Trump Blocked again by another judge

#27
#27
OuterBanksVol said:
Cute. A "tranny" used to mean a transvestite - a man who dresses as a woman. So, no, I wasn't aware that thousands of guys were chopping off their dicks to become the "women" they identified as. I guess you kept up with this sort of thing more closely than I did. :) Still debating I gather...

View attachment 142214
Click to expand...

Oh hey, you do know.

People with sever psychological issues don’t need to be in the military. That we should all agree on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
Wafflestomper said:
Yeah, maybe they should only allow white, straight, Christian men!

You guys love to ***** about big government over-stepping their authority, but then encourage them to do it elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Of course not. White, straight, Christian men are the cause of all the worlds problems despite all evidence to the contrary, right?


How did you get only White, straight, Christian and men out of a tranny convo?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#34
#34
Obsessed said:
That's not what I said, but if it makes you feel better to think so, then by all means, get triggered.
Click to expand...

It's called sarcasm. Where do you draw the line at who is and is not allowed to serve? Is there something inherent to transgender people that precludes them from being able to serve in any capacity in the military?
 
#35
#35
Wafflestomper said:
It's called sarcasm. Where do you draw the line at who is and is not allowed to serve? Is there something inherent to transgender people that precludes them from being able to serve in any capacity in the military?
Click to expand...

I’m sure some of our resident black posters will appreciate you equating black people to the mentally ill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#39
#39
OuterBanksVol said:
CNN:

A federal judge on Monday partially blocked enforcement of key provisions of President Donald Trump's memorandum banning transgender people serving in the military.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly blocked provisions of the memorandum concerning the enlistment and retention of transgender military service members, holding that the plaintiffs "have established that they will be injured by these directives, due both to the inherent inequality they impose, and the risk of discharge and denial of accession that they engender. "

The judge also blasted Trump's initial abrupt announcement via Twitter that came "without any of the formality or deliberative processes that generally accompany the development and announcement of major policy changes that will gravely affect the lives of many Americans."

Thank God for checks and balances. Trumps ouster can't happen soon enough.
Click to expand...

It’s only temporary Sparky 😂
 

Attachments

  • A9D8A5F0-4E35-4F57-8848-9C1EE82C415A.jpg
    A9D8A5F0-4E35-4F57-8848-9C1EE82C415A.jpg
    26.7 KB · Views: 0
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#40
#40
Wafflestomper said:
It's called sarcasm. Where do you draw the line at who is and is not allowed to serve? Is there something inherent to transgender people that precludes them from being able to serve in any capacity in the military?
Click to expand...

Easy, you draw the line at people with conditions that will prevent them from being deployable for extended periods of time and will need medications to simply function.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#42
#42
NashVol11 said:
Hard to win a balancing test showing your “law” is rock solid when you wrote it on Twitter in like 100 characters. People don’t understand (Trump certainly doesn’t) that a lot of it is about procedure.
Click to expand...

It's not a law it's a policy, regulation.
 
#46
#46
hog88 said:
It's not a law it's a policy, regulation.
Click to expand...

It’s a regulation intended to have the effect of law, and it’s still subject to scrutiny. Going to be hard for the government to argue that it doesn’t harm transgender people, and that there isn’t a less restrictive and less harmful alternative than this one, which is about as broad as it gets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#49
#49
NashVol11 said:
It’s a regulation intended to have the effect of law, and it’s still subject to scrutiny. Going to be hard for the government to argue that it doesn’t harm transgender people, and that there isn’t a less restrictive and less harmful alternative than this one, which is about as broad as it gets.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the courts have a lot of latitude in overruling CIC orders. Especially when it comes to being mission ready.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top