that the little dot at the end of a string of words is a well-known symbol which indicates that the end of a sentence has been reached.
2
Trump and friends remind me of bad parents that enjoy keeping their kids off balance. If one thing doesn’t control their kid, they will choose another. All of the time it is just a matter of control. Trump has attempted to control the Democrats with his wall and now they are trying discrimination against Trans people in the military. I find it sickening to discriminate against a soldier willing to sacrifice his life, especially by a draft dodger. Somehow the GOP needs to stand up to Trump with the Democrat party before our country is completely blown apart!
The main "mental distress" that LGTB people are experiencing and white old males not is that of being systematically discriminated against by a part of our society that never had the guts to serve in the military in the first place.
Here we have a Supreme Court that ONLY stated that presidents have the right to decide whether they want to discriminate or not.
It did NOT state that transgender people would somehow be "dangerous" once they serve in the military, or would not be doing an outstanding job in the military.
Quite on the contrary, it even stated that of course, the hundreds of people who had the mental strength to come out, even though the GOP is cultivating hatred and prejudices against them for decades already, cannot be fired, as obviously, they're simply doing their job as good as anybody else.
So please STOP already with the entirely fabricated out of nothing excuses of LGTB people being mentally ill (because of course, today it's transgenders, but yesterday it was homosexuals, etc.).
2
The John Roberts Court of Religious Bigotry strikes again. In the long run, all of the bigotry sanctioned by the religious bigots John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh will be overturned but in the meanwhile many innocent citizens will suffer.
This may be partly an issue of the conservative justices favoring a strong executive (the fascist Trump), but I believe that really just provides cover for the religious bigotry of the infamous five.
4
What is truly depressing is that the military (and sports) were always an example to me about how to form a team of people with diverse backgrounds and have them function at a high level.
This decision shatters that notion.
I get the feeling we're in for a lot of decisions like this in the next, oh, 30 years or so.
All this, and we don't have any rules about barring sociopaths from leadership positions, which is what we really need.
683
@Mark, I believe this is just a law stating that they cannot lie about their sex when applying, not stating that they cannot serve. You think it's okay to commit fraud for any reason?
7
@Mark
Or perhaps the military should be constructed purely for its lethality and deterrent effect, not how many diversity boxes it checks.
If transgender personnel can serve without being a burden on the unit, let them serve. If a Navy corpsman has to consider the hormone needs of a member of his unit in a combat zone along with the rest of his/her duties, then that presents a problem.
11
@EGD
Nice contrived example of the kind of "risk" a transgender person might present. We should probably ban people with gluten allergies as well.
It's so easy to miss the forest for the trees... what's good is a military for an unjust society?
36
I thought Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch were Originalists. I don’t see where transgender or homosexuality are mentioned in the Constitution. Transgender people are entitled to the same basic rights as “We the People”. One’s sexuality, color, heritage, religion, or non-religion should not be the benchmark for acceptance and entitlement to basic human rights in our country.
The Roberts Supreme Court rulings have favored corporations, religiosity, the wealthy, voter suppression, gerrymandering, you name it. We the commoner’s, which are the majority in our country, have been emotionally and financially trivialized by this radical SCOTUS..
561
@buffnick, exactly, we hold them to the same laws we abide by. We do not lie about our sex to get into the military, why should they be allowed to? Makes no sense to let anyone commit fraud for any reason.
6
@Tim Actually, you are seeking to impose discriminatory laws against them that do not apply to any other group.
24
@buffnick
Lots of confusion here.
First, Originalism isn't directly relevant here since as you say yourself, these points are not covered in the Constitution.
One's sexuality isn't the issue here since sex if clear even if gender identity isn't.
Finally, since the suicide rate among transgender individuals is considerably higher than for the population as whole, the military has a real need to avoid mentally unstable individuals.
8
I don't see what the big deal is. SCOTUS says transgender people actually CAN serve in the military. Natal males can serve in male units, and natal females can serve in female units. So instead of clutching your pearls, grab your birth certificate and enlist.
The whole preoccupation of serving with your "gender identity" is less about transgender service and more about forcing the government to officially recognize an internal subjective sense of identity. The transgender activists want the force of law behind their feelings. The whole thing is incoherent.
9
Everything people who oppose trans equity say against it is what people said against racial equity, equality for women and equality for gays. All that has happened without bringing the military to its knees. Trans equity is just the next step in dragging some people into the 21st century. If the SCOTUS continues to make political decisions instead of judicial decisions it will quickly lose credibility. Time to contemplate where that would take everybody.
3
@MJM. I don't oppose equity. All people should have equal opportunity to serve. You can walk right into a recruiting center, declare your transgender identity if you like, and serve alongside your biological brothers and sisters. SCOTUS is simply ruling according to common sense, and isn't ready to lend the force of law to ideology. The military is segregated by biological sex, not by subjective feelings of gender identity. So, where is the discrimiation?
1
Not a surprising result from the now illegitimate SCOTUS. Anyone capable of looking more than a few months into the future saw this coming the day Kavanuagh was nominated. Our nation mess is just beginning.
4
Like any other job, the military is a job. Sexual preference should have nothing to do with ones ability to do the job. No one should be banned from serving that is qualified.
5
@DSS Sexual preference isn't the issue here, it's transgenderism. Did you read the article?
2
From what I've read on the subject, gender identity is every bit as "biological" as ones's sexual preference and the type and shape of one's sex organs. Since both men and women are allowed to serve in the US military, what is the problem with allowing those to serve whose biologically determined gender identity is different from one's biologically determined body?
As far which box is checked on the birth certificate, that's entirely up to the doctor attending the birth (and actually in some cases it's a judgment call). Mere politicians and judges -- even those on the Supreme Court -- have no expertise in this subject. They should stop making pronouncements about it.
9
There is some evidence that sex dysphoria (a strong and distressing feeling that one’s sex organs should be that of the opposite sex) is a neurobiological phenomenon, but there is no evidence that gender identity, as defined by a subjective and indescribable feeling that one is a man or a woman, exists biologically or neurologically.
2
@JD No evidence? So, if I found even one study that disagrees, that would contradict what you say?
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558#99603270
"In summary, although there is much that is still unknown with respect to gender identity and its expression, compelling studies support the concept that biologic factors, in addition to environmental factors, contribute to this fundamental aspect of human development."
Also, see this from the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/health/transgender-trump-biology.html
When I was a child, many many years ago, there was a woman in our small southwestern town who always wore men's clothing. This was the 1950's. One day she was helping a carpenter friend of ours as he was cutting wood. I said, "Mama, what's that man's name?" My mother answered with a female name. I said, "No, I mean the man, Mama". My mother answered simply that the man was a woman who had a girl's name because that was the name given by the parents but that the man had always dressed in coveralls and overalls like a boy even when he/she was a small child in grade school, but always wanted to be a boy, and always played with the boys. No one questioned her decision or her behavior. As a very small elementary school age child I accepted this explanation as understandable and reasonable. It is still understandable and reasonable this many years later.
10
@chichmax - You had a very wise and far-seeing mother.
2
I can see our nation dissolving into a vast Civil War between two factions: Those who think it is the job of the President to solve problems; and those who think the chief executives role is to boldly invent a problem, where there was none before.
Evidence suggests, that the latter group deeply incorporates the belief, that the distinguishing characteristics that identify a strong candidate for the more creative role are:
1. A high capacity for mendacity
2. A total lack of manners
3. A dearth of historic knowledge
4. An erratic process that optimizes nothing at all.
Will conflict be avoided? Not likely.
5
The Court's decision may be arguable as a matter of procedure, but let's be clear about the ultimate effect of the policy: to weaken the military by confusing commanders and eliminating a whole population of active service members and willing recruits. Like other Administration policies, this serves the interests of our adversaries, not our own.
7
This is a despicable policy motivated by only the worst of transphobic prejudices. It is completely indefensible and was announced purely out of disdain and bigotry towards transgender people. It is even more difficult to understand that the Supreme Court would uphold this policy despite overwhelming evidence that transgender servicemen and women have little to no impact on military effectiveness. Conservatives have sought endlessly to demonize transgender people and deny them civil rights, and the notion that the Supreme Court is letting their fight be successful is abhorrent. This is not who we are as Americans. I thank God that this ruling is only temporary, and I pray that this policy will be ruled unconstitutional and struck down in the coming days.
9
The options as I see it are two:
Pacifica, which would be California, Oregon and Washington (with British Columbia if they so choose).
or...
Cascadia which would be Oregon and Washington (with British Columbia if they so choose).
Then we can let alone those Midwest and Southern "Christians" who are against helping the poor with tax dollars, and who are for assault guns being legal, both apparently because they are ignoring Jesus' message of peace and nonviolence, and His message of helping the poor to get resources from the rich. They instead choose to focus on a minor aspect of Jesus' teachings. Hypocrites.
2
@Will Hogan: Kavanaugh is from Maryland. Alito is from New Jersey. And all the justices went to Ivy League law schools. So don't blame the Midwest and the South. The Northeast is full of conservatives, too.
The military community should reflect that of the general community. Seems to work there. I haven’t heard of any great disruptions due to transgendered persons in the general populace. You could even have a transgendered Supreme Court Justice. Who knows, maybe you do?
8
Think of all the potential transgender people and gay and lesbians on the right who are terrified to be who they really are.They must be in such misery right now, yet again denying their true selves. Some even in high government offices. How self hating do you have to be to deny the brave ones who openly embrace who they are doing what they love?
This is also about a stacked supreme court with right winged plain haters. Terrified haters. Haters of much of anything that is human and kind and decent. Haters of Democracy and fair play. Selfish, mean, spiteful begrudging, and some who are horrible to women and they lie and some now give beer a bad reputation. The supreme court has been fouled now.
9
For those like myself who struggle against vile forms of discrimination this is a significant setback.
For those like myself who want a significantly weakened military this is all to the good.
6
A victory for common sense. Thank you SCOTUS.
11
All arguments to ban transgender people or limit our access to healthcare come down to three basic issues. Religious freedom, presumption of mental instability, or the person doing the discriminationdon't think others will accept us.
This is mostly the third with a dab of surreptitious "trans people are mentally unfit to serve" that people do bring up every now and then. All of these issues have the same solution. Fix the prejudiced not the oppressed.
We can argue all day about what constitutes religious freedom and what does not. In the latter two cases however, there isn't even a presumption of morality. There is to the people that judge us because of course they don't think people will accept us, they cannot accept us themselves.
With no science or study proving I affect unit cohesion or am mentally less fit, it all comes down to people grouping us into little boxes and deciding nobody would ever want to work with "someone like us."
4
@Brenn It is a canard to claim that there is no science or study to claim that transgender people do not affect unit cohesion. There are plenty of studies, although, many are suppressed to comport with progressive political thought.
