So much for Mattis being anything but a lap dog ...

Memo shows Mattis gave military panel no choice but to uphold ban on transgender service
It really was rigged from the start.
ZACK FORD

A memo written by Defense Secretary James Mattis shows he instructed a military panel to uphold a ban on transgender people serving in the military, and did not suggest the panel should weigh the merits of the ban.

Following a July tweet telegraphing his intentions, President Trump issued an official order dated August 25 implementing a ban on transgender service members. A few days later, Mattis issued a statement indicating he’d received the president’s order and announcing the creation of a panel to develop “a study and implementation plan.”

Most media reports at the time emphasized the “study” aspect of Mattis’ announcement, suggesting that there was a possibility the panel could end up recommending against implementing the ban, depending on the results of that study. But Mattis framed things differently internally.

Mattis sent a two-page memo to top military leaders on September 14, 2017 — made available through one of the lawsuits challenging the ban — in which he laid out his expectations for an “Implementation Plan” for Trump’s order. The document makes clear he directed the panel only to determine how to implement the ban, not if such a ban should be implemented.

Trump’s order to the Department of Defense dictated three different components. It prohibited transgender people from joining the military (the accession policy), prohibited transgender people from remaining in the military after they come out (the retention policy), and prohibited the military from covering the cost of any medical care related to an individual’s gender transition. In addressing each of these prohibitions, Mattis’ memo calls on the panel merely to flesh out how they would apply in practice.

For example, on accessions, the memo’s only instruction to the panel is to determine ...

MORE>

Those alleged "warriors" are nothing but wimps.

Methinks that Pence and Tony Perkins are behind this one

Trump administration asks for transgender military ban ruling from Supreme Court in aggressive legal manoeuvre

- The request urges the high court to compound four separate legal challenges to Donald Trump’s transgender ban and singularly rule on the issue
+- It’s an unusual move that bypasses the regular federal legal process

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court on Friday to promptly allow it to ban transgender people from serving in the US armed forces in an unusual move that bypasses the regular federal legal process.

The request, filed by Solicitor General Noel Francisco, urges the high court to compound four separate legal challenges to US President Donald Trump’s transgender ban and singularly rule on the issue this term.

Trump’s ban is currently not being enforced since all four lawsuits were successful in asking for temporary injunctions.

“The decisions imposing those injunctions are wrong, and they warrant this Court’s immediate review,” Francisco wrote.

Francisco’s request urges the Supreme Court to ignore the regular chain of command, which mandates that the government first challenge the lower court decisions in federal appeal courts.

Trump stunned lawmakers and his own military leaders when he announced the transgender ban in a string of tweets in July 2017.

The president claimed the ban would be “doing the military a great favour,” but statistics and federal judges have ripped that assertion as baseless.

“There is absolutely no support for the claim that the ongoing service of transgender people would have any negative effect on the military at all,” US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled in a case filed in Washington.

“In fact, there is considerable evidence that it is the discharge and banning of such individuals that would have such effects.”

Transgender advocates have slammed Trump’s ban as bigoted and say it will only harm the military, as it would, if implemented, expunge the more than 10,000 transgender people who currently serve in the armed forces.

“As Americans come together and give thanks for the sacrifices made by our brave service members and their families, the Trump-Pence administration is focused on undermining our military by tripling down on this discriminatory ban,” said Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California, which brought one of the successful suits against the ban.

“There are thousands of transgender service members bravely serving the nation with distinction. The administration ought to be thanking them for their service – not trying to score political points by purging them from our military.”

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united- ... litary-ban

additional links at source

i invite it. i think it is going to fail.

I'd hope so but given that he's working on stacking the court it's not completely clear.

BTW, given the state of Ginsberg's health it's quite probable that he'll get to nominate another justice.

he has a lot of stacking to do to make this fail, imo.

shiftless2 wrote:

I'd hope so but given that he's working on stacking the court it's not completely clear.

BTW, given the state of Ginsberg's health it's quite probable that he'll get to nominate another justice.

