Judge Overturns White House Ban On Transgender Servicemembers

[Twisted Titan]

Just like the White House’s travel bans, President Trump’s July decision to reverse the Obama-era policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military has been struck down by a federal judge who said several transgender plaintiffs suing over the ban are likely to win in court.



The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_APNEWSALERT?SITE=MYPSP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-10-30-12-46-56) reported that U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Washington DC federal judge, has ruled Monday that Trump's directive changing the military’s policy on transgender service members back to what it was before June 2016 and banning new transgender recruits from enlisting cannot be enforced while the case is being reviewed in court. However, the ruling contained one silver lining: The judge declined to overturn the administration’s ban on military funds paying for gender reassignment surgery.



http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user245717/imageroot/2017/10/28/2017.10.30judge_0.JPG (http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user245717/imageroot/2017/10/28/2017.10.30judge_0.JPG)
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly



The ruling comes after Trump backpeddled on his initial declaration - which he said in a tweet was made to conserve medical costs - and asked Defense Secretary James Mattis to supervise a study to determine exactly what the military’s policy on transgender service members should be. In a preliminary finding, Mattis said the 15,000 trans service members already enlisted would be free to finish out their assignments unless the study determines that their presence would be detrimental to maintaining discipline.



As we pointed out in July, trans individuals are actually more likely to serve in the military than the rest of the population. Meanwhile, the military is the largest employer of trans individuals in the US. It’s unclear how the judge’s decision will affect the Pentagon’s review of trans servicemembers.



White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders referred questions about the ruling to the Department of Defense.

[crimethink]

The Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, "The Honorable" (sic) Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

[Joshua01]

This is why women should NOT be in government! Way too much emotional baggage!

[Ares]

The Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, "The Honorable" (sic) Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

If Trump had any balls he could have her arrested and tried for treason of interfering with the Armed forces which is directly under the executive branch. This judge has no lawful authority to interfere with the executive branches decisions regarding the military.

[Joshua01]

If she doesn't have the authority to make this ruling why has this ruling been made at all? Hell, I don't have the authority either so I over rule her decision and the military should be shooting these tranny freaks! My ruling should carry every bit as much weight as hers in another world!
If Trump had any balls he could have her arrested and tried for treason of interfering with the Armed forces which is directly under the executive branch. This judge has no lawful authority to interfere with the executive branches decisions regarding the military.

[crimethink]

If she doesn't have the authority to make this ruling why has this ruling been made at all? Hell, I don't have the authority either so I over rule her decision and the military should be shooting these tranny freaks! My ruling should carry every bit as much weight as hers in another world!

America worships "judges," in accordance with the Talmud. The Sanhedrin are the rulers of society.

You and I have no power because we don't have an army of thugs called the US Marshals to do our ignoble will.

[Cebu_4_2]

America worships "judges," in accordance with the Talmud. The Sanhedrin are the rulers of society.

You and I have no power because we don't have an army of thugs called the US Marshals to do our ignoble will.


Neither does Trump, he is very limited as shown in dozens of examples. The presidency has much less power than I ever imagined.

Unless you are full fledged on the jew team.

[Chris Magu]

America worships "judges," in accordance wit (https://vogueplay.com/au)h the Talmud. The Sanhedrin are the rulers of society.

You and I have no power because we don't have an army of thugs called the US Marshals to do our ignoble will.

That's for sure.

[Joshua01]

Obama placed communist judges in critical areas across the country for just this purpose, to obstruct and object to any progress the country has away from communism.

Quoted for truth (related to the leftist communist movement):

And it is YOUR LEFTY judges who refuse to stop interfering unconstitutionally as our president tries to keep these people out of our country.
This is you, lefties. All you...

[JDRock]

Again, judges cannot RULE except in criminal cases. They can only opine. This is getting stupid.

[monty]

I think this writer explains our runaway federal court situation pretty well


Federal Laws Must Adhere to the Constitution


CHECKING FEDERAL OVERREACH MUST BECOME THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATES.
(https://redoubtnews.com/2017/11/federal-laws-adhere-constitution/)
November 1, 2017 (https://redoubtnews.com/2017/11/) Constitution (https://redoubtnews.com/category/constitution/), Opinion (https://redoubtnews.com/category/opinion/)

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/constitution-678x381.jpg

A House Divided

by Stephen Jernigan (https://redoubtnews.com/?s=Stephen+Jernigan)

Two competing and irreconcilable world views are tearing our nation apart and nowhere do the divisions in our society have more serious consequences than the effort by judges, lawyers and legal scholars to define, in our time, the meaning, intent and limits of the U.S. Constitution.

There are two overriding presuppositions among the political and legal class regarding constitutional interpretation. The first is that values are arrived at by consensus. Meaning and values change over time based on what the community agrees upon. In his book, Constitutional Government in the United States, Woodrow Wilson said, “Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.” Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, contributors to the book, The Constitution in 2020, state, “Their [courts] decisions draw on contemporary values and respond to complex currents in public opinion.”

The second presupposition is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning and application of the Constitution. In 1787 Article VI established the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Then in 1803 the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Marbury vs. Madison established the principle of judicial review. Judicial review allows courts to rule on the constitutionality of legislative or executive acts. Given the above, Michael C. Blumm, Law Professor at Lewis and Clark Law School, makes clear that, “…while the Court might not be infallible, its interpretations of the Constitution are binding on the states – and, indeed, the other branches of government.”

If we are to accept current legal understanding, Article VI of the Constitution which contains the so-called Supremacy Clause, binds every political jurisdiction to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law. The Article VI Supremacy Clause states:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

But it is clear from the text that federal laws must adhere to the Constitution if they are to be valid. Unconstitutional federal laws are no law at all. There are thousands of federal laws, and regulations that have the force of law, that exceed the limited powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. These laws and regulations, unless challenged, are presumed to be legal and binding.

Was it the intent of the Framers of our republic that the Supreme Court establish itself as an oligarchy? Should the federal judiciary, a part of the federal government, have the authority to define the limits of its own powers? If our republican form of governance with its system of checks and balances is to continue to function, what or who is a check against improper or unlawful constitutional interpretations?

Checking federal overreach must become the responsibility of the states. The states must stand as a barrier between the people and unconstitutional federal laws. This is not a new concept. James Madison, writing in 1798 from Virginia said,
This assembly…declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Madison is affirming the fact that the states, by contract, established the federal government; intentionally limited the authority of the federal government by specifying its powers; and they have the right and duty to “interpose” or stand against unlawful federal statutes and regulations.

In 1799 Thomas Jefferson affirmed the same duty of state interposition:
If those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence.

State interposition is a direct threat to the political/judicial consensus for beneficent, all powerful, central government. Despite the efforts of a few believers in limited government, the result has been decades of unchallenged court decisions that have expanded central government control far beyond constitutional constraints. Unless the state legislatures begin to stand against the onslaught of federal overreach and refuse to enforce unlawful federal statutes, our republic will be lost and in its place, a “general consolidated government” will arise with self-appointed authority over all our rights and liberties.

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews (https://www.paypal.me/RedoubtNews)

[hoarder]

When will the troops get it through their heads that "enemies domestic" are much worse than "enemies foreign"?

[crimethink]

When will the troops get it through their heads that "enemies domestic" are much worse than "enemies foreign"?

Never, of course.

"They fight for 'our freedom'." 9402

The United States Government...murdering good people, and extinguishing freedom, since 1789!