We're Done With That Sh*t

[Rightguide]

Activist judges overruled: Trump judges greenlight Hegseth’s ban on military 'dudes in dresses'​

Joseph MacKinnon
December 10, 2025

The dissenting judge on the panel, an Obama appointee, claimed the policy was rooted in animus and clutched pearls over Trump admin tweets.​

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a foreign-born, Biden-appointed, lesbian judge who previously worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy — decided in March to indefinitely block the enforcement of the second Trump administration's ban on transvestites in the military, suggesting it likely violated their constitutional rights.

Reyes, formerly of the Feminist Majority Foundation, suggested in her March 18 ruling that the "Military Ban is soaked in animus" and that it was her responsibility as a judge to keep the executive branch at heel, despite acknowledging the "pernicious" nature of judicial overreach.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed the administration a big win: a 2-1 decision staying Reyes' order and greenlighting enforcement of the ban.

Citing the Supreme Court's June 6-3 ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's ban on sex-rejecting genital mutilations and sterilizing puberty blockers for minors, U.S. Circuit Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao — both appointed by President Donald Trump — ruled that War Secretary Pete Hegseth's ban on trans-identifying military members likely did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause or trigger any form of heightened scrutiny.

More here: https://www.theblaze.com/news/activ...ght-hegseths-ban-on-military-dudes-in-dresses

Back to building a real military.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Back to building a real military.

Your president wears a catheter and a diaper after claiming to have bone spurs to avoid going to Vietnam because he's the giant pussy he's trying to keep out of the military.

 

[HisArpy]

I think this highlights a real problem.

Too many times those in power use narratives to shape their decisions instead of truth/reality. Here, the lone dissenting justice used a few out of context statements to attempt to shape policy for millions instead of facing the truth/reality.

It swings both ways; lots of time other judges and justices shape their decisions based on what the government says. In these cases all the government needs to say is that "we believe harm would occur" and it's all good to shape policy which affects millions. I list the Covid lockdowns as a prime example with mandatory masking (still being imposed in some places) coming a close second.

What it comes down to is laziness on the part of the courts AND the people. It's easier to just go along and let the appellate courts do the heavy lifting than use your own intelligence to say "wait, hold on a second..."

 

[Rightguide]

I think this highlights a real problem.

Too many times those in power use narratives to shape their decisions instead of truth/reality. Here, the lone dissenting justice used a few out of context statements to attempt to shape policy for millions instead of facing the truth/reality.

It swings both ways; lots of time other judges and justices shape their decisions based on what the government says. In these cases all the government needs to say is that "we believe harm would occur" and it's all good to shape policy which affects millions. I list the Covid lockdowns as a prime example with mandatory masking (still being imposed in some places) coming a close second.

What it comes down to is laziness on the part of the courts AND the people. It's easier to just go along and let the appellate courts do the heavy lifting than use your own intelligence to say "wait, hold on a second..."

If you want to see some idiocy check out Justice Jackson's remarks:
https://www.rvmnews.com/2025/12/jac...ile-kavanaugh-warns-of-agency-sabotage-watch/

 

[Baztrachian]

Funny how leftists like Jackson complain about it being a conspiracy when conservatives talk about the Deep State and then she does her very best to establish the Deep State in judicial law.

 

[Wilson23]

Back to building a real military.

An all-female force could cut them to pieces.

 

[Rightguide]

An all-female force could cut them to pieces.

Please. Put 100 pounds of gear on their backs and half of your imaginary brigade would crumble like a crouton. the only thing getting shredded here is your grip on reality.

 

[Wilson23]

Please. Put 100 pounds of gear on their backs and half of your imaginary brigade would crumble like a crouton. the only thing getting shredded here is your grip on reality.

No one fucks with the Israelis.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Please. Put 100 pounds of gear on their backs and half of your imaginary brigade would crumble like a crouton. the only thing getting shredded here is your grip on reality.

The point is that they wouldn't have to carry 100lbs on their backs, dipshit.

 

[Rightguide]

No one fucks with the Israelis.

You mean nobody fucks with the Israelis when we're around, right?

 

[Philthy_Phil]

I think this highlights a real problem.

Too many times those in power use narratives to shape their decisions instead of truth/reality. Here, the lone dissenting justice used a few out of context statements to attempt to shape policy for millions instead of facing the truth/reality.

It swings both ways; lots of time other judges and justices shape their decisions based on what the government says. In these cases all the government needs to say is that "we believe harm would occur" and it's all good to shape policy which affects millions. I list the Covid lockdowns as a prime example with mandatory masking (still being imposed in some places) coming a close second.

What it comes down to is laziness on the part of the courts AND the people. It's easier to just go along and let the appellate courts do the heavy lifting than use your own intelligence to say "wait, hold on a second..."

Sorry, not fags or cripples in the military, only men.

Both you and rightturd are not wanted.