You mean the GOP won't hold off given that he's a lame duck Prezzy now.

The DiC is only "happy" when making others miserable ~ helluva way to "live" ~ ~ some "live links" in original ~ Sooz

Trump asks Supreme Court to rescue his policy against transgender troops
11/26/18 09:30 AM
By Steve Benen

In July 2017, Donald Trump announced a new policy via Twitter: the president would no longer allow transgender Americans to serve in the military. He hadn’t given anyone at the Pentagon a heads-up about his new discriminatory policy – officials throughout the executive branch were blindsided – and no one at the White House could explain the necessity of the change.

Trump eventually defended the move by saying, “I think I’m doing a lot of people a favor by coming out and just saying it.” I still have no idea what that meant.

Not surprisingly, there were plenty of lawsuits challenging the president’s policy, and Trump’s position hasn’t fared well. The day after Thanksgiving, when much of the country’s attention was focused elsewhere, the administration turned to the Supreme Court for a rescue. BuzzFeed reported:


It’s a legal strategy predicated on the idea that there’s some kind of emergency: Trump needs to block transgender Americans from serving in the military right away, and there’s simply no time for appeals courts to consider the controversy.

This is, of course, bizarre.

A report commissioned by the Pentagon two years ago found that allowing transgender Americans to serve would have little to no impact on military cohesion or readiness – so the idea that this is an urgent legal dispute in need of the Supreme Court’s intervention is awfully difficult to take seriously.

It is, however, further evidence that Trump, in the wake of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, expects the high court to follow the White House’s instructions. Whether the court’s five-member conservative majority is prepared to prove otherwise remains to be seen.

If the Supreme Court does take up the issue and the administration gets its way, the justices would hear an appeal this term, setting up a ruling for the summer of 2019.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-asks-supreme-court-rescue-his-policy-against-transgender-troops

Trump just did 2 major things to set back trans rights nationwide
Daniel Villarreal

U.S. President Donald Trump continued his anti-trans policies this holiday weekend with two moves: He asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule quickly on his anti-trans military ban and removed protections for federal trans employees from the Office of Personnel Management’s website.

On July 26, 2017, Trump tweeted his intention to ban on all trans U.S. military members. Trump has since refused to name the military leaders who supposedly advised him on the ban. In the meanwhile, many have publicly opposed his move, pointing out the billions it will cost.

Since then, three federal courts have blocked Trump’s attempt, stating that he failed to show how it would further government interests. Trump initially said it was a cost-saving measure, except the U.S. military currently spends five to 20 times more on Viagra than it does on trans-related medical care.

This Friday, Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the three federal court rulings blocking his ban. Buzzfeed News reporter Chris Geidner said Trump is basically asking the Supreme Court to rule before lower appeals courts issue their rulings, an unusual step.

Trump’s filing says a quick ruling is necessary because the case “involves an issue of imperative public importance: the authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces,” but this is untrue. He merely hopes the highest court will rule before appeals courts can continue chipping away at his ban.

If the U.S. Supreme Court does take up any of the cases, their ruling will likely come out by June 2019. In the meanwhile, the proposed ban affects the estimated 1,320 to 15,000 trans people currently serving in the military, leaving their employment status uncertain, and discourages would-be trans recruits from signing up.

Over the holidays, Trump also quietly deleted protections for trans federal employees from the Office of Personnel Management’s website. Though the site still explicitly forbids discrimination based on “gender identity,” it has removed explicit references to transgender people.

According to Think Progress, the site removed detailed definitions for “gender identity,” “transgender,” “gender non-conforming,” and “transition.” It also removed sections guaranteeing that trans workers “could dress according to their gender identity … were called by their preferred names and pronouns, and … allowed to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.”

In the past, Trump has rescinded Obama-era memos protecting trans students, sent an anti-trans activist to a U.N. women’s rights meeting and ended a rule placing trans prisoners in facilities matching their gender identity.