One aspect is the breakdown in respect for authority because of "the big lie" theory. The troops can tell when a man claims to be a transgender woman. And when their leaders insist that she is a 'real woman' (as I have heard them say), they know it is a lie. That person is a man who is taking hormones to take-on the characteristics of a woman, but in the absence of hormones, will revert to the natural masculine form.
When they realize that their officers are blatantly lying--and demanding that they enable the lie--then then leadership loses all credibility. We are in the world of George Orwell's "1984" where one has to believe that 2+2=5 or be persecuted.
4
It seems that some lower District Court Judges want to establish their progressive credentials for the next (hopefully liberal) president. They have lifetime appointments so they can ignore the trend in the U.S. Supreme Court. A nationwide injunction is a bit much for a handful of people with sexual dysphoria.
2
“The Department of Defense has the authority to create and implement personnel policies it has determined are necessary to best defend our nation.”
I agree.
Now please explain how actively discriminating against part of our troops somehow defends the nation, let alone is the best way to defend it?
The GOP lies about criminality among immigrants.
It lies about what has been proven to best protect the southern border (and then decides to no longer pay border patrol agents, JUST to keep the lie alive among their voters).
It lies about Muslims.
And now it lies about transgender American troops.
WHEN will they understand that lying is not only a moral sin, but also WEAKENING our borders and national security ... ?
8
The new movement to defy the law of nature and create subcategories of gender is getting a belated but much needed push back.
Many of us who hold views contrary to the radical left are marginalized in the media and among the politicians. In my office floor in the politically crazy California, the Men's Room has been remodeled by the administration because of State mandates. New locks and signs have been installed to accommodate transgenders. I do not like it.
Thanks to the SCOTUS, such insanity will not invade the military.
5
@Appu Nair
Get used to the fact that equality and freedom are invasive. There used to be a time when you would not have been allowed to use a restroom in your office. How hypocritical that you think you always belonged. As a woman, a gender still fighting for it’s voice, I welcome the need for individual freedoms.
4
@Appu Nair Gender was not created by nature, though. The "law of nature" you are talking about is probably the assumption that someone will behave and think a particular way according to what their genitals look like-- which, by the way, science has long ago established is not even the only consideration when talking about "sex," which we've all be taught is "biological gender." Even when looking at the other assumptions-- like xx versus xy or the presence of this vs. that hormone-- the picture is more complicated than people think. We are not all xx or xy chromosomally. So this whole thing has nothing to do with Nature; these are just imaginary divisions set up by capitalism and perpetuated by ignorance.
2
OMG the horrors! A freshly remodeled men's room with new locks and signage! I can't imagine the mental anguish you must go thru daily.
4
Kavanaugh blamed his troubles on Democrats and promised to get even. Gorsuch was picked from lower strata of applicants because of his stringent political views, and both were appointed by a president whose legitimacy is now in doubt.
What do we do about it?
3
At leas the military still believes that words have meaning.
How can a biologically male ever have a period let alone potentially carry a baby?
5
None of this has anything to do with serving one's country honorably.
6
@Amy
He can't.
Since when is it necessary to have a period to be able to shoot an enemy soldier?
Do you realize that the same people who today shamelessly defend this discrimination where the ones who yesterday claimed that people who HAVE periods cannot possibly serve in the military?
7
@Amy
The Army requires truth and integrity, not fantasy.
5
This ruling is shameful and just plain cruel.
If the Supreme Court continues to make decisions that violate civil rights there will be an uprising among Americans. A majority disagree with the ideology of this court.
6
We need to hear RBG roar. Now that she
is an oscar nominee, profiting from her ego,
we need some representation. This country
is going backwards.
4
@Mike kelly
Looking forward to justice Barrett to replace RBG. Finally real women will a voice on court.
1
Every day of the Trump Administration makes me realize how easily bigotry comes to Republicans. It’s as natural as air for them.
11
I would like to see this issue openly and honestly discussed but that will never happen. What is the medical maintenance required for someone who is transgender? Does it vary with individuals? If a transgender person who serves later requires a higher level of treatments can they be dismissed from service or will the military be barred from doing so?
If not that would open the military to being sued by those with other medical conditions who were dismissed. Some of them I would consider minor but not the military and out you go. I don't care what the military does in other countries because those countries are the ones who always ask for our help.
I have respect and appreciation for transgender Americans who want to serve. I hope we can get over the division with some clear policy that protects them and military procedures.
3
Why is it republicans keep touting less government when actually they want more government in your personal life, beliefs and home. All these beliefs in people being male, or female, gay or lesbian or transgender or any other belief that they choose, has no bearing on their intellectual, analytical or social capabilities. When people convert to other religions when older, they are hardly discriminated against, so why exactly have they decided this is not acceptable? I think John Roberts has a lot to answer for in history as head of the most backward Supreme Court in recent times. Why not ask the military to cast votes regarding this? Who better than the people who work side by side to make this decision.
7
Isn't this kind of the same way they got the Muslim Ban in? They let it "proceed" while being challenged in court (not the 1st or 2nd, but the 3rd iteration of it), but then, of course, once something is proceeding, if they can't prove it is causing harm, why stop it? The case is rightly made here that there is no evidence that letting trans people serve hurts the US in any way; for that reason, this should not be allowed to proceed at all, whether it is considered to be doing so temporarily or not. Instead, now the argument for why it is harmful to NOT let trans people serve will be expected.
Meanwhile, Trump or someone close to him will probably add some other populations to the law to make it look not-transphobic, the way they added two countries to the banned list to make it look less Islamophobic. They will probably try to treat it like a medical condition, by adding one or two types of disability to the list of disqualifying factors.
2
While disappointing, this is only a stay of lower court rulings, pending a full hearing in SCOTUS. There is still hope, despite the obvious 5-4 split.
This is an example of the "wonderful things" the MAGA crowd refer to when talking about Trump's accomplishments. Roe V Wade is next, and you can bet they'll try to erode same sex marriage, open military service, etc. While the majority of us look on with great concern, you can bet his base is thrilled and more determined than ever to support and re elect him. By the way, any guesses how the Defense of Marriage Act and Same Sex Marriage cases would turn out if heard again with the current SCOTUS?
Elections have consequences! We can all write scathing responses on the NYT comments page, but the only hope for lasting change is voting! For the sake of our country, let's hope the majority of Americans show up and participate in the upcoming elections.
7
This decision is an abhorrent and upsetting one, representing a major setback for transgender men and women who desire to serve in the military. It is also a backward step in the continuing march toward civil rights that should and will be extended to those who identify as transgender. To those individuals, know that you have many of us who are your allies and stand with you.
3
The report here that current policy that was at issue before the supreme court was a ban on "people identifying with a gender different from their biological sex", as this article states is not at all accurate. It is misleading and fails to state what the actual ban is on, and in doing so it also fails to provide any understanding of why the ban was put in place.
The actual policy at issue was that "individuals with a history of gender dysphoria 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".
So the ban was on individuals that have "suffered gender dysphoria" within the past three years, gender dysphoria being a condition that is recognized by the DSM as being a serious psychiatric disorder. It is in fact such a serious psychiatric condition that those who suffer from it have a suicide rate that is 40 times greater than that of the general population.
The term transgender however is used as people who identify as being of a gender that is not their biological one and is not only normal, it should be a right to do so. However both the pentagon along with the DSM maintain that this is certainly not the case. And the question of whether transgender people suffer from a mental disorder or not is not a question for the court to decide.
6
I think it's imperative that the court take a position on who is allowed to defend our nation from enemies foreign and domestic. If we have taken the right away from American citizens from openly serving in the US military would that also give the right to take away their enshrined federal right to self defense such as gun ownership. Since a public court can rule against the right to serve will an executive order granting the right to reenlist or serve be overruled?
"The hundreds of people grandfathered in under the new policy" the brief supporting current and prospective transgender of the military states “cannot be squared with the government’s claims of urgency to eliminate all other transgender personnel.”
Nor does it square that transgender personnel present an issue for the military.
The only legitimate argument the Administration can make is that the military shouldn't pay for processes to facilitate a transgender transition. Debatable, but there is a legitimate basis.
However, those who are already transgendered and want to serve their country in the military present no specified problem and should be honored for their willingness to serve.
1
A vote for Trump was always a vote for less tolerance and more exclusion toward a variety of marginalized citizens and immigrants, and Trump still boasts about that fact. It will be up to voters to eventually decide if they want to embrace the world as it is, or live in an increasingly segregated world with ever more exclusionary laws and walls to keep the “others” as far away as possible. The list of the unacceptable will either increase with more and more bigotry and fear, or decrease with more and sometimes stressful tolerance, but it can’t, and will never stay the same.
1
Gender dysphoria is a defined mental health disorder and would be grounds for exclusion or dismissal from military service. Social justice warriors want to frame this as a civil rights issue but this fails the litmus test as they would have to argue that anyone with a defined mental health disorder should be allowed to serve in our military or other occupations that routinely test for mental fitness. The law allows standards for exclusion as long as they are applied evenly and without bias. Therefore the exclusion of those with gender dysphoria are lawfully excluded.
7
And yet the trump administration eased restrictions on mentally ill people from acquiring guns..you can’t have it both ways!
2
@Mike - People get gender dysphoria because they are living life in a gender that is not who they are and that is being forced on them. So trans people who *are* living who they are don't have gender dysphoria. However, anyone in the military who is living a gender the don't identify with because they are afraid of Court rulings like this one *are* vulnerable to dysphoria. So banning trans people in the military from living who they are will risk causing gender dysphoria. Apart from being an affront to human rights, this ruling actually serves to make the military vulnerable.
The argument that this is a "cruel" action means nothing to this administration.
So let's frame it in something more meaningful to them: The purpose of the military is to deter foes' military action by means of our readiness, and to take swift, effective military action if needed. People who can fufilll the necessary functions should be welcomed, period, or we are not selecting for a military force.
Those who are concerned about "normal" people's feelings when asked to serve with "other" people should find some World War II veterans while we still have some and have a chat
1
The decision is a procedural morass and it remains unclear which way the court will go. Moreover, in times of war the military is unlikely to bar competent volunteers while, in times of peace, the standards are likely to be different. And most important there is no sensible reason at all to bar transgenders from service that benefits the country. They proper decision is clear.
2
“Such injunctions previously were rare, but in recent years they have become routine. In less than two years, federal courts have issued 25 of them, blocking a wide range of significant policies involving national security, national defense, immigration and domestic issues.” - Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco
Not said, of course, is the reason such injunctions are no longer rare is because the current Administration keeps issuing silly policies not based on facts and in many cases "unconstitutional."
2
Although maybe unconstitutional, when quickly glanced over, there are many studies and psychologists who know that going through a decision like becoming another gender heavily affects your abilities mentally. Military training and combat must take all soldiers complete focus if you want Americas military to be prestine as you think it is. Even if that includes not including some.
