Why Are You Even Here? The Surprising Attitudes of Some Expats in Thailand

[webfact]

In defeat for Trump, U.S. judge blocks transgender military ban

By Andrew Chung

 

People protest U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement that he plans to reinstate a ban on transgender individuals from serving in any capacity in the U.S. military, in Times Square, in New York City, New York, U.S., July 26, 2017. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri/Files

 

(Reuters) - A federal judge in Washington on Monday blocked President Donald Trump from banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, handing a victory to transgender service members who accused the president of violating their constitutional rights.

 

Trump announced in July that he would ban transgender people from the military in a move that would reverse Democratic former President Barack Obama's policy of accepting them and halt years of efforts to eliminate barriers to military service based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

The transgender service members sued in August to try to block the ban, which had not yet gone into effect, and U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted them an injunction halting enforcement of it until their case is resolved.

 

The service members asserted that Trump's policy violated their rights to due process and equal protection under the law under the U.S. Constitution. Kollar-Kotelly said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that the ban was unconstitutional because the administration's reasons for it "do not appear to be supported by any facts."

 

After his policy announcement on Twitter, Trump signed a memorandum in August that directed the military not to accept transgender people as recruits and halted the use of government funds for sex-reassignment surgeries for active-duty personnel unless the process was already underway.

 

The memo called on Defense Secretary James Mattis to submit a plan to Trump by Feb. 21 on how to implement the changes, and the Pentagon has created a panel of senior officials for that purpose. In the meantime, the current policy of allowing transgender people to serve remains in force.

 

Mattis in June already had delayed allowing transgender recruits to join the U.S. armed forces on July 1 as previously scheduled.

 

The judge tossed out the suit's challenge to the sex-reassignment surgery directive, saying none of the plaintiffs had shown they would be impacted by that prohibition.

 

'HUGELY IMPORTANT'

 

"This is a hugely important decision and confirms that transgender people can and should be able to serve in the military if they are qualified to do so," said the plaintiffs' lead attorney, Jennifer Levi.

 

"The court saw through the smoke screens that the government tried to throw up to hide what is actually going on here, which is straight-on bias and prejudice against transgender people," added Levi, director of the transgender rights project for the anti-discrimination group GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders.

 

The Justice Department said it was disappointed in the ruling and evaluating its next steps. Spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam said the suit was premature because the "Defense Department is actively reviewing such service requirements, as the president ordered, and because none of the plaintiffs have established that they will be impacted by current policies on military service."

 

Trump's action appealed to his hard-line conservative supporters. The president in February also rescinded protections put in place under Obama for transgender public school students.

 

The judge's action marked the latest legal setback suffered by Trump on policies he has pursued as president. Courts also have blocked Trump's latest version of a travel ban on people from several Muslim-majority countries, and dealt him setbacks on policies on so-called sanctuary cities and environmental rules.

 

The service members who sued Trump, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and military leaders in August had been serving openly as transgender people in the U.S. Army, Air Force and Coast Guard. They said Trump's ban discriminated against them based on their sex and transgender status.

 

They also said they relied on the 2016 policy put in place by Obama to reveal they are transgender and called Trump's reversal unfair, arbitrary and a violation of their privacy rights.

 

The Trump administration argued that transgender people might harm military unit cohesion and that they suffer medical conditions that could limit their ability to perform duties or deploy.

 

The judge said the military previously commissioned a study that debunked concerns about unit cohesion, military readiness, or healthcare costs related to transgender troops. That report estimated there were 2,450 active-duty service members and 1,510 in the military reserves.

 

"In short, the military concerns purportedly underlying the president's decision had been studied and rejected by the military itself," Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

 

Other suits also have been filed against Trump's ban.

 

(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Additional reporting by Daniel Trotta in New York and Roberta Rampton in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-10-31

[Get Real]

42 minutes ago, webfact said:

members who accused the president of violating their constitutional rights

Accused! No need at all. This freak is a total walking red light of violation to any living creatures rights in the universe.

[darksidedog]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Trump's action appealed to his hard-line conservative supporters.

And that is it a nutshell. He knows the military had already studied the issue and stated that none of his points were valid. So now he can tell his racist, bigoted, frothing at the mouth extremist supporters that he tried, but was brought down by the "too liberal" courts.

 

[craigt3365]

Wasting more time and more money pursuing BS policies.  Almost a year now and he's accomplished nothing.

