49 Comments
User's avatar
Russ Daggatt's avatar

Putting aside the merits of the case, why did this justify extraordinary “emergency” action by the Supreme Court, instead of allowing it to percolate through the lower courts with a full factual record? What is the “irreparable harm” the regime would suffer if the status quo is preserved pending the litigation? How does that compare with the harm the plaintiffs would suffer if the status quo isn’t preserved? This ruling on the “Shadow Docket,” without full briefing and oral argument, and with no written opinion, is effectively a ruling on the merits. It is creating new law, without any clarity as to what the new law is.

Expand full comment
NanceeM's avatar

That's why this action is telling. It's a portent of what's coming.

Expand full comment
Dana Ciolfi's avatar

Dispicable, disgusting, shameful, embarrassing, low life, scumbag decision. They need to get rid of Trumpty Dumpty and drunk Hegseth.

Expand full comment
Ed Reno's avatar

On top of that, it’s bad.

Expand full comment
Paul Thompson's avatar

Yup, awful.

Expand full comment
Hope Sanford's avatar

And much of SCOTUS, also. I have zero faith that SCOTUS will ever get in trump's way in any way that is meaningful. They're like the repuglikkkan congress.

Expand full comment
Jon Margolis's avatar

And all of this does not even begin to consider the adverse effects on morale, unit cohesion and the level of talent in our military. As others have noted, it is almost as if Trump and his co-conspirators are out to weaken the United States.

Expand full comment
WmnOfDistxn's avatar

As a veteran, it definitely WILL weaken morale. But I am afraid their goal is way more nefarious. I think they want troops who are diverse or more progressive to get out or not join, and they want to create a military full of male conservative nationalists. And/or, they plan on instituting a draft at some point once numbers drop low enough. I can see that happening. I mean if Trump can call anything a “war” he can certainly decide to institute a draft, and call it an “emergency” because our military numbers have declined. I realize that’s not “legal” but that does not seem to be stopping them.

Expand full comment
Michael R Mensch's avatar

Let that motherfucker try a draft. That will be the day all patriots take back this country by revolution. Dump's fate will be sealed. He will be swinging from a lamppost over a gas station.

Expand full comment
Mary Kreeger's avatar

Absolutely 🙁

Expand full comment
Diane Lee's avatar

💯🎯

Expand full comment
Bambi Vargo's avatar

No "almost" about it.

Expand full comment
Helen Stajninger's avatar

Almost?

Expand full comment
Brianna Amore's avatar

Almost?

Expand full comment
Sandy's avatar

Heartbreakingly hideous.

Expand full comment
Diane Lee's avatar

Great analysis Harry, thank you. It never ceases to amaze me how obsessed the orange Mussolini and the cultists formerly known as Republicans are with sex, sexual orientation and gender issues across the entire spectrum of life. There's something radically wrong with their twisted, warped minds. 😞🤬

Expand full comment
Paul Thompson's avatar

And they seem obsessed-er with transgender.

Expand full comment
Robert  Taylor's avatar

What the Birdbrain of Alcatraz wants, it gets. Now it’s renaming the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Arabia. How about renaming the USA to The Cuckoo’s Nest?!?

Expand full comment
Diane Lee's avatar

Who the bloody hell is that cockwomble to be renaming all these various locations? Wtf 🤬💩🤮

Expand full comment
NanceeM's avatar

King of the world, he thinks. Who's going to stop him?

Expand full comment
Sabrina Wood's avatar

We the people methinks.

Expand full comment
Brianna Amore's avatar

The cruelty, as always, is the point.

Expand full comment
Sue Sanders's avatar

This is just a distraction from all the major crimes being committed by the Executive Branch.

Expand full comment
NanceeM's avatar

It's not a distraction for those whose lives are upended.

Expand full comment
Sue Sanders's avatar

Yes I agree. I regret wording it that way.

Expand full comment
Alan Cohen's avatar

Will they receive honorable or general discharges? A general discharge can really ruin the person's prospects of securing a new job. General discharges are normally given to service members discharged for minor misconduct.

Expand full comment
Paul Thompson's avatar

Very important question.

Expand full comment
Lois Henry's avatar

“The courts must stop presuming Trump is a regular president.”

~ Marc Elias

Expand full comment
Rob and Diana's avatar

A convicted felon and a incompetent drunken pretty-boy want to ban transgender service members. When your life or survival are on the line who gives two shits who is next to you. You fight side by side for each other.

I see where this is headed. We also know that history repeats itself, yet we learn nothing from it.

Expand full comment
Sara Buckley's avatar

Ew. You think he’s pretty? He looks smarmy to me, always has.

Expand full comment
Rob and Diana's avatar

Pretty-Boy because he believes he really is. Doesn't he have his own salon in his office? Smarmy-great word. In love with himself he surely is, with an over inflated ego. Thank you, Sara.

Expand full comment
Laurie Wilson 🚫👑's avatar

Heartbreaking…thank you for thorough analysis which answered my questions regarding this ruling

Expand full comment
Helen Stajninger's avatar

I hate this administration more every day. And shame X 1000 on the Supreme Court

Expand full comment
Jacobs-Meadway Roberta's avatar

Too many “decisions” come with inadequate records, no reasons, and tremendous impact. Who needs to look at facts and a developed record?

Expand full comment
Kalliope's avatar

A lot of people in the trans community see this as a preview of how they will rule on trans youth healthcare

Expand full comment
Kalliope's avatar

And how they will rule against them in any other future cases regarding rights.

Expand full comment
Fred Krasner's avatar

It really is unconscionable for the SC to not preserve the status quo while the merits are litigated.

They did the same thing with the Texas vigilante anti-abortion statute. In a way, this instance is worse because they ruin plaintiff's lives with a thoughtless, opaque, and secretive procedural maneuver no matter how the merits are resolved. Is there not some (now apparent) bullshit inscription about seeking or doing "justice" above the portal to the court?

Expand full comment