Live links at source

SOURCE

Is Grabem legally rather than morally right with his transgender ban? For years gays were forbidden to serve followed by about 20 years of don't ask/don't tell. As far as I know the ban on gays was never considered unconstitutional nor beyond the military's ability to maintain. So why would Grabem face any issues with a transgender ban?

The thingie about all being equal or some such nonsense, I guess.

I guess my point is that all this other stuff was done simply by Executive Order without a lot of fuss in the courts so why not the transgender issue.

Maybe no one took it to court before. Times are a-changin'.

And while discriminating against gays and trans* individuals used to considered acceptable that's no longer the case.

And the lies continue ...

Trump Defends Trans Military Ban: 'They Take Massive Amounts of Drugs'
BY JACOB OGLES



TV journalist Piers Morgan confronted President Donald Trump on British television about his ban on transgender troops.

Trump tried to cite the high cost of prescription drugs to defend the controversial ban, but Morgan appeared to surprise the president with information that more gets spent on Viagra by the military than on hormones connected with gender confirmation surgery. The interview took place on Good Morning Britain on Wednesday.

Trump pointed to pharmaceutical costs immediately when pressed on trans troops.

“[Trans people] take massive amounts of drugs, they have to, and you’re not allowed to take drugs. You’re in the military,” Trump said.

The president tried to imply soldiers get in trouble for taking aspirin.

But Morgan noted the U.S. military in fact pays for many medical costs for troops. That includes drugs used for sexual enhancement. By comparison, the costs of any hormone therapy for enlisted individuals who are trans looks "miniscule."

“The U.S. military spends a lot more money, for example, on giving Viagra to servicemen and women, or servicemen, than it does on actual medical bills of transgender people,” Morgan noted.

“It seems to me an unnecessary thing for a guy who wants to be supportive of LGBT rights and the community around the world to take this action you’ve taken.”

Trump said he “didn’t know that” when it came to Viagra coverage. That's despite fact-checking organizations like Politifact confirming the numbers years ago.

But Trump dismissed the critique, citing the cost of gender confirmation surgeries as another problem.

“It is what it is,” he said. “Also, people going in and asking for the operation, you know the operation is $200,000, $250,000, and getting the operation, the recovery period is long and they have to take large amounts of drugs after that for whatever reason.”

Notably, Trump’s ban on trans troops applies to those who have already transitioned as well.

Morgan asked the president about those who have served and won gallantry awards. Trump said that’s fine he but he really doesn’t care.

“I’m proud of them. I think it’s great,” he said. “But you have to have a standard and you have to stick by that standard. We have a great military and I want to keep it that way. Maybe they’d be phenomenal. I think they probably would be. But again, you have very strict rules and regulations and prescription drugs and all of these different things and they blow it out of the water.”

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2019/ ... -troop-ban

Live links at source

Who said that there's not such thing as good news?

Trump’s ban on transgender troops blocked by Democrats
Vic Parsons



US President Donald Trump’s policy banning openly transgender troops from serving in the military hit a stumbling block on Tuesday (June 18), when a majority of lawmakers voted against it.

Members of the House of Representatives voted 243-183 to adopt an amendment that will block funding for Trump’s trans troop ban.


The vote came during a debate on a $1 trillion spending package that includes the military spending bill.

Republicans argued that allowing trans people to serve openly in the military would undermine the “military readiness” and “unit cohesion” of troops.

But Anthony Brown, the Democrat for Maryland, said that this argument had historically been used to justify racially segregating the military.

“My service in an integrated armed forces did not harm readiness,” said Brown, who is African American.

“Every service chief testified that transgender service would not disrupt unit cohesion or readiness,” he said.

The amendment was proposed by Jackie Speier, the Democrat for California, and will block military funding from being used to implement the new policy, which has been in effect since April 12.

Trump’s policy – first announced in a series of tweets on July 26 2017 – requires trans people with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to serve in the military as the gender they were assigned at birth.