1
Strange ruling since history of the transgender ban was a tweet that came from trump and took the military by surprise. The defense secretary only ordered ban after trump ordered him to do so. The ban was just done because the trump's evangelical base wanted them out of the military, the military never asked them to be removed.
1
This is what happens when you stack the bench of the Supreme Court with 'Conservatives' who care more about their own narrow world view than the fact that all human beings are equal under the law according to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have turned their collective backs on the foundation of our nation, and the principles they are sworn to uphold.
If someone is willing to serve our country, and potentially die for our country, let them. Exceptions in the case of criminal history where there is an ACTUAL threat to the safety of our troops or disqualifying medical condition that would prevent combat effectiveness have always exisited---but the ban on trans individuals has NOTHING to do with that. It has everything to do with small-minded individuals trying to exclude an entire group of people from doing one of the most selfless and patriotic things an Amercian can do: being willing to give your all, up to and including your life, in service to your country.
It's prejudicial, it's replusive, it's unconstitutional, and it's an embarrassment that a country that prides itself on being a champion of human rights has a Supreme Court majority and a president that will blatantly ingore their obligations to our country and the laws it's founded on to further their destructive, fear-mongering, and hate-inciting views.
2
Some people have termed the decision ‘disgusting’. I find it totally fair, logical, and medically sound.
Nobody has any rights to a particular job. If transgender people want to serve in the military, they should be allowed to serve in the biological gender. They should also play sports with a team of their biological gender.
Physical and mental differences separate us in job/sport ability. Nothing to do with discrimination.
102
@Mary Margaret You can put all the rationalizations you want here, but it's just a political ploy by Donald Trump for his base. He himself could care less, I doubt he'd ever even used the word "Transgender" before he found it could be politically useful. He's losing so much in court that he just wants to show the triumph of having Kavanaugh there.
94
@Mary Margaret Couldn't disagree more. If you're willing to serve and put your life on the line, you get to identify any way you want.
137
@Mary Margaret
Uh ... you seemed to have skipped the part about "logic" in your justification?
You're merely saying that people whose gender is different than their biological body, and who adapt their body to fit their gender, should NOT be allowed in the military.
WHY?
Any concrete excuses for telling the hundreds of them who are willing to offer their own lives to protect people like you and me nicely chatting behind our computer screens, that "we the people" now believe that they aren't worthy of doing the job that, the SC itself admits, they are doing PERFECTLY welll ... ?
98
“I will do everything in my power to protect LGBTQ citizens.” Donald Trump, July 2016
you mean he lied?
13
So infuriating that this ban against people who bravely want to serve their country was initiated by a Trump, a spoiled, ingrate craven coward who evaded service in Vietnam by faking bone spurs, arranged by a tenant of his father at the time. To use Trump's favorite adjective, disgraceful. I'm sure Trump doesn't give a hoot, but only wants to placate social conservative. I still can't fathom that this petulant child who wraps himself in fake patriotism was elected president.
6
@dba - He needed the help of Putin and even with that, he still lost the popular vote so truthfully speaking, he wasn't elected president.
Why should cruelty be denied the SCOTUS? This was hardly a popular idea among military leaders. But who knows better than the five conservatives on SCOTUS? And how supremely stupid to allow it temporarily, when it's likely to be overturned. I guess what Roberts is really saying is he will vote to embrace the policy when it comes back around.
Making America Great Again for intolerance and discrimination.
2
Will transgender people have to wear pink”T”s? This is so 1930s Germany. Government shut down indefinitely. Media turning on the only group that can push back, the Dems in the House. But if they cave, we’ll have shut downs every couple of months whenever Mitch McConnell and Trump want something they should never get. Senate republicans need to cross the aisle to the Dem side and vote on the bills to open the government. Mitch McConnell is irretrievably corrupt and should resign. The Department of justice needs to investigate him and all his relatives in Trump’s administration and his ties to both China and Russia.
10
The 25 District Courts have issued national injunctions in the last two years because the Trump administration has, during that time, overturned years of inquiry and decision making by administrative agencies, without customary deliberation and process. In other words, Trump (who was elected by a minority of voters) does whatever he wants.
The Supreme Court, by a one vote activist majority, has basically blessed this style of decision making, despite its own rule that would require such a case to first go to the court of appeals. In other words, the Supreme Court majority does whatever it wants. Some of us remember when a bare majority did not entitle a President or Congress or the Court to act as if they had a mandate. We no longer have respect for traditions, precedent or comity in this country, and this decision means there will be even less respect for this Court from the people and the next administration.
7
So much for the concept that "all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.." Except now the SCOTUS says that's America except if you're a transgender.
The decision only reiterates the fact that the SCOTUS has become not a body of equal justice under the law, but a conservative political body that demonstrates the concept that unless you rise up to their standard of what a person should be then you are to be a subject of rejection in the military. OMG!
May Ruth Bader Ginsburg live to 103 years old.
11
If the Dems had the fighting spirit this country and our Constitution needs against the GOP/McConnell cancer... then a future Democrat WH and Congress should impeach Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. The former should not serve on any court with his temperament and sexual assault background. The latter should have refused the overly partisan vacancy to which he had been appointed, and which belonged to a centrist like Merrick Garland.
9
I'm just glad they stated "a gender different from their biological sex," versus the latest PC verbiage, "the sex they were assigned." Cause the attending physician assigns a person's sex, not biology /s.
5
This is sickening. Hatred, plain and simple.
11
This is economics plain and simple. Many, many join to have the taxpayers pay for the transgender surgery which costs as much as $200,000 and the patient may not be able to serve for as long as a year. But, if they have the surgery first and then join, I have no problem.
2
What's really new about this story anyway ? The arch conservatives weighed in again, exactly as we would expect. What a disgrace.
4
Does this repugnant and hateful ban originate out of protest to the obligation that military health services provide gender altering surgery benefits to military personnel who require them?
Whether it does or not, my opinion is that all those who are willing to risk their lives in the defense of Americans and peace loving people worldwide (assuming service members are deployed to that end, not used to, say, build a gd wall), should be allowed to do so.
1
Welcome to the beginning of the unraveling of LGBT rights. This is a gift to Religious Conservatives who can disregard 540 rules in the old testament but Leviticus XX (man shall not lie with man) must be upheld completely, utterly and without question. When was the last time that any of these Conservative Christians disdained a pork chop because it is "unclean" under the rules of Kashreth (Kosher). Full disclosure, although Jewish I do not observe the dietary laws.
Its just beginning folks, and anyone who tells me that Obergefell can't be overturned, well I am going to tell them balderdash.
3
Well the artful draft dodger has now made it simpler to follow in his own footsteps?
Instead of dishonestly faking bone spurs you can honestly question your biological gender. Except these honorable people actually want to serve their country!
3
how is this constitutional?
Interesting intersectional politics going on here. Trans people, the new addition to the lgbt tent, want to be accepted by society -and apparently that means to be allowed to join the military arm of the American empire where they can work with their cis-brethren and cis-sisters to slaughter one million (Vietnam), or 500,000 (Iraq) and go proudly to wherever the next big fight is. And the progressives are outraged that their trans brothers and sisters are denied. “Our trans warriors deserve respect” proclaims the lefty online magazine Slate. Not soldiers, not war criminals, not pawns, but “warriors”. This, from the boutique left.
It’s unamerican indeed. What a towering monolith of hypocrisy our politics is. Here the right with its othering and dog whistles, there the left, virtue signaling vampires. In the progressive future, a genderqueer person of color President will direct a female general to bomb some third world country, our proud trans warriors will be flying the Apache helicopters... we’ll all feel warm and fuzzy and so proud.
4
If you have an issue with America’s military complex, address that separately. Barring transgender citizens from enlisting has nothing to do with your opinion on military action. If it’s a right for some, it should be a right for all.
For example, you don’t have to believe in marriage, but you can’t bar others from it.
@Chuffy
Ridiculous argument. Civil rights are not dependent upon the morality of one's career choice.
The fact is that aggressive militarism is LESS likely with more widespread military service. Which could very well be an argument for mandatory national service, which among other things, will acquaint each American with the idea that real human beings exist everywhere in the world. And it most certainly does not mean leaving out one or more groups of citizens
@childofsol
The diverse make up of our military makes abundantly clear the fallacy of your proposal.
1
Well, there’s a group of old folks who don’t see the varied future that’s coming. They should read more near future science fiction, would they turn away Molly because her nails are too long and spiky? Shame, she’d be great at warfare, perhaps Special Forces...(for those who haven’t read William Gibson’s Neuromancer, Molly got herself excellent, and lethal, retractable nails).
A retrograde Supreme Court, oh joy.....strap on your seat belts, they’re only getting started.
@Lily
Maybe you should do less reading of fiction and more sit-ups in ice-cold surf and maybe you might begin to understand.
3
Good. Allowing transgender people into the armed forces was simply political pandering for "progressive" brownie points. As a practical matter, it was insane.
8
Boy, we knew this was coming. A threatened, insecure US of A lead by a Supreme Court that would be perfectly ok to return to the Stone Age. These guys all have Playboy magazines stuffed between their mattresses and their box springs.
Maybe we should only let white males serve in the military, especially the combat roles. I believe the right-wing republican neoCons would call it "thinning the herd."
3
Well here we all are folks. Just exactly where we expected to be after that joke of a hearing last year. The Supreme Court judges guilty of sexual assault, Thomas and Kavanaugh and the GOP power grab judge Gorsuch all got together and decided that some people just aren't up to snuff in their minds and must be restricted. I'm sure they found a nice lawyerly way to say it.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh need to go and I haven't forgotten about you either Susan Collins.
3
A totally corrupt and stolen decision.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh need to be removed.
6
Existing people now allowed to serve as transgendered will in effect be a test of the facts.
They will prove whether or not the hopes of advocates or fears of the opponents are real.
The limited numbers cannot do any real harm in such a large organization, but they can demonstrate the yes or no assertions on each side.
The one caveat is that no person ought to be hurt for reliance to their detriment on the 2016 policy announcement. Apply the equitable maxim of detrimental reliance and estoppel. Make them all part of the test.
This way, in a very few years, the facts will be in and the debate won't be hypothetical appeals to fear or ideology.
If you believe your side, there is nothing here to fear. It is only a couple of years either way.
3
There is a very long list of medical conditions tha bar people from serving in he military and for good reason. If a person is considering or in the process of transitioning then no they should not serve. That s not discrimination, that is standard for numerous medical conditions when it comes to the military.
If a person is fully transgendered then that could be a different issue based on their overall health and what form of medical maintenance they require. That is where the debate should be focused. People are routinely denied serving if they have medical conditions that require a certain level of continuing treatment.
16
@Hellen
Except that even the DSM has withdrawn its idea that being transgender would be a medical condition.
And if it would bar people from serving in the military, WHY is the SC allowing hundreds of people who are doing exactly that, to continue?
It all just doesn't make any sense.
