ACLU suing Trump........

[Model 70]

So they wanna sue the President 'cause the trans folks can't use tax dollars to maintain or "enhance" their lifestyle.
Perhaps they, the ACLU, should be labeled a domestic terrorist organization. About all they do is hold 90% of the population hostage to the latest trend in PCBS (politically correct bull $h!+).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Annie]

Ehhh, the ACLU sues everybody ... lol

 

[Frederick]

ACLU doesn't have much leg to stand on.

Rostker vs Goldberg

 

[Dave70968]

ACLU doesn't have much leg to stand on.

Rostker vs Goldberg

Maybe. That ruling was based in the military doctrine that women couldn't serve in combat; that restriction has since been lifted (and, in fact, we have even admitted women to Ranger training). The fundamental basis of the ruling now gone, the case is on shaky legal ground.

 

[Frederick]

Maybe. That ruling was based in the military doctrine that women couldn't serve in combat; that restriction has since been lifted (and, in fact, we have even admitted women to Ranger training). The fundamental basis of the ruling now gone, the case is on shaky legal ground.

Sure, but the basis of the ruling was that Congress could prevent women from serving.

The judiciary gives the executive broad discretionary powers.

At the very least i think that it would be acceptable to prevent pre-op trannies from joining or obtaining sex change operations at the expense of the Government.

 

[Dave70968]

Sure, but the basis of the ruling was that Congress could prevent women from serving.

The judiciary gives the executive broad discretionary powers.

At the very least i think that it would be acceptable to prevent pre-op trannies from joining or obtaining sex change operations at the expense of the Government.

You're conflating two things. Yes, the Congress can prevent them from serving (at least in combat), but this is a unilateral executive action. Moreover, women weren't prevented from serving, just in front-line combat. My mom did twenty-plus and retired long before the combat restriction was lifted. There are arguably good reasons for keeping women out of front-line combat: it's a physically demanding environment, and the average woman is not up to the same challenges as the average man.

Moreover, social attitudes have changed radically since 1981 (when Rostker was decided), with a resultant change in jurisprudence. Could you imagine the 1981 Court giving us Obergefell?

It's going to be an interesting case.

 

[Frederick]

You're conflating two things. Yes, the Congress can prevent them from serving (at least in combat), but this is a unilateral executive action. Moreover, women weren't prevented from serving, just in front-line combat. My mom did twenty-plus and retired long before the combat restriction was lifted. There are arguably good reasons for keeping women out of front-line combat: it's a physically demanding environment, and the average woman is not up to the same challenges as the average man.

Moreover, social attitudes have changed radically since 1981 (when Rostker was decided), with a resultant change in jurisprudence. Could you imagine the 1981 Court giving us Obergefell?

It's going to be an interesting case.

that's what always irritated me about the 'evolving' judiciary. What was unconstitutional when it was written is constitutional now. Makes the constitution nothing more than a piece of paper.

If it was constitutional when it was written, it should be constitutional now.

Having said that, I think there is a strong case that having a bunch of pre op trannies running around is bad for the military. Plus, don't trannies need constant hormone injections? If they get the operation while in the military to lop of their dick(s) ****(s), wouldn't it render them un deployable for months? all of this at the cost of U.S. security and taxpayer dollars?

Why is it cool to reject people with Anxiety, Depression, Asthma or other conditions not related to gender that effect military service, but not transgender folks? Why recruit a tranny that is going to cost taxpayer $$$ and require constant medical attention when you can recruit a perfectly good soldier who is not a tranny? It's not like we have a shortage of potential recruits.

I think there is a strong grounds for it.

Trump is the Commander in Chief, he sets military policy, perhaps arguably more so than the U.S. Congress.

the goal of the military is to be lethal and to defend our country. The military is not the place for this ******** social equality experiment.

 

[Dave70968]

that's what always irritated me about the 'evolving' judiciary. What was unconstitutional when it was written is constitutional now. Makes the constitution nothing more than a piece of paper.

If it was constitutional when it was written, it should be constitutional now.

So you think Plessy v. Ferguson should still be law? How about Buck v. Bell? Incidentally, the latter found some of its support in the existence of the draft.

Having said that, I think there is a strong case that having a bunch of pre op trannies running around is bad for the military. Plus, don't trannies need constant hormone injections? If they get the operation while in the military to lop of their dick(s) ****(s), wouldn't it render them un deployable for months? all of this at the cost of U.S. security and taxpayer dollars?

Why is it cool to reject people with Anxiety, Depression, Asthma or other conditions not related to gender that effect military service, but not transgender folks? Why recruit a tranny that is going to cost taxpayer $$$ and require constant medical attention when you can recruit a perfectly good soldier who is not a tranny? It's not like we have a shortage of potential recruits.

I think there is a strong grounds for it.

Trump is the Commander in Chief, he sets military policy, perhaps arguably more so than the U.S. Congress.

the goal of the military is to be lethal and to defend our country. The military is not the place for this ******** social equality experiment.

Wouldn't getting pregnant render a woman undeployable for months at the cost of US security and taxpayer dollars?

I'm not arguing it, just saying it'll be an interesting case. Part of it will depend upon whether he can show the effect on readiness, and whether he considered it before making policy, or rationalizing afterward.

 

[Frederick]

So you think Plessy v. Ferguson should still be law? How about Buck v. Bell? Incidentally, the latter found some of its support in the existence of the draft.


Wouldn't getting pregnant render a woman undeployable for months at the cost of US security and taxpayer dollars?

I'm not arguing it, just saying it'll be an interesting case. Part of it will depend upon whether he can show the effect on readiness, and whether he considered it before making policy, or rationalizing afterward.

If a woman gets pregnant in the service, she should be medically discharged in my opinion. If she becomes pregnant while on or just before a deployment, she should receive a general discharge in my opinion. I don't have a problem with women in the military, as long as it doesn't harm effectiveness or increase costs. When it becomes so hard to find good recruits that we need women, then we could lower the requirements.

Plessy V. Ferguson is a moot point ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I think the constitution should be read strictly. Also, i've never been opposed to eugenics for the purpose of weeding out genetic defects that can be passed on to offspring.

 

[Dave70968]

If a woman gets pregnant in the service, she should be medically discharged in my opinion. If she becomes pregnant while on or just before a deployment, she should receive a general discharge in my opinion. I don't have a problem with women in the military, as long as it doesn't harm effectiveness or increase costs. When it becomes so hard to find good recruits that we need women, then we could lower the requirements.

Plessy V. Ferguson is a moot point ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I think the constitution should be read strictly. Also, i've never been opposed to eugenics for the purpose of weeding out genetic defects that can be passed on to offspring.

...and that last sentence is about the scariest thing I've read on OSA this year.