It also means that people with a trans history are barred from serving in the military unless they have lived as the gender they were assigned at birth for three years and have not socially or medically transitioned.

An estimated 14,700 members of the US military are trans. Barack Under Obama’s presidency, trans people already serving in the military were allowed to be open about their trans status.

Trump’s policy is also being challenged in court.

“With so much anger and so much hate in the world today, it is time to be kind to people,” said Peter Visclosky, the Democrat representative for Indiana.

SOURCE

live links at source

Makes me wonder if transgender people are excused from registering for the draft or not being drafted when it was operational. Methinks there would have been a lot of transgenders back in the sixties and seventies if they were excused.

In the 60's and 70's being openly trans would likely have seen the individual labelled as mentally ill and subjected to "cures" such as lobotomies and electroshock. Treatments that didn't accomplish anything other than producing brain dead zombies.

That would explain Cadet Bone Spurs.

Except that he came by it naturally.

The latest ...

Federal Court To Pentagon: Turn Over Documents Used to Justify Transgender Military Ban
ByLambda Legal

Today, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ordered the Department of Defense to turn over documents that it has withheld regarding the Trump-Pence administration’s ban on open military service by transgender people, including its purported justifications for the policy.

“The government cannot conceal the truth about the development of this discriminatory policy and the absence of any justification for excluding qualified transgender people from serving our country,” Lambda Legal Counsel Peter Renn said.

“We look forward to the court shining a light onto what the government has fought very hard to hide. There is no cloak big enough to hide the deficiencies of the Pentagon’s rushed plan, which was cobbled together after-the-fact to backfill a justification for President Trump’s arbitrary tweets. We look forward to having our day in court when we can prove at trial why this ban remains rank discrimination that cannot stand. This ruling brings us one step closer to that day.”

In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed that the government’s policy still discriminates against transgender people and is subject to heightened scrutiny by the courts. It directed the district court to consider its discovery rulings with that legal framework in mind.

Today’s ruling comes on the heels of other court orders requiring disclosure, including a September 2019 decision by a Michigan court requiring an anti-LGBT organization to turn over its communications with the government regarding the ban, and a September 2019 decision from a Washington D.C. court also requiring disclosure of materials withheld by the military.

“Tomorrow, as I do today and as I did yesterday, I will put on the uniform of the U.S. Navy and do my duty,” NavaI Petty Officer Megan Winters said.

“I’m no different from my brothers and sisters in the U.S. Navy, and I’m not asking to be treated any differently. I perform the same duties, pass the same tests and measure up to the same standards. I’m committed to service for my country—no different than the thousands of other transgender individuals serving in the U.S. armed services—and I look forward to making that commitment known in court.”

"We are thrilled with the court's decision today," said Modern Military Association of America (MMAA) Legal & Policy Director Peter Perkowski.

"Our transgender service members have proven time and again that they are ready to serve, they are willing to serve, and they are able to serve. Through this ruling, we will have the opportunity to explore the full extent of the Trump-Pence Administration's motivations behind their proposed ban to constrain the military service of these honorable, transgender patriots."

In the lawsuit, Lambda Legal and MMAA represent eight individual plaintiffs – six currently serving members of the armed services and two individuals seeking to enlist – and three organizational plaintiffs: the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Seattle-based Gender Justice League, and MMAA, who joined the lawsuit on behalf of their transgender members harmed by the ban. (MMAA was formed by the merger of OutServe-SLDN, Lambda Legal’s original co-counsel in the lawsuit, and the American Military Partner Association, an organizational plaintiff.) The State of Washington also joined the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The lawsuit is Karnoski v. Trump.

The Lambda Legal attorneys working on the case are: Peter Renn, Diana Flynn, Camilla B. Taylor, Tara Borelli, Paul Castillo, Sasha Buchert, Carl Charles and Kara Ingelhart. They are joined by co-counsel Peter Perkowski of MMAA. Also on the legal team are pro-bono co-counsel at Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Newman Du Wors LLP.