[Langsuan Man]

This administration has had more failures in court in the last 11 months than most administrations have in 4 years, should have hired more Harvard Law grads and less Goldman Sachs alumni 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Langsuan Man

[blazes]

LGBTQ.  Pls excuse my ignorance, but what does the Q refer to?

 

 If referring to "queer", that word surely covers all the other letters?

[helpisgood]

This is what you get when the military policies of a republic are initiated by early morning tweets. 

 

How embarrassing!

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

This is what you get when the military policies of a republic are initiated by early morning tweets. 

 

How embarrassing!

Luckily, as proven here, that's not happening.  But for sure embarrassing!!!

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Wasting more time and more money pursuing BS policies.  Almost a year now and he's accomplished nothing.

"...but Hillary!...."

[NanLaew]

53 minutes ago, blazes said:

LGBTQ.  Pls excuse my ignorance, but what does the Q refer to?

 

 If referring to "queer", that word surely covers all the other letters?

 

[rudi49jr]

8 hours ago, blazes said:

LGBTQ.  Pls excuse my ignorance, but what does the Q refer to?

 

 If referring to "queer", that word surely covers all the other letters?

The only thing queer here is your silly and ignorant comment ...

[Jingthing]

8 hours ago, blazes said:

LGBTQ.  Pls excuse my ignorance, but what does the Q refer to?

 

 If referring to "queer", that word surely covers all the other letters?

It can be a little difficult keeping up with all the letters.

What seems to be trending now are asexuals.

I don't think anyone has a problem with asexuals in the military. 

[dunroaming]

8 hours ago, blazes said:

LGBTQ.  Pls excuse my ignorance, but what does the Q refer to?

 

 If referring to "queer", that word surely covers all the other letters?

When ignorance is bliss it's best to leave them in their ignorance.  You can't cure stupid!

[dieter1]

Divide et impera

Divide and rule (or divide and conquer, from Latin dīvide et īmpera) in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures, and especially prevents smaller power groups from linking up, causing rivalries and fomenting discord among the people.

Traiano Boccalini cites "divide et impera" in La bilancia politica as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_et_impera

 

groups:

transforming society in a "multicultural" one

let them fight each other as much as possible: . women against men , blacks  against white,  young vs old, children versus parents,

homosexuals vs heteros , trans genders vs....

employed vs unemployed.

If useful , let them have some civil war (Libya, Syria, Iraq, ...) and let them kill each other in the name of Allah, "human rights",  Democracy .... "constitutional rights"

 

keep the masses busy with this shit to cover, what is really going on , who  is  really in control of the strings

[Slip]

12 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

This administration has had more failures in court in the last 11 months than most administrations have in 4 years, should have hired more Harvard Law grads and less Goldman Sachs alumni 

Sadly though, Trump is forcing through dozens of dreadful, shameful executive orders.

[blazes]

7 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

The only thing queer here is your silly and ignorant comment ...

Sorry if I trod on a too-sensitive toe there...

[blazes]

7 hours ago, dunroaming said:

When ignorance is bliss it's best to leave them in their ignorance.  You can't cure stupid!

So I take it that you (and little Rudi), in failing to answer my semi-genuine question about the seemingly superfluous Q are, in turn, demonstrating your "stupidity" in not being able to answer the question? 

Or do you just accept without qualm the illiterate inventions of the LGBetcetcetc communities as they try to bludgeon the rest of us into bemused acceptance of their ceaseless claims to special attention???

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, blazes said:

So I take it that you (and little Rudi), in failing to answer my semi-genuine question about the seemingly superfluous Q are, in turn, demonstrating your "stupidity" in not being able to answer the question? 

Or do you just accept without qualm the illiterate inventions of the LGBetcetcetc communities as they try to bludgeon the rest of us into bemused acceptance of their ceaseless claims to special attention???

Here is some special attention for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT

 

The Q letter, not always  used, is addressed.

There isn't a central committee on this and there is continued controversy about the use of the letters things, and what it should or shouldn't include if used, among the people referred to in the letters.

Sorry if complexity bothers you. 

 

Anyway, the topic here is about the T people. They were the only ones in the letter groups attacked by the horrible current president as far as military service, who clearly attacked them cynically as red meat for his bigoted hard core base, not for any rational reasons. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Jingthing

[gk10002000]

I think Military is by its very nature different from Civilian life or service.  I served.  When nations go to war, often constitutions or laws are changed or evoked or suspended.  Military often go and kill people.  That is their mission.  Anything that hinders or impacts, or has the potential to affect the mission should not be allowed.  Goodness, when one joins the military one comes under the UCMJ, Unified Code of Military Justice.  So right off the bat there are different standards