A U.S. COURT HAS APPROVED TRANSGENDER TROOP RESTRICTIONS. THE GREAT CATFISH EXPLAINS

THE GREAT NAMAZU ,AAB COMMENTATOR, RETIRED JAPANESE DEMIGOD

• GENDER CONSTANCY IS A REQUIREMENT FOR SOUND MILITARY MANPOWER MANAGEMENT
• We've discussed it in these pages before. See:
• "COMBAT PLANNING REQUIRES AN ECONOMY OF ERGONOMICS WHICH REQUIRES GENDER CONSTANCY
• WHY TRANSGENDER PEOPLE REPRESENT A THREAT TO MILITARY READINESS
• The Great Catfish Explains:"

  When President of the US and Commander in Chief Donald Trump attempted to formulate military policy on this matter the liberal federal courts attempted to step across the separation of powers and govern the military in lieu of the duly elected Commander in Chief issuing proscriptive injunction after injunction prohibiting the implementation of the Commander in Chiefs lawful and wise policies.
Finally a US Court has reversed most of the lower court decisions and allowed the Commander in Chiefs policies to be implemented at least until a yet higher court either intervenes or finally upholds the legality of the policies

On January 4, 2018 amid silence in the main stream media The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the most recent Trump policies on military service by Transgender individuals. 

The ruling supports the revised Trump policy barring from service Transgender people who suffer from a condition of known as "Gender Dysphoria". It appears that according to medical experts not every transgender individual suffers from this malady. So the recent court ruling would allow the military to refuse to enlist or continue on active duty individuals with the affliction known as "Gender Dysphoria". In reporting their decision the court wrote ;"It was clear error to say ( as the prior Federal District courts did) that there was no significant change " from the original plan barring all transgender people from enlistment or service. According to the District of Columbia Court the new plan would appear to allow some transgender people to serve. 

  To say the least we are utterly disappointed with this ruling despite its impact in advancing the President's policy which we find reasonable and prudent. None of the court decisions to date have addressed the issue of the constitutional separation of powers and all have proceeded from the premise that the judiciary may exercise control of the mundane regulation of the military by passing the duly elected Commander in Chief. A military can not long exist as an experimental laboratory for social experiment. 

 It was one thing to raise a Bill of Rights objection to racial segregation in the military when physically and intellectually , and morally qualified candidates for enlistment, retention, and promotion were being denied solely on the basis of race or skin color. Despite the fact that segregationist of the time raised the defense of judicial interference in the daily operation of the military to engage in social experimentation, we didn't support that argument then and we don't support it now. But there is far more difference in physical capacities and medical upkeep costs when the issues are gender and / or gender fluidity. The military must be free from judicially imposed social personnel experimentation when making mundane and reversible personnel policy decisions. If the military finds transgender people or color blind people , or people with an upper body strength ratio below a certain level at any time problematic; the military, and most especially the Commander in Chief, should be able to react to manage such considerations without judicial interference. Should the military at a later time determine a need for certain people with what would otherwise be a disability barring service the military can make a waiver when such matters are left to military policy.  

 The judicial interference in the transgender population management issues within the military is an impermissible intrusion of the judiciary into a nearly exclusive realm of the executive. A military that must ask "may I" from a court system for every routine policy of personnel management can never be combat ready. The very survival of the nation depends on either self restraint by the judiciary or determined executive resistance to such micro management of defense matters by the courts. 

 As we have noted here before the definition of "Treason" under our constitution is limited to aiding and abetting the enemy in war time. As the courts lose their perspective on this matter of the separation of powers as matters impact the military; their lack of reticence could back fire on such over zealous justices if they so readily wade in time of a declared war. If their decisions impede the effective defense of the nation during such a time they would be legitimately subject to arrest for treason, trial , and execution. Justices with common sense and any sense of prudence and the actual workings of the Constitution should be very reluctant to get between the Commander in Chief and the body of the forces. Done the wrong way, at the wrong time, and such a misguided and arrogant judge could be stepping on the trap door of a gallows with a rope around his or her neck. That wouldn't be good for the country. Judges need to exercise extreme caution when positioning themselves in situations where they are second guessing the Commander in Chief. A modicum of humility is order on such occasions but has been remarkably lacking in the Federal judiciary for many years now.