Statements from Organizational Plaintiffs:

"We deserve transparency when it comes to major policies that impact the wellbeing of our troops," said HRC National Press Secretary Sarah McBride. "This decision will help us show the discriminatory agenda driving this administration, and demonstrate what is already clear, this ban is based on nothing more than personal animus. This is a critical win in the fight to protect transgender service members, and we thank Lambda Legal and MMAA for their representation in this case."

"The federal government should cease its attempt to hide behind procedural blinds and feints to avoid truthfully answering the question of how they chose to determine the fitness of transgender people in the military," said Elayne Wylie, Co-Executive Director, Gender Justice League. “Gender Justice League and thousands of transgender people in Washington State applaud the court ruling in support of justice for transgender service members."

SOURCE

The actual lawsuit is linked in the article but can be found here:

https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/ca ... ki-v-trump

A first step ...

Judge Orders Gen. Mattis, Other Former Pentagon Leaders to Testify About Origins of Trump’s Transgender Military Ban
JERRY LAMBE

A federal judge in Seattle on Wednesday ordered former top Defense Department’s officials to be deposed as part of a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s order banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military. Under the order, Secretary of Defense-turned-Trump critic Gen. James N. Mattis, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Paul J. Selva, former Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (and current Secretary of Veterans Affairs) Robert Wilkie Jr., and former Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. William F. Moran would all be interviewed regarding the genesis of the controversial policy.

The lawsuit was initially filed by Ryan Karnoski, a transgender man who dreamed of enlisting in the military. The suit was filed in Aug. 2017, one month after President Trump’s 2017 tweets announced that ...

MORE>

Shift wrote: "We are still awaiting any reaction from Ivanka and Jared to President Trump's tweets yesterday announcing the ban of transgender service in the military."

I wonder if she ever did openly disagree with him or defy him what his reaction would be. Would like to see it, but doubt it will ever happen- she likes money as much as her father and not about to upset the gravy train.

Pentagon Issues New Rules Governing Transgender Ban
Trump’s Latest Attack on US Troops Shows “Consistent Pattern” by Increasingly Isolated Commander in Chief

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, released the following statement after the Pentagon last week issued new guidance detailing and justifying its ban on transgender service members:

“Donald Trump’s continued attacks on transgender Americans who are putting their lives on the line for this country illustrate a consistent pattern of a commander in chief increasingly isolated from his own military. Instead of honoring and supporting our troops, he is targeting them for discriminatory treatment, just as he has reportedly denigrated military members over many years. The guidance issued last week doubles down on a ban that deprives the military of qualified personnel, and which military leaders and scholars have repeatedly indicated has no credible rationale.”

The Pentagon’s new Instruction, entitled, “Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons With Gender Dysphoria,” dated September 4, replaces a temporary directive that reinstated the ban under President Trump last year. A new 40-page handbook, which accompanied the Instruction, outlines for commanders how the ban is supposed to work and attempts to ...

MORE>

Trump’s ban on transgender troops hurt the military, former service surgeons general say
Alex Horton

President Trump’s order banning many transgender people from serving has eroded the military’s ability to fight and win wars by narrowing its recruiting pool and lowering morale among transgender troops exempt from the policy, former top military physicians said in a study.

Defense Department regulations implemented April 12, 2019, prohibit anyone with gender dysphoria from enlisting but allow transgender service members who were serving before then to remain in uniform.

Trump and military officials have argued that barring transgender people from serving would improve readiness and strengthen unit cohesion. But a study published by the Palm Center, a research institute that studies LGBTQ personnel issues in the military, said the opposite has occurred.

“The transgender ban has harmed military readiness across the board. That’s what happens when the military needlessly discriminates against people who are qualified to serve,” said Alan M. Steinman, a former U.S. Coast Guard director of heath and safety and retired rear admiral of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

Steinman was one of the study’s six authors, who also include former Army and Navy surgeon generals. Their conclusions are based on ...

MORE>