This debate has been had over and over again. It's people who don't pay attention to the facts who then vote for politicians who actively use ignorance and discrimination to get elected, who are weakening the military here, certainly not transgender people.
1
@Ana Luisa. It is a medical condition that occurs at birth and from my understanding requires lifelong medical treatment. I really think it is disingenuous and sabotages progress to pretend it is not a medical condiion.
3
@Hellen
So when you and I take anticonception pills, we should from now on be discriminated against by the president of the US, no matter how good we'redoing our jobs and have been doing them for decades, as taking lifelong medical treatment is now the definition of suffering from a "medical condition" ... ?
Don't you see how absurd this is?
MANY people in the military take lifelong medication. That in itself is not a problem at all, the only relevant question is: does that medication have a negative impact on your ability to do your job?
When all studies show that in the case of transgender troops, it hasn't, then I'm sorry, but you have no excuse to justify systematic discrimination.
By the way, not all transgender people decide to have surgery, and only when you have surgery do you need medication.
So if we'd take your criterium seriously, all transgender people who honestly tell their commander-in-chief what their gender is and who do not change it, should be allowed in the military ... ?
We have an ALL VOLUNTEER military and we need all the volunteers we can get. Very few of these people are sitting in foxholes like some WW2 movie. They are in administration, communications, equipment operators, and specialized repairs and maintenance. If a liberal atmosphere and the availability of sex-change surgery is one of the perks that attracts qualified people, can we afford to delete such people from the recruitment pool?
11
@Jonathan
Recruitment declined after the Obama policy change, which indicated the policy may have deterred recruits who accepted biological reality.
The Obama policy created a situation in which people who didn't want to pay for their own gender transition would be enticed to sign up for four years, spend a year of that time on sick leave at a medical cost of $100,000 each, and then move on to civilian life.
1
And now you know where this right wing loaded Supreme Court is headed. Trump doesn't have a thing to worry about.
8
And so it continues, the widening circles of pollution from the White House and the Senate. Kavanaugh's confirmation ensures that the Supreme Court will no longer be constrained in attempts by the religious right to control all aspects of sexual choice in America.
Electing Mitch McConnell to the Senate was bad enough, but electing Donald Trump to the presidency sealed the deal.
We will get past Trump one way or another, but the damage from this Supreme Court could continue for decades.
11
Well, that should keep about 30% of the country happy.
Corrupted democracy.
9
This is the right decision. Gender dysmorphia is a psychological problem that doesn't belong in the military. If people with much slighter health issues are not allowed to enlist, I see no reason why so-called transgender people should be allowed. You need to healthy and strong and not dependent on medications, I assume.
12
Trilby. ALL armed forces applicants go through rigorous physical & psychological examinations. Once they pass, whether they are transgender or not ,they become the responsibility of the armed services. Many transgender members are serving with distinction and like other members of our forces they may have to undergo medical procedures which you may not agree with.
2
Are you referring to gender dysphoria? If so, that is a condition often remedied by transitioning. Google doesn't even list gender dysmorphia, so I don't know where you got that term. As for medicine dependency, do you seriously think no one in the armed services is dependent on medication? Your comment starts with a non-existent (as far as I can find) "psychological disorder," & ends with a patently incorrect assumption (assumption by your own admission). Military leaders should make this call & they say transgender service people should be allowed to continue bravely & ably serving their country in the armed forces.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/04/24/all-4-service-chiefs-on-record-no-harm-to-unit-from-transgender-service/
A backward decision. Just finished watching the documentary The Lavender Scare....bad practice then, bad practice now.
NRB
3
Yet another nail in the coffin of a Republican party that refuses to recognize that "The times they are a changing."
4
If transgender troops are performing their duties, it should be irrelevant their sexual status. Narrow minded bigotry from 45 and this SCOTUS.
12
Let's move to mandatory national service -- no exceptions for sex, sexual orientation, college, economic status, nothing.
Everybody serves, and there's no room for complaining if you don't like the guy in the next bunk. He's required to be there just like you.
We'd get a military and other service organizations that look more like America...
8
Disgusting. Trans people have always existed and served. The biggest difference now is that they have been allowed to serve openly. And there is the basic problem for so many people. They don't want to see. They don't want to have to acknowledge that trans people are still just people who just want to live their lives. The ones who have chosen to serve in the military have contributed to the health and safety of this country and deserve to be honored rather than kicked to the curb. It also frustrates me that no one I've discussed this with can give me a logical reason why trans people should not serve. This breaks my heart.
455
I think you are confusing gay with transgender.
Of course, gay people have always served, closeted or not. Transgender, i.e., people who chemically have crossed gender, are however a modern medical creation. And by the mere fact that they have undergone several medical interventions, they are no longer fit to serve in the military. Pretty simple.
10
@Tonya W. It's not disgusting, and there are logical reasons for the policy. They're unit cohesion and mission primacy, the importance of which are understood by combat veterans. Not everything in life is controlled by the wishes of people who just want to live their lives and who feel they deserve to be honored. There's no room for personal wishes and feelings in military operations.
9
@Tonya W.
Don't worry; the ACLU will find a box full of cases which supersede someone's civil rights (as this so clearly does), and get a judge to file a motion on different grounds. It's all a game to Trump. Like I wrote earlier, when children in the sandbox don't get what they want (in this case, a wall), they fight back the only way they know how: with their chubby little fists :)
4
No one should be excluded from work, school, or military service based on any kind of belief or orientation.
8
Hard to read the tea leaves at this early stage, but it looks as if the SCOTUS is willing to tolerate discrimination on the basis of gender and/or to look the other way when the president acts so as to harm people in the minority. Notice how the two Trump appointees voted.
9
This 5-4 decision is how the Supreme Court will vote on all modern human rights issues in the future, and we can expect to start losing many of the gains made since the Civil War.
Just remember this... when politicians began to roll-back personal liberties and rights, they won't quit until we make them stop.
And if you hate someone who is different enough to try to marginalize them, be very careful. It could be your turn next.
15
We have a “non-issue” wasting the time and money of the American Supreme Court because of two people in Washington who are violating their Oaths to the Constitution and failing to perform their jobs. The U.S. Armed Forces, which are clearly in alignment with the “will of the people,” have stated that there is no problem with the performance of duty or the medical costs of transgender military personnel, thus this case is a “non-issue.”
The core problem is that we have an incompetent President who does not respect the Constitution or the Rule of Law and daily demonstrates his ignorance of their meaning by stirring up “non-issues” and declaring them problems for reasons incomprehensible to any rational person. This problem is then compounded by the fact that the “will of the people” is not reflected in membership on our Supreme Court because one man, who leads the U.S. Senate, does not respect the Constitution or the Rule of Law. The Senate Leader has taken it upon himself to violate his Oath and personally choose which presidents are allowed to perform their Constitutional duty, thus interfering with the checks and balances of the three branches of Federal government.
The solution to the core problem is not in focusing on court rulings, but to impeach the Leader of the Senate. Once a responsible Leader is in place, we can see if the three branches can do their job in regard to checking and balancing the behavior of an incompetent president.
13
The Gorsuch and Kavanaugh SCOTUS seats are the two BIG reasons that Donald Trump should be impeached NOW! If the impeachment charges and removal from office PROVE that Mr. Trump's election was the result of deceit, foreign tampering and subterfuge, his lifetime appointments to our judiciary cannot stand. They are fruits of the poisoned tree.
If we wait for the 'people to decide' like Mr. Comey, Barney Frank and others suggest, Trump's illegal appointments to our judiciary will be cemented in. It's like forcing the owner of a stolen car to live with whatever god-awful color the car thieves decided to paint it. It's absurd and puts a big dent in our rule of law.
If Trump goes, these justices must go, too.
7
The United States military forces should never have been made int a social laboratory by President Obama. Those of us who have served know very well that such practices reduce battle efficiency. A number of studies conducted by the Marine Corps have shown that having women in battle groups greatly reduces the fighting capacity of those particular units. The media tends to focus on the exceptions to this, ignoring the wider problem.
13
A social experiment is not allowing transgender Americans to serve. Transgender people live and work in society so prohibiting them is a social experiment.
for all those talking about the cost of medical needs for transgender people, how much money has the military spent on Viagra? On bariatric surgery? on treating lung cancer in smokers? One could argue that these medications and procedures are to treat "lifestyle" choices.
13
There is still a preliminary injunction in effect in Stone v. Trump, issued by the US District Court in Baltimore, Md, on Nov. 21, 2017. The Court's action today concerned preliminary injunctions issued by two federal district courts on the West Coast in December 2017. Earlier this month, the D.C. Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction in a case from the D.C. District Court As far as I can see, however, there is still an injunction blocking the Defense Department's implementation of the ban in the case from Baltimore. The judge there has not yet ruled on the government's motion to dissolve that injunction.
1
Humans in black robes are still just humans. They are weak minded and believe it or not, they do not understand psychology; that is, the psychology of common errors of logic.
One wonders also if they really understand the Constitution!
And they certainly are just humans wanting a lifetime job and have no understanding truth and justice. So don't expect too much particularly because there will sometime soon in the near future, be 3 appointees on that court made by Donald Trump.
Our country, our species and even you, are all grand experiments in the universe. And several of those experiments are not looking to have good outcomes.
3
Let's see if I understand this correctly. There are people out there who are more than willing to serve their country. They enlist. They are trained in various military occupations. Some are deployed abroad. All are patriotic, want to do their very best to protect America, but some are transgender. Others who have enlisted have served multiple deployments and should not be asked to be in battle zones any longer. Unfortunately there aren't enough people to make that a remote possibility. But Trump and his merry band of incompetents are willing to sacrifice others sanity and health because a minority of soldiers are transgender and may have changed their gender while in the service.
These people didn't change their loyalty while changing their gender. They didn't join the service to change their gender. (Just as most lesbian and gay soldiers didn't join to become more homosexual. Some joined to become more masculine or to satisfy themselves that they weren't gay or lesbian and learned that they were.) Other countries do a better job integrating their military than America. What do they do that's different? They look at the people rather than their gender, their sexual preferences, or their race.
15
@hen3ry
The U.S. military rejects almost 80 percent of recruits. It rejects recruits for medical and mental disorders fr less serious than gender dysphoria.
7
What are the psychological/medical issues that commonly affect trans people? Can they harm military effectiveness to a point that the troops are unreliable? Can they do the job as effectively as their peers?
7
@Hector
It varies. But transgender people suffer from gender dysphoria, a conditions that frequently requires psychology therapy and hormone therapy. Sometimes the symptoms are so severe that major surgical procedures are required. The military rejects about 80 percent of recruits, most of them for problems less severe than gender dysphoria. For example, being overweight or having flat feet are disqualifications, even though some fat soldiers with flat feet have serve with distinction. But the military nows a high percent of fat recruited with flat fee won't make good soldiers.
