Should A Woman Be Allowed to hold the office of President of the USA?

[webfact]

Second U.S. judge halts Trump ban on transgender troops

By Andrew Chung

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the 70th National Thanksgiving turkey pardoning ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., November 21, 2017. REUTERS/Jim Bourg

 

(Reuters) - A second federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump from banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, ruling that the prohibition likely amounted to unconstitutional discrimination.

 

U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis in Baltimore ruled that the ban lacked justification and "cannot possibly constitute a legitimate governmental interest." His ruling followed a similar one by a federal judge in Washington on Oct. 30.

 

Garbis, appointed to the federal bench by former Republican president George Bush in 1989, went further than the Washington judge by also blocking the government's directive to stop funding sex-reassignment surgery while the case moves forward, as some of the plaintiffs would be impacted by the prohibition.

 

"We're pleased that the courts have stepped in to ensure that trans service members are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve," said Joshua Block, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit against the ban.

 

Trump announced in July he would ban transgender people from the military, citing concern over military focus and medical costs.

The move would reverse former Democratic President Barack Obama's policy of accepting them.

 

Several transgender service members filed the lawsuit in August alleging the ban violated their right under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection under the law.

 

Lead plaintiff Brock Stone, 34, has served in the U.S. Navy for 11 years and wants to remain for at least 20 years, according to court papers.

 

After his policy announcement on Twitter, Trump signed a memorandum in August directing the armed forces not to accept transgender people as recruits and stopped 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 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 remained in place.

 

Garbis said the transgender ban was not driven by genuine concerns for military efficacy.

 

"The lack of any justification for the abrupt policy change, combined with the discriminatory impact to a group of our military service members who have served our country capably and honourably, cannot possibly constitute a legitimate governmental interest," he wrote in his ruling.

 

The U.S. Department of Justice said it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating its next steps.

 

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham and Andrew Hay)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-22

[johnarth]

the smartest move here would be to stop free operations

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, johnarth said:

the smartest move here would be to stop free operations

I think there was a recent ruling saying they couldn't legally stop medically supporting transgender people. 

[tifino]

Maybe it is an 'Oops too late to Plug Finger in the Dyke' reaction, to circumvent the creation of anymore Chelsea Mannings?

 

 

He turned to out be a very smart adversary, so I am sure that there's still some soreness about all that!

[dunroaming]

35 minutes ago, tifino said:

'Oops too late to Plug Finger in the Dyke'

Is that a surgical procedure? 

[mrwebb8825]

This crap all started with that damn B. Clinton and his "don't ask, don't tell" crap. Transgenders have been banned from military service since it was created. Only with Obama in 2015 did it even start to undo that ban. All those serving who lied to get in should be court martialed accordingly.

I'm not sure when it happened but, signing up to serve in the military you sign away most of your civilian rights so the ACLU and constitutionality really don't have any authority here. Neither do federal judges.