 

[HisArpy]

If you want to see some idiocy check out Justice Jackson's remarks:
https://www.rvmnews.com/2025/12/jac...ile-kavanaugh-warns-of-agency-sabotage-watch/

She talks about how democracy is a check on executive authority/power but fails to see that her opinion is an unlawful, ex-Constitutional, attempt to seize executive power for herself/courts.

As a SCOTUS justice, she is a complete failure in law and logic, and should either step down from the court or be removed by the Congress.

 

[Hel_Books]

Wilson23 said:
An all-female force could cut them to pieces.

Please. Put 100 pounds of gear on their backs and half of your imaginary brigade would crumble like a crouton. the only thing getting shredded here is your grip on reality.

Interesting how your macho USA military got shredded in Vietnam by soldiers a good deal shorter and lighter than your Green Berets and Marines!

 

[Wilson23]

She talks about how democracy is a check on executive authority/power but fails to see that her opinion is an unlawful, ex-Constitutional, attempt to seize executive power for herself/courts.

When was freedom ever threatened by the judiciary poaching power from the executive? It's only the reverse of that we need to worry about!

 

[Rightguide]

She talks about how democracy is a check on executive authority/power but fails to see that her opinion is an unlawful, ex-Constitutional, attempt to seize executive power for herself/courts.

As a SCOTUS justice, she is a complete failure in law and logic, and should either step down from the court or be removed by the Congress.

It's a pitiful sight to behold.

 

[HisArpy]

It's a pitiful sight to behold.

The real problem is that the People have been rendered impotent regarding their judges and elected officials when those same judges and elected officials go rogue.

The system protects its own and society pays the price for it.

 

[Wilson23]

Accusations of "judicial activism" are never made in nonpartisan manner. Nobody ever says, "Sure, that court decision supports a policy I like, but it's constitutionally unacceptable!" Originalism is never anything more than ventriloquism in a cemetery.

 

[Wilson23]

The real problem is that the People have been rendered impotent regarding their judges and elected officials when those same judges and elected officials go rogue.

Would term limits help?

 

[Rightguide]

The real problem is that the People have been rendered impotent regarding their judges and elected officials when those same judges and elected officials go rogue.

The system protects its own and society pays the price for it.

A few more like her and the Constitution will be shredded. There is no room for emotionally guided intellects on the nation's highest Court or any court of law, for that matter.

 

[Wilson23]

A few more like her and the Constitution will be shredded. There is no room for emotionally guided intellects on the nation's highest Court or any court of law, for that matter.

No human intellect of any other description exists, not even on a mathematics-department faculty.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Activist judges overruled: Trump judges greenlight Hegseth’s ban on military 'dudes in dresses'​

Joseph MacKinnon
December 10, 2025

The dissenting judge on the panel, an Obama appointee, claimed the policy was rooted in animus and clutched pearls over Trump admin tweets.​

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a foreign-born, Biden-appointed, lesbian judge who previously worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy — decided in March to indefinitely block the enforcement of the second Trump administration's ban on transvestites in the military, suggesting it likely violated their constitutional rights.

Reyes, formerly of the Feminist Majority Foundation, suggested in her March 18 ruling that the "Military Ban is soaked in animus" and that it was her responsibility as a judge to keep the executive branch at heel, despite acknowledging the "pernicious" nature of judicial overreach.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed the administration a big win: a 2-1 decision staying Reyes' order and greenlighting enforcement of the ban.

Citing the Supreme Court's June 6-3 ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's ban on sex-rejecting genital mutilations and sterilizing puberty blockers for minors, U.S. Circuit Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao — both appointed by President Donald Trump — ruled that War Secretary Pete Hegseth's ban on trans-identifying military members likely did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause or trigger any form of heightened scrutiny.

More here: https://www.theblaze.com/news/activ...ght-hegseths-ban-on-military-dudes-in-dresses

Back to building a real military.

I'd say the justice system is overdue for a house cleaning.

 

[ll74]

I'd say the justice system is overdue for a house cleaning.

Retribution seems the be this administrations house cleaning.

What are your suggestions?

 

[Rightguide]

No human intellect of any other description exists, not even on a mathematics-department faculty.

Of course, humans have emotions. The difference, the entire difference, is that professional adults, especially judges, are required to discipline their emotions with training, precedent, and the black-letter law. If your position were true, we might as well replace the U.S. Reports with mood rings and let the Supreme Court issue opinions based on how vibe-aligned they feel that morning. The whole point of a judiciary is to apply law despite emotion, not because of it. Pretending that "everyone has emotions" somehow excuses judicial activism isn’t profound, it’s just an elaborate excuse for ignoring the Constitution whenever feelings get hurt. Emotion may be human, but it is not a legal standard.

 

[Wilson23]

Of course, humans have emotions. The difference, the entire difference, is that professional adults, especially judges, are required to discipline their emotions with training, precedent, and the black-letter law.

It's only the ones appointed by Dems who do that at all any more, as you know. No such process of adult-professional judgment went into this!

 

[Bray123]

I hope the order was written in Times New Roman.

We don't want to read any DEI orders in LGBTQ+ Calibri.