1
@Hector
Answers:
1. Look it up and do your research.
2. Yes.
3. No.
1
I encourage all parents to discourage their children from joining any of the Armed Services. It does not seem as though our Armed Services are defending a Country where all people have the right to, "being created equal to pursue Happiness," but more like the right to serve an Army or Navy is to protect the rights of the Rich and Power to exploit and sacrifice the numerous poor and disenfranchised.
14
@DCWilson
It's true that the military doesn't think potential recruits were created equal or that it mission is to enable potential recruits to pursue happiness.The military rejects about 80 percent of potential recruits for physical and mental problems. Art thinks it mission is to defeat enemy forces.
1
My grandma served in WW2 (England) and my grandpa was a pilot in the Air force for 35 years. I turned 17 asked my grandpa if he would support me joining the Air force in his and my uncle's footsteps. I remember it clear as day (this was in 2008) he said " I'm honored that you would want to follow our family into the Air force, but I would suggest you really think about this I fought for what I believed in, I fought for freedom in a world that was tearing itself apart. if you joined now you are fighting for a country that has lost its ideals at the very top you will be laying your life on the line for oil and politicians. Don't join them, fight for the people but not in a military uniform." FYI my Gpa was a lifelong Republican until the invasion of Iraq.
@k
As a Vietnam vet, I concur with your grandparents.
On the campaign trail, Trump LITERALLY said that he would "take care of" the "LGTB people", that they would be "so happy", that he would do it so much better than Hillary.
Like the worst kind of establishment politician out there, he
immediately flip-flopped upon entering the White House.
Just like he did with healthcare, where he promised such a "great plan" and "people will love it", as it would cover even more American than Obamacare, at even lower cost.
His entire first year he enthusiastically encouraged the GOP to come up with its own plan instead, and it did: Ryancare destroys the healthcare of 30 million Americans (after Obamacare insured 20 million more), all while accelerating cost increases tremendously once again. I will never forget his reaction when this anti- "America first" bill passed in the House: he thought it was SUCH a fantastic bill that it immediately deserved a party in the Rose Garden (something that only happens after a piece of legislation passes the House, the Senate, then a compromise version passes both houses, and then the president signs it into law).
And of course, the same thing happened with his vow to deport 11 million undocumented people because, as he so eloquently explained, "we have to".
And with his vow to build a wall (obviously, now that he lost the elections there won't be any wall, and unilaterally deciding to no longer pay border patrol agents won't increase border security either ....
How can anyone still believe this guy?
7
Supreme Court rulings are now like a house of cards that can be overturned at the drop of a hat or change in partisan Justices. Where is precedent? Where is consistency that can be relied upon?
The Supreme Court seems about to overturn LGBT rights, voter rights and the rights of women in Roe v. wade, things applauded and depended upon by so many citizens. You can not tell me that we have a nonpartisan SC when Republicans can come in and take away so much.
2
Military service is not a right. The military routinely bars people for pre-existing conditions and even for controllable illnesses, like diabetes.
The idea of bringing people into service knowing they will need a lifetime of hormone therapy and psychological counseling, if not surgery.
Compounding that is the fact that peer-reviewed studies have shown that transgender people have a 40% higher suicide rate than the general population, whether or not they transition.
Knowing this, what advantage is there to the military to bring transgender people into the service?
15
perhaps you can entertain the idea that our trans brothers and sisters have a 40% higher suicide rate because they are continually ostracized by society in heinous acts like this
4
Regarding your statement that military service is not a right....Funny, military service used to be considered a responsibility. It is notable that there is an interest in reducing the number of volunteers who answer the country’s call, when many of the traditional body of servicemen area eligible to serve due to their lack of physical qualifications. Eating lots of “hamberders” and loading up on sugary treats (our right according to Sarah Palin) has led us down that path...
3
The higher suicide rate is likely a result of discrimination and social stigma, not because trans people are inherently suicidal.
Any person joining the military should have to go through physical and medical examination. I don’t think anyone is suggesting otherwise.
The problem is discrimination based solely on who you are.
I don’t understand the rationale for the ban. Is it just for active combat duty? In that case maybe it would make sense as gender restrictions are already in place. But there’s no reason a transgender person shouldn’t be able to serve in other positions that don’t involve combat.
2
The military is not a postmodern inclusive social club, it is the last institution that stands between a country facing invasion. It is not an institution whose chief purpose is to make everyone feel welcome or be a nanny for confused twenty-somethings. Finally some great news!
13
"In less than two years, federal courts have issued 25 [injunctions], blocking a wide range of significant policies involving national security, national defense, immigration and domestic issues."
Maybe because those policies were illegal?
9
@Victor I.
Or, more likely, that activists judges are part of the resistance and are attempting to control the executive branch through extralegal and unconstitutional methods.
Most of the injunctions that have made their way to SCOTUS have been blocked or overturned by SCOTUS. In the past, most judges who issued injunctions stayed the injunctions until the appeals process had been completed, unless permanent damage would occur.
If an individual is aggrieved, for example someone who had enlisted and been accepted, would sue and a judge would rule for or against the potentially aggrieved party. They would not issue blanket injunctions prohibiting government activity in favor of some hypothetical class of people.
2
Transgender medical care is medically necessary. I’m guessing you would not tell someone who serves in the military that the military will not pay for other necessary medical care. Please learn about the medical necessity of transgender medical services like hormone replacement therapy and surgeries before making ignorant comments about these treatments for gender dysphoria. People are born transgender. Our brains have a different gender than the apparent sex characteristics of other parts of our bodies. Not receiving medically necessary care and social support forces people to take dangerous drugs like Spironolactone, the main testosterone blocker, and causes depression and anxiety from unresolved dysphoria and prejudice and discrimination. But not all transgender people want hormone therapy or surgery. The cost to the military would be minimal, certainly no more than for other types of medically necessary care. Transgender people deserve to be able to serve our country like everyone else who is otherwise qualified to serve.
3
Solicitor General Francisco decried the "phenomenon" of so many district court challenges to the Administration's policies: “Such injunctions previously were rare, but in recent years they have become routine,” he wrote. “In less than two years, federal courts have issued 25 of them (...)."
Maybe it's because his client so routinely issues un-Constitutional executive orders.
7
The military rejects recruits for physical and mental disorders less severe than gender dysphoria. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders diagnoses individuals as suffering from gender dysphoria if they exhibit any two the following symptom:
(1) A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics/
(2) A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
(3) A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
(4) A strong desire to be of the other gender
(5) A strong desire to be treated as the other gender
(6) A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender
5
@William Case
The very reason why the DSM V (= the latest version) no longer designates transgender people as having a "disease", and NOT EVEN a "disorder", is because they have scientifically observed that it is NOT.
"Gender dysphoria" now also no longer refers to a specific type of sexuality, but to a specific EXPERIENCE of your sexuality.
"The American Psychiatric Association, publisher of the DSM-5, stated that gender nonconformity is not the same thing as gender dysphoria,[7] and that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."
Conclusion: it is NOT because you are transgender in itself that you have "gender dysphoria", you see?
Especially after their operation, many transgender people don't have ANY of these "symptoms" anymore, and the only stress they still have to deal with is the prejudice and discrimination that we as a society force them to deal with on a daily basis.
And that is simply not right.
1
@Ana Luisa
DSM V lists "gender dysphoria" as a disorder even though the name has been changed from "gender identity disorder." The diagnosis is the same.
The American Psychiatric Association correctly stare that that gender nonconformity is not the same thing as gender dysphoria, but gender nonconformity is not the issue, gender dysphoria is the issue.
Most of those who have surgery still have gender symptoms, although surgery appears Arto reduce the symptoms for many. However, the surgery requires a long convalesce and years of hormone therapy to pretend rejection of transplanted tissue. A soldier prepping for surgery, undergoing surgery and convalescing from surgery doesn't do a combat infantry company any good.
1
So, to preserve the virility of the armed forces, a candidate who was born a man but identifies as a woman can serve as a man, but not a woman?
3
As always, doing Putin's bidding. How many qualified, experience, veterans are going to be pilloried by this ban? Degrading our military readiness by how much? It doesn't really matter, any amount of degradation will keep Putin at bay.
2
“Unfortunately, this case is part of a growing trend in which federal district courts, at the behest of particular plaintiffs, have issued nationwide injunctions,"
Does this same concern apply to cases involving the Affordable Care Act?
2
Yes, of course. Many of trump's attacks on the ACA have been blocked with national injunctions. The lunatic fringe so-called conservatives want to end national injunctions so trump can rule by decree.
1
@Fred
Which of Trump's "attacks" on Obamacare have been blocked with national injunctions? The most recent one, that the Little Sisters of the Poor have to cover contraceptives and abotifascients is in direct contravention to the SCOTUS ruling that they were not required to do so.
The lunatic leftist judges won't take a "no" from SCOTUS.
All of the comments seem to focus on the value, positive or negative, of the trans-gender ban. This is not what the decision is about. It is a procedural decision, going against the trend for Federal District and Circuit courts to make decisions outside their geographical jurisdiction.
A district court decision should not be binding outside that district; a Circuit court decision should be binding within that circuit only. Outside of those jurisdictions, the decision should be persuasive only.
This ruling by the Court does not strike down or support the underlying program, it simply states that it can be continued until it is completely reviewed. Even if it does take until 2020 to be finished, most people affected by it can delay their enlistment until then without undue strain.
12
@mikecody The issuance of nationwide injunctions by federal district court judges has gone too far. It's time for Congress to put limits on this practice.
7
So many people commenting do not understand that transgender healthcare services are medically necessary, including hormone replacement therapy and surgery. However, not all transgender people want hormones or surgery.
Position Statement on Medical Necessity of Treatment, Sex Reassignment, and Insurance Coverage in the U.S.A.:
https://www.wpath.org/newsroom/medical-necessity-statement
MEDICAL NECESSITY is a term common to health care coverage and insurance policies in the United States. A common definition of medical necessity as used by insurers is:
“[H]ealth care services that a Physician, exercising prudent clinical judgment, would provide to a patient for the purpose of preventing, evaluating, diagnosing or treating an illness, injury, disease or its symptoms, and that are: (a) in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical practice; (b) clinically appropriate, in terms of type, frequency, extent, site and duration, and considered effective for the patient’s illness, injury, or disease; and (c) not primarily for the convenience of the patient, physician, or other health care provider, and not more costly than an alternative service or sequence of services at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results as to the diagnosis or treatment of that patient’s illness, injury or disease.
1
@Lisa Huntington
No hormones and no surgery? Aren't they just cross-dressing then? I would not like to be in a woman's unit together with a biological male who is cross-dressing, or, urm, identifying.
1
5 "judges" voting based on religious ideology instead of the Constitution.
This is what the Republican religious extremist party is all about. Hurting as many Americans as they possibly can, in any way they can
Blatant, in your face discrimination. This case is essentially Plessy v Ferguson redux.
