The Supreme gives a victory to Trump and supports his veto to transgender military

    0
    776
    The Supreme gives a victory to Trump and supports his veto to transgender military The president of the USA, Donald Trump, offers a wheel of prey at the White House in Washington DC (United States). EFE / Archive

    By clicking, counts the download Washington, Jan 22 (EFEUSA) .- The Supreme Court today gave a victory to the president, Donald Trump, to support his veto to the transgender military, a controversial measure that had not come into force by the blocking of the courts.
    The decision of the Supreme Court (5-4) means that the Trump Administration’s request to allow the veto of military service to transgender people to take effect.


    The Court ruled that the Department of Defense’s proposal may take effect soon, while the case is resolved in immediately lower courts.
    After the resolution, the Pentagon defended in a statement that its policy is not a ban for all transgender people of the Armed Forces and argued that their initiative will allow the Army “to remain the most lethal and effective combat forces in the world.”


    The Justice Department, for its part, applauded the decision of the Supreme Court and stressed that the Pentagon “has the authority to create and implement personnel policies that it considers necessary to better protect” the country.


    The Trump government decided to veto the Supreme Court in November to rule on that policy and argued that the judicial blockade forced the army to maintain a previous policy, even though a report prepared by the Pentagon established that the incorporation into the ranks of transgender people “puts at risk the lethality and military effectiveness”.


    Three weeks ago, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia ruled that this ban announced by the Pentagon in 2017 should not have been blocked while it was being challenged, despite which the measure could not be enforced even by similar rulings of other courts .


    However, following the decision of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the Trump Executive can legally start this controversial policy.
    A well-known organization of veterans of the US Army, called Common Defense, today criticized the ruling of the Supreme Court and recalled that there are thousands of soldiers “trapped in limbo.”


    “This is not just an abstract legal procedure before the final decision: there are thousands of transgender soldiers currently trapped in limbo,” the group said in a statement, calling Trump’s policy a “silent purge.”


    For its part, the National Center for Transgender Equality said that the military of that group are “under serious threat” after the decision of the highest court in the country.
    Other more conservative voices in the country, such as Wayne Dupree, of the National Diversity Coalition for Trump, celebrated the ruling in style.


    “It is hard to believe that prohibiting people with serious mental illness from serving in our Armed Forces is a problem for the courts and is worthy of a holder. (…) Thank God and thank you Supreme Court,” said Dupree on his page. Web.


    Trump announced in July of 2017 that he intended to prohibit all transgender people from serving in the Army, although later the White House advised that the enlistment of people who might in the future want to undergo a sex change operation was not allowed. .


    Finally, the defense portfolio presented in March of last year a regulation that established that people with “a history of gender dysphoria (…) are disqualified from military service except under limited circumstances”, but did not recommend the expulsion of members of the Armed Forces that had already undergone a sex change operation.


    Neither this regulation could be implemented since, in addition to generating the rejection of numerous social groups and part of the military, was again blocked by the Justice because it was a discriminatory measure that violated constitutional rights.
    In total, four lawsuits against these prohibitions were filed and several courts then prevented the policy from entering into force.

    Leave a Reply