10
@John
Four justices voting based on purely partisan ideology. If Garland had had hearings, he would not have been confirmed.
1
"Supreme Court Revives Transgender Ban for Military Service"
Next up for Putin's puppet president and his rigged Extreme Court...
1. Reversal of Roe vs. Wade
2. Allow only Pence-pledging Christians to be in the U.S. the military
3. Deny LBGTQ people their constitutional rights, and make them wear arm bands
4. Make it illegal to criticize the phony president in writing, spoken word or media
5. Ban reporters from asking questions under penalty of imprisonment. Only flattering things may be reported about phony president Trump
6. Allow a simple majority vote for any Republican bill in the Senate
7. Change the U.S. Constitution to make it legal for the phony president to unilaterally attack any country, at any time, for any reason
8. Allow the phony president to unilaterally change any law or regulation he wishes, at any time, for any reason
9. Make criticism of Russia or Vladimir Putin illegal under penalty of imprisonment for life, or death
10. Allow Republican presidents to have as many terms as they wish
12
In June 2016 Trump tweeted “Thank you to the lgbt community, I will fight for you....” To anyone who actually believed him this is just one piece of the Trump administration’s anti-lgbt puzzle. My only fear is that a President Pence might be worse for lgbt Americans.
8
Donald continues to send us back to the Middle Ages.
6
We believe in a strong military -- that means NO distractions among our troops. There is NO room for gays of ANY nature in our defense systems. We totally value the comfort and privacy of our normal troops. To invade that privacy with deviant sexual life styles would be a disgrace and total uncaring attitude toward our troops who pride themselves on keeping our country safe for ALL of us. We do NOT return to our well graced posts.
7
That's funny, cuz they used to say the same thing about women and African-Americans in the military. Seems those concerns were unfounded and backward thinking.
I don't know if you've ever served, but I did for 23 years and I can tell you it didn't make a bit of difference to most of us whether we were serving alongside women, African Americans, or LGBTQ servicemembers (yeah, we knew). We were not only not distracted, but we were all in it together and made stronger by the camaraderie that bound us all.
Anyone who serves and is concerned about this might want to take up a different occupation. Our nation needs all its military members focused, mature, and dedicated to the principles that make us strong and great.
14
"... administration’s policy of barring most transgender …"
This an outrage of course. Also the SCOTUS has been dysfunctional for more than 3 years. I use Scalia's death as a convenient marker for the end SCOTUS independence and integrity.
But, expect at least one outrage each and every day until McConnell and Individual-1 have been defanged (Mueller's report or the shutdown blows up in their faces, whichever happens first). Both events can be seen on the horizon.
4
@oldBassGuy
"... I use Scalia's death as a convenient marker …"
I need to make it clear that Scalia's death marks the beginning of McConnell's installing Federalist Society hacks onto the SCOTUS, and not that Scalia had any integrity as he was responsible for rewriting the first (Citizens United) and second (Heller) amendments. Both rewrites have been an unmitigated disaster for this country.
1
Why are conservatives so scared all the time?
19
They joined the military not hiding behind a healthy foot like Trump.
11
This Supreme Court is going to be remembered as a backlash court and will be the impetus for congress to pass stronger constitutional laws . The reactionaries will not win ; their time is done.
3
@Dani Weber
I think it's time for a Dem president in 2020 to stack the court with liberals, i.e add justices, to overcome the unconstitutional stacking by conservatives . When a justice seat is stolen from a sitting president, and when an election is stolen by a foreign power, all bets should be off. Liberals need to play the game better.
7
"Unfortunately, this case is part of a growing trend in which federal district courts, at the behest of particular plaintiffs, have issued nationwide injunctions, typically on a preliminary basis, against major policy initiatives.
'Such injunctions previously were rare, but in recent years they have become routine. In less than two years, federal courts have issued 25 of them, blocking a wide range of significant policies involving national security, national defense, immigration and domestic issues.”
They've become routine because no prior president has dared to rule by fiat and issue executive orders that are prima facie violations of the U.S. Constitution and the broad corpus of American jurisprudence.
14
Republicans have been putting their base of bigots together since the '50s. Specific issues come and go. We've about aged out of the gay thing, but trans is working along with race, abortion, immigration and a few others. The system worked well to represent the interests of the rich and not do too much damage until Trump came along and agreed with the bigotry. I see this as a bone tossed to the base by justices who were appointed to be sensitive to the political climate.
5
While we're looking at the Supreme Court, I'd like to see a case brought before them that sues for return of Obama's rightful choice, stolen from his administration by McConnell. Since the present majority appear not to think, it might give them something to think about.
4
Civil rights have always made a "two steps forward, one step backward" sort of progress, and sometimes the reverse with two steps backward. While citizens retain all the rights and powers not explicitly granted to the State by the Constitution, they must continually fight for them or risk losing them. We have politically weaponized LGBTQ issues because it has worked powerfully to set people against one another and get them to the polls and because it is a small minority group without much recourse. Along the way, we have forgotten that these are human beings who are no less deserving of honor and respect and the full rights and privileges of citizenship than any other individual or group. The God of Abraham and Ishmael and Jesus loves these sons and daughters no less than any others. They are the modern day sinners and tax collectors and outcasts that hold a special place in God's heart.
3
Wasn't it the venerated Republican conservative and ex-military veteran and Senator, Barry Goldwater, who said "I don't care if a soldier is straight, as long as he can shoot straight."?
I would expect that, were he still around today, he would apply this same standard to the transgender crowd.
Trump doesn't appreciate it but in the military, unlike his presidency, the military demands that the person demonstrate that they are capable of performing the job, before they get the job assignment.
If he truly cared about national security, he would want people in the military who really wanted to serve and were able to overcome hurdles to join, regardless of whether they were straight, gay, transgender or DACA residents. Competency and demonstrated capability should be the sole criteria for serving.
4
The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race, handicap (within reason) and other protected classes. Fortunately or unfortunately, being transgendered in 2019 is not a protected class.
The proper solution is to legislate no discrimination against transgendered individuals. This needs to be done by the legislative branch on a congressional level. This should not be decided by nine individuals.
6
40 years ago, a womans place was in the kitchen. Before the Civil Rights movement, African Americans had to "know their place". Homosexuals have been and continue to to fight for equlity. People identifying as transgender are not new. Understanding and acknowledging them is a new reality. Ask the troops on the front line if they care if the person who just saved their life is straight, gay, male, female or transgender, and I'm pretty sure their response would be "I could care less. I'm just glad to be alive." See this current attack for what it is at its basest level-discrimination. If the courts allow discrimination against one group, then other groups will follow. Without equality for all, there is equality for none.
11
So much for Chief Supreme Court Justice, John J. Robert's claim and assertion that the Supreme Court is not a Republican Court or a Democratic Court. True. It is now a Trump Court. What's next? Overturn Roe v/s Wade?
7
This is a potent reminder that voting has consequences. Hillary Clinton warned us the Supreme Court was at stake in the 2016 election. The GOP has "won" two conservative Supreme Court Justices in the past two years, and they are hoping for a third. We pray for the health of Ruth Bader Ginsburg because she's a smart, sensible Justice, but also because we want to avoid another confirmation hearing.
6
Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s legacy, headed for tatters. And by Kennedy’s own hand, in deciding to retire under Trump and the now far-right Republican Party.
4
This is the real impact of electing Trump.
Human rights are forsaken and the country does not adapt to a changing population and social mores.
Again the minority rules not the majority.
The right will use the Constitution anyway it can to make sure we stay in the 1950s. They will state the Constitution and then ignore it when it does not benefit them.
Most open minded Americans need to pay attention and understand that voting is a long-term thing and not about just the next Presidential cycle.
Anger over not getting you candidate nominated, litmus tests for support and staying home and not voting led to Trump being elected.
All candidates are flawed...in this last election we learned that some were more then others.
Trump should be a lesson to our party that it is not he search for perfection but what is the practical solution that really matters.
8
I have no opinion on whether transgender individual enhance or detract from military readiness, but the military already puts significant restrictions on who can serve - which is why 75% of young adults don't meet minimum military standards.
8
I suppose Trump considers this "a crisis." So much for liberty and justice for ALL. It's as if his ego needed to be stroked while waiting for his border monument by assuring his base that he tilted the court to make bigotry the rule of law.
3
If the American dream has been reduced to making the least of us feel unworthy- I weep for the end of what Jefferson,Adams, Hamilton, Madison et al founded and the ideals for which our fallen soldiers fought.
1
Not discrimination, but discriminating. The goal should be the most qualified individuals to protect American Security. A group of people who have a 44% attempted suicide rate would hardly seem to fit that criteria.
5
@Lou Perhaps because they are perpetually made to feel less than human by antiquated, closed-minded government policies...
That 44% number interestingly remains constant even in societies (Scandinavian countries) where there is substantial acceptance and toleration of gender dysphoria. Individuals who have issues with high blood pressure, clinical depression, and a whole host of other disorders are not accepted into the US armed forces.
Yes, it’s about power, and how it is shared. Five, sexually insecure, old men — it’s certainly very clear about two of them, decided that their fear of differences in how people “do it” overrides the quality of the lives of those people. There seems to be little evidence that the military has been disrupted due to the use of transgendered people.
Is the court just asserting its authority to determine who belongs in America and who doesn’t, or are they just showing that they are Trump’s court?
5
trump's ban is nothing more than his political move to solidify his standing with evangelicals and LGBTQ-phobes. One wonders how the SCOTUS could be divided on a case that has no merit - transgender soldiers have been in service for a while now - accepted through basic training all the way to deployment to areas of conflict. This type of ruling delegitimizes the SCOTUS.
4
What does the Army want? I'd go by what they think is the best thing for the good of the soldiers.
2
This is obvious discrimination against people who want to serve their country. While transitioning is complex, most transgender people adjust well. Without specific psychiatric or physical issues, these people should be treated like everyone else and allowed to serve.
Given that Merritt Garland's seat was effectively stolen by a corrupt Senate leadership, it's not surprising that the Court split along ideological lines toward the negative belief that somehow transgender folks are not worthy. It would have split in the opposite direction if Mr. Garland had been confirmed.
1
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In other words, the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of our free country's military shall not be infringed.
It's the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
1
"The people" includes trans members, in case I failed to make my point. :)
This is just an example of the conservative decisions we will now have to put up with. Transgenders ARE Americans, with honorable service to the armed forces, what is the issue? Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not a legitimate argument.
3
Discriminatory, because of Conservative Supreme Court with Trump. However, this would have cost quite a bit...so which is it? Human rights or cost?
1
Bill Clinton got it right - don't ask, don't tell.
Serve your nation, but the military is not a social experiment.
More evidence that Obama made poor - no, make that very poor - national security decisions.
8
The SC has made a terrible mistake. This violation of human rights cannot be tolerated.
1
We'll learn soon enough, that what lay people think is "biological sex" is, in fact, not a marker of gender. Despite the notion of gender as largely social and culturally defined, which is demonstrably true, there is growing evidence that basic chromosomal assignment and exterior genitalia are not all that is required for a confirmed binary distinction.
Take a look at epigenetic research and you'll discover there's a whole host of cascading activity that has to occur to result in "female" and "male." There should be little surprise that a percentage human kind exists along a spectrum of possibilities. Just as in computing, 1s and 0s, don't always consistently go one way or another. And we're way more complicated than computers. (On the other hand, let's not forget that "feelings" are the result of neurobiological machinations, as well.)
2
I wonder how many votes Trump got from the LGBT community. He did tell them, in so many words, that he respected them. Just like he said he didn't have sex with Stormy. Just like he told all of us he paid only the taxes he owed, not a penny more. Just like he said he, and his campaign crew never had any conversations...oops, didn't collude...with any Russians. Just like he told his draft board he could barely walk because of heel spurs (Here, just read the letter from my doctor. I'm lucky to be able to stand without a walker.)
It has been reported that on a percentage basis, trans soldiers in sensitive positions are way out of their percentage as a portion of active duty personnel. Trump's push to kick them out lacks any justification, common sense, or --does it really need to be said?-- humanity.
13
> The vote was 5 to 4. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
Split by party lines. SCOTUS is truly a partisan institution just like the other two branches of government - denying this is to ignore reality. The title should say 'Relublican controlled Supreme Court sides with Trump on banning transgendered Americans from the military'.
20
Correction: only the 5 right wing religious zealots are partisan. The moderate liberals are and always have been non-partisan swing voters loyal only to Equal Justice Under Law.
1
It seems to me that if someone (of whatever 'gender') wants to step up and serve the country, these people should be respected and honored for their decision and devotion.
Donald Trump is our national avatar for hatred, racism and gender discrimination.
I am deeply, deeply ashamed to be an American during the Trump Regime.
NOT my president
31
@Ninbus People who want to be in the military and be trans shouldnt really be honered more than other members of the military just because they are trans. If a member from the trans community wants to join the military, they can serve as there REAL gender and not someone they aren't. If they cant comply with these simple rules, then they shouldnt be allowed in the military. Very simple.
1
@Ninbus Sorry you feel this way. Many do not. I have much sympathy for trans people living on this earth. Their ability to handle their own condition is more than anyone should have to trial.
Many trans people are perfectly happy but many are not and suicide rates are the highest of any people. Trans people in the process of transforming have huge issues to deal with. There is no way these trials would not add burden to active combat personnel.
2
Absolutely unreasonable. We need good people in the military, and what does it really matter what one's gender is?
11
@Ann Carman the thing is it kinda does.....
If trans people have to be filed as a specific gender, sometimes it can get confusing onto what gender they actually are. They do make a exeption for those who sre willing to serve as there own gender and not someone they aren't, so theres nothing wrong.
Gender matters to those service transmen and transwomyn involved. To tell them gender doesn't matter is beyond hurtful.
“It involves,” he wrote, “an issue of imperative public importance: the authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the nation’s armed forces.”
By that logic, the current administration could issue a prohibition against women serving, Black people serving and immigrants serving, and the Supreme Court would have to uphold it because the military is not subject to the Constitution.
5
@Kathleen Warnock
Uhh - tons of people are excluded from the military for arbitrary (or sometimes valid reasons) such as prior injuries, mental health history, vision, etc, etc
As much as I don't agree with the policy, this is not apples to apples with black people and immigrants.
Transgendered individuals all have had a serious mental health crisis in the form of their gender diaspora. Though their transition likely resolves a lot of this, can we really say that they are more fit than someone who was hospitalized for depression years ago? They also have to take hormones, and this is a potential expense to the military as well as a potential liability depending on what role they end up in / if they will be able to access their HRT during their services.
I'm not saying that no one who is transgendered should be allowed in the military, but I do believe that their would be more of them who do not meet the health requirements that are applied to everyone than most other subgroups. This decision is unfortunate, but I don't know if all the questions surrounding transgender people is necessarily fueled by anti-LGBT sentiment.
What I saw as a high school teacher gives me some sobering, insider info on transgenderism.
What I saw were typically confused, unhappy adolescents who'd go to the school counselors and be advised that they had gender dysphoria disorder and should go on a pre-op protocol of hormones, followed by genital mutilation.
I questioned the counselors and discovered that as with Ritalin, they were being coached and incentivized by the gender reassignment industry.
People don't realize that military members will have this typically $350,000 process done at taxpayer expense, and that's why some people join the military.
Insurance and even Medicaid also subsidizes it.
My feeling is our species is so far mutated away from evolutionary biology and Nature that every form of crazy sci-fi scenario--transgenderism, synthbots, GMO humans, replicants, etc.--is viewed as just another industry to promote.
7
@Steve Davies
What pray tell is the gender reassignment industry?
And to your final paragraph.
1. Our species hasn't mutated one iota from evolutionary biology. Whatever we are IS evolutionary biology so there is nothing to mutate from.
2. And what is this "Nature" you speak of?
3. Hermaphroditism exists throughout nature and there is a long history of it in humans.
1
Let's not be distracted by this transgender topic right now. More to the point, Trump's father gave him huge amounts of assets and illegally avoided inheritance taxes, and New York State is looking into this. Trump lied about directing payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Trump lied about having huge real estate deals in play in Russia during the campaign. Mueller's investigation is about to yield truth about Trump and Russia. These latter things are far more important right now.
5
The Supreme Court lost legitimacy when it appointed Bush Jr to the presidency. Our second most incompetent president (granted, he’s second by a mile) then nominated Roberts and Alito. Al Gore, winner of the popular vote, is unlikely to have parroted Federalist Society recommendations.
Mischievous Mitch McConnell then stole a seat from Obama after Scalia died. That seat would have given us a majority that corresponds to the popular majorities that voted for Gore, Obama twice, and Hillary Clinton.
Gorsuch and Bart Kavanaugh got their seats after appointments by an illegitimately elected president actively looking to sell out the country to Vladimir Putin during his entire campaign. I wouldn’t betray America for $300 million, but nobody should trust Trump not to be dancing to Moscow’s tune.
McConnell only deepened the Court’s illegitimacy by eliminating the filibuster for right wing robots who subsequently voted for a Muslim ban and against transgender rights. They’re both illegitimate decisions and will eventually be corrected. Kavanaugh almost certainly lied during his confirmation hearing and is therefore ripe for impeachment. The same is true for Thomas but he’s been around forever.
Lower federal courts have been similarly tainted, and the best remedy will probably be to enlarge the entire judiciary sufficiently to align its composition with the will of the people. That’s would be a just corrective, maybe even worthy of an emergency declaration.
3
The courts have not changed appreciably in the last two years, but the number of nationwide stays have increased dramatically, huh? Sounds like the problem isn't in the courts, but in the administrative orders, which consistently fly in the face of law, justice, fairness - all that stuff that the Trump administration sneers at.
1
Gender is irrelevant to serving one's country.
Those who disagree with me may leave cited credible sources in the reply comments below supporting their opinion that gender identity diminishes the quality of one's military service.
5
I take medication for a very treatable, mild form of a mental illness. I would not be fit to serve in the military, carrying around a pill bottle.
Transgender is not a mental illness, but do correct me if I'm wrong, hormone replacement drugs are continuously required in order to impart the desired biological changes to features.... It is irrational to think active troops could maintain their medications while in active combat.
However, there are thousands of supporting roles in the military that could absolutely acconidate transgender. No man or woman should be denied the opportunity to serve in the military, but perhaps some military jobs should be excluded for transgendered service people.
5
What a triumph for Trump, Pence, Miller, McConnell and the GOP and their evangelical base. Forget about healthcare, infrastructure, a living wage, climate change,and Russian election interference, they can all sleep more soundly tonight knowing that Trump’s transgender ban can go forward.
8
Hillary was not the perfect candidate but certainly better than what we got. Any democrat who stayed home Nov 2016 and didn’t vote should ashamed of themselves.
5
@Prudence - I completely agree - voters who stayed at home, or voted third-party, or submitted a random name actually voted for the monstrosity we have in office.
Vote Democratic in 2020.
The Bernie or Busters who did not vote and the Green Party Jill Stein "the lesser of two evils is still evil" line, as well as Bernie himself fo not having campaigned for Hillary in the general election so that he could brood instead, have given us tis Supreme Court for over a generation.
4
I don't think we should ban transgender people from serving. I do think that the military should not pay for their surgeries and other medications related to the condition, other than maybe psychological help.
6
@DRS
Please READ up on the issue that you have commented on.Perhaps,then you may understand that your “knowledge” is seriously lacking. Many other medical procedures that are opened to members of the armed forces could equally be argued as not merited under your criteria. Psychological help is and should be provided to ALL members of the armed forces, your last sentence shows your serious lack of knowledge on the subject. Transgender armed forces applicants go through the same rigorous tests as all other applicants, once they are accepted they become the responsibility of all of us taxpayers.
1
Once again Trump is victimizing people who are already victimized. This is a real low point.
4
It's times like these I am glad not to be an American. It's appalling to see where the GOP is taking the country.
7
I see many proponents of this ban arguing that the military is not a "social experiment," and that having transgender folks serve only distracts their cis-gendered peers.
First, the military is a reflection of the very best this country has to offer. A simple fact is that some of the best are going to be transgender, just as some of the best are gay, women, and/or people of color. That's just a statistical likelihood, and frankly, I want all of the best defending us, not just those we're most comfortable with.
I find it very hard to believe that our brave military folks wouldn't be able to concentrate, or bring themselves to do their jobs in collaboration with people whose experiences they don't understand. I know they're better than that, and in fact, they've been doing just fine for years.
The issue here isn't whether trans folks are qualified, whether identity has a place in the military, or whether their peers are doing their best with them around. The issue is that people are deeply uncomfortable with gender, the spectrum it presents, and what it may mean in their own lives. And they're really good at the logical Olympics required to justify their fears and prejudices.
16
Nice to see the Supremes busy doing important work for the country...
Imagine how much initiative a transgender person would need even to want to enlist. Sounds like good enough soldier material to me -
25
This is the headline? Seriously?
How the media became a political advocacy group should be the headline.
Just last weekend these things were happening: President's Trump proposal to end the stalemate by compromising on the the barrier/wall/fence - government shut down; the media's feeding frenzy about the Covington High School Boys being the aggressors against a Native American man in DC; how everybody in the media inflated and had to qualify the Buzzfeed story with "if true" President Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress.
There are tons of stories which should be the headline instead of this marginal story - this story is an opinion piece, at best.
10
@F1Driver Yes, seriously.
That you cite this as an example of "the media" (an egregious over-generalization, btw) being a personal advocacy group is ridiculous.
And all those other stories ARE being reported on.
2
@Long Island Dave, you're correct about the over-generalization, only 90 percent of the media is bias.
But seriously, regardless what side of the argument you are, the hate for President Trump blinded not only partisan political people, but the 90 percent of the media, academia and government institutions.
In the high stakes of politics, the media placed its only currency on the table: its credibility. The media lost its winnings in reputation and credibility.
1
@F1Driver 90% sounds like a statistic. Where'd you get it from?
The military is constructed to protect this country and to wage war if necessary. Any potential confusion of gender should be avoided. Alternatively, lets have an ALL FEMALE military and see how that takes us.
7
@Duane Mathias
Are you making a point- or just statements?
2
@Duane Mathias Not getting your point,. From what I've read, many females currenlly serve with distinction and valor.
1
@Duane Mathias
History has shown us that woman warriors have been very good at fighting wars. Amazons, and the warriors of Lesbos as examples.Women in this country are continuing their “fight” by resisting en masse and are at the frontline fighting the Trump Administration. Look at the mid term results.
3
It is particular telling that the court would focus its attention on transgenders when a recent report shows the TRUE threat to US Armed Forces: obesity. The report says 27 percent of potential enlistees aged 17 to 24 are too obese, or overweight, to qualify for military service. Furthermore, the study reveals that 47 percent of men and 59 percent of women fail the Army’s entry-level training test. (From Newsweek).
We have a Supreme Court that is employing its political power over an entire non-threat, the transgender population, infintesimally small to start with, and having a proven record of success in the military. In the meantime the real threat, our apparent unstoppable ever-increasing food consumption/bodyweight is taking a heavy toll on recruits who wish to serve; they cannot pass the Army Combat Fitness Test.
7
Election have consequences. Liberal democratic values will suffer as many sat out voting in 2016. We alone deserve this treatment - government shutdown, racial bias, oppression of minorities, undermining of voter's rights, gender bias, and more to come. Want to suffer more - elect the same incompetent folks and we will get more of this. Want to change - don't say this candidate is not someone I can go to shopping with - vote for all the issues they represent and not just one. Don't be lazy to read your news in facebook - that is the "real fake news" my fellow Americans.
8
35 million more Americans voted for Secretary Clinton than for Putin's puppet. Elections are stolen. Elections don't matter to Putin and little trumpy.
@Fred
3 million, not 35! And take California out of it and Trump won the popular vote, too.
Mitch McConnell now harvests his refusal to allow Obama to make his last SCOTUS appointment. He can't open up the government without his master's voice but he can sure stick it to the LGBTQ community.
14
@Michael Kelly
McConnell needs to be investigated by the Justice department. There is something seriously wrong going on with him. He must not be allowed to play his power games with impunity.
3
@Tatateeta
Would that be the Justice Department with its current acting AG or the one with Mr. Barr who assures us with everything and will probably change his tune once confirmed?
A president who cowardly avoided military service wants to prevent others from serving honorably.
36
Trump was elected to shred Obama's legacy. He has accomplished much of his goal.
7
As someone else said, this is a fighting force, not an experiment in social utopian theory. They are not interested in taking on distractions. Transgender people could already serve, they simply have to give their birth gender when they sign up and not broadcast their personal feelings and preferences. The military isn’t all that concerned with what you identify with or who you sleep with. That goes for every other member as well.
Military members often have to have their heads shaved, have thick awful glasses, are forced to be called something outside of their name, and countless other indignities in order to serve. So if you are unable to even list your birth certificate gender as a sacrifice, maybe you aren’t cut out for the military? Perhaps start a Tumblr instead? Fighting for ones country is not the place to indulge your vanity. Sorry
9
Your ignorance in this case is not bliss. All armed forces applicants go through an extensive medical & psychological examination.
Transgender members of our armed forces have and do serve with distinction.Obama initiated an extensive research on the impact of serving transgender members . The research concluded that these members were an important contributions to the armed forces.
4-5. I’m not surprised. I’m not consoled by any assurances that there are “no Obama judges “ either.
3
This Supreme Court has been repeatedly affirming bigotry on a 5-4 vote. History will not be kind.
10
@David
History is written by the victors.
1
Once again reminding all those who said there was no difference between trump and Clinton. Thanks Bernie's babies and bullies.
Maybe you'll serve in their place?
10
So let me get this straight (no pun intended) - the vote was: Republican Justices 5 and Democratic Justices 4. Isn't that right Mr. Chief Justice?
6
Last year, Trump made the right decision to ban transgender people from the military. I am happy the court upheld this Executive Order in its entirety. Recall, people who have gender dysphoria should not serve in the United States military because their behavior, unlike race, disrupts unit cohesion extremely. Also, as an African American naval veteran, who celebrated yesterday the inspiring life of Black Civil Rights icon Martin Luther King, who was anti-homosexual - I am tired of the homosexual community telling me transgender people should serve in the military.
25
@Jonathan Too bad you cling to outdated beliefs. Mr. King was great, but he wasn't perfect. He embodied the beliefs of his time, before we understood that being gay or transgender are innate traits, not choices.
FWIW, I am neither gay nor transgender, just a woman who believes none of us are equal until we are all equal.
76
In what way have you experienced disruption through transgender service members? Or have you heard others with similar stories regarding being transgender and service in the military? Does this apply to those that have already gone through a transition who join fully transitioned or only apply to those who change their gender during active service?
I’ve never served so I couldn’t say what this would do to a unit but I am extremely curious. Your answer and service is greatly appreciated! :)
14
@Jonathan. I'm curious to the disruption, too. In what way does Trangender individuals disrupt the military code, and here is the important part, that wouldn't be different than any other disruption by cis gender people?
My next question is this: selective service registration for transwomen who transition with or without surgery prior to being 18; Do they register or not? Would they be forced to undo any surgery possible so they could serve as their assigned gender at birth?
And the funny thing is, that tgis edict came from a man that dodged the draft and refused to serve based on a fraudulent bone spur claim.
5
Make Transgenderophobia Great Again !
Trump-Pence-Grand-Old-Puritanicals 2019
10
@Socrates Trump-Pence are not only puritans, Trump only pretends to be one, Pence is the loose cannon. He truly believes. Pence and Trump dwell in the land of Nod and that goes back centuries and centuries ago. And they proudly wear their ignorance on their sleeves. Have they no shame? Science is what runs this Universe and all of us. Even cats. I have one who is both female and male.
1
Given that not of our service men and women are going to be paid, now that this is truly voluntary slave service; we soon won't have a military. And no way for any of these selfless patriots to serve their Country.
3
Why should any of us respect the wishes of the Supreme Court when Merritt Garland's nomination was stalled for 10 months and then Brett Kavanaugh's was rushed through just before the election? This is open cheating by the Congress and the President, and we should not respect the US Supreme Court. We should also not buy goods made in States that voted for the Senators and President that did this cheating. Insult us, and we will insult you!
11
A defense of a bigoted, callous and senseless policy by the most atrophied branch of government. The time for serious SCOTUS reform is now. They can uphold this discriminatory and senseless policy but they can’t defend the voting rights of American citizens. I’m not surprised by this decision, just disappointed.
9
Is anyone really surprised?
America is only for people who Republicans approve of.
10
Recruits seeking funding of their disorders should not serve. They should get what they want, just not at the expense of our armed forces.
3
@skyfiber
“The government has presented no evidence that their doing so harms military readiness, effectiveness or lethality,”
1
@skyfiber
Facts please, the cost is minimal,if you argue based on this discriminatory argument,be warned that other medical procedures provided to non-transgender armed force members may also come under scrutiny. The transgender armed force community have a history of honorable service to this country and we ,the people should support them like any other armed force members.
1
Get used to this, folks. For the remainder of most of our lives, we will live under this racist and bigoted majority on the court.
Future manifestations promise to be even more grotesque.
9
@Servatius
Not if we take the senate and the executive branch.
So service and patriotism take a back seat to biology.
Funny, but did Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence (“Uncle”) Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh ever walk a perimeter with a rifle on a shoulder on a cold and lonely sentry before dawn? Or is this a responsibility that can only be carried out by “straight” men and women?
I think a transgender soldier could stop a bullet or a bayonet stick as well as a “straight” military person. The kind that Donald Trump ran from when his draft board sent him a notice to report to serve his country.
19
Disgraceful. This is what happens when the GOP is permitted to stack the Supreme Court. What happened to equality, fairness, respect? The United States is regressing. MLK Jnr would be horrified.
3
@Andrew
this has nothing to do with above, it's about military effectiveness.
plain and simple.
2
Populism dictates that there must be an outsider, an enemy, to blame for all your ills and misfortunes, no matter how far removed from reality. Trump can hardly blame the voices in his own head. Can he?
10
Why on earth would we ever prohibit anyone willing to serve in our military? Homophobia aside, this is a serious national security question. We already have a dwindling interest in personnel so why make it even more difficult those who actually want to serve???
I'm appalled at this backwards way of thinking.
7
A major flaw in this article, and anti-transgender arguments in general, lies in the acceptance of the Trump administration's and anti-LGBTQ activists' narrow use of the term "biological sex". Biological sex is determined at many levels: chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, morphological (e.g. genitalia and brain), and behavioral. These characteristics do not always line up consistently. Transgenderism is fundamentally about gender identity, which is determined by the brain. Biological sex pertaining to transgender men and women therefore needs to be defined by one's behavior and sense of self, which are brain functions. In other words, the best way to determine one's biological sex is to ask them.
In reporting on this topic, it is a good idea to set off "biological sex" in quotes if it refers to the erroneous use of a definition that is limited to a single aspect of anatomy, such as genitalia, which is presumably how the Trump administration anti-LGBTQ activists conceive it.
6
Our Supreme Court, brought to you by the ultra-conservative folks at the Heritage Foundation, Koch family, etc.
7
@KB
And the American Catholic Church.
One more slap in the face of those who have volunteered to serve.
6
“It involves,” he wrote, “an issue of imperative public importance: the authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the nation’s armed forces.”
===========================================
What he is saying is that the military has the authority to override the equal rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
That's one feature of a military dictatorship.
7
In case anybody cares, this ruling reminds us that SCOTUS is firmly conservative. Trump must be cheering.
7
@dbsweden
Pence is cheering the loudest, Trump is distracted by his own issues. Empathy for others is only reserved for himself.
2
Discrimination given a legal stamp of approval from the Supreme court.
Enlightenment is gone...
16
@Glennmr Interesting that you claim the Enlightenment is dead (officially?) b/c of this decision. I wonder what the great thinkers of the Enlightenment - Voltaire, Rousseau, Monty, etc - would say about this issue in relation to the Enlightenment. Further, their forebearers of the Scientific Revolution would likely have an interesting - and presumably opposing yours - take on this issue.
1
Democrats need to win majority in both houses and presidency and then throw these two jokers outside the supreme court. That is the only hope for any kind of future. Next time, do not sit at home and complain. GO OUT and VOTE!
8