Why Do We Obey An Obscure Judge's Ruling?

[bblhd672]

Now people are upset because some obscure judge issues an injunction against Trump's travel ban, immigration policies, etc. And why were the injunctions issued? The only justification for the injunctions issued have been time and again simply that their stated purpose (protection of US interests, etc) did not match up to the actual intended purpose as espoused by the trump in his own tweets... ie, whatever their intended purpose, their real purpose was not what was stated.... You'll find the term arbitrary and capricious used over and over when these injunctions are issued. You want the courts to support the president? Then start with POTUS, because that's where the problem lies. If you truly belive that the majority of lawyers and judges are liberal, then you need to get out and meet a few more. I've found the opposite to be true in my experience.

So, in your mind, the judges preventing POTUS from executing his Constitutionally allowed immigration policies are okay in doing so, because its Trump? How about if judges had issued multiple injunctions against Obama implementing his DACA immigration policies so Trump wouldn't even be trying to change them? Would that be okay with you?

[philbo]

So, in your mind, the judges preventing POTUS from executing his Constitutionally allowed immigration policies are okay in doing so, because its Trump? How about if judges had issued multiple injunctions against Obama implementing his DACA immigration policies so Trump wouldn't even be trying to change them? Would that be okay with you?

No, now follow slowly...
Trump's recent tweets contradicted the administration's stated reasons for terminating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Judge William Alsup cited several of Trump's tweets in his ruling, arguing that the president had demonstrated on Twitter that his decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was based on politics and a flawed legal premise rather than on the merits of the policy. If trump had never tweeted, it is possible that the stay would have had no basis to be issued. President Donald Trump was once again undermined in court by his own tweets.It happened with his travel ban, and again when a judge called out Trump’s tweets in an order blocking his transgender soldier ban. In 2012 SCOTUS struck down part of the obamacare act in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius on the question of the expansion of Medicaid. Here a majority of the Court found the expansion of medicaid as proposed was unconstitutionally coercive of the states and severed the coercive mechanism from the act. That decision was cheered by conservatives at the time. The opinion rejecting Trump's "sanctuary cities" drew heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in that case when SCOTUS found that DC couldn't force states to expand Medicaid. Thus what was unconstitutional in one case that helped conservatives and hindered obama, is later cited to thwart trumps sanctuary cities stunt. As much as you might want it to be about the person, it's about the interpretation and application of the law from case to case. What's unconstitutional in one instance, is and should be unconstitutional in all instances. That's the Rule of Law and the proper application of Judicial review.

[philbo]

And this morning we learn that some more obscure judges in the federal appeals court has upheld the bulk of a Texas law targeting "sanctuary cities" that is backed by the Trump administration as part of a crackdown on illegal immigration.

http://abc13.com/politics/us-appeals-co ... s/3211925/

[crazy2medic]

Here is my question, this has had one judge rule against this administration, and one judge rule with the administration, SCOTUS has bowed out, so what stops the administration from going with the ruling in it's favor until SCOTUS steps up and decides the matter?

[philbo]

Here is my question, this has had one judge rule against this administration, and one judge rule with the administration, SCOTUS has bowed out, so what stops the administration from going with the ruling in it's favor until SCOTUS steps up and decides the matter?

Presuming that you are referencing the sanctuary cities law in California and the one on Texas, realize that although they may use similar terms, they are different at their core. In California you have the federal government seeking to impose it's will on a state. That stay associated with that order continues. In Texas, it was a State law imposed by the state that was upheld. State v. Federal is a different animal - as it should be. The next step in California will be whether their state laws as drafted (almost the opposite of Texas) will survive attack from Sessions office.

[clarionite]

<Clipped>

Finally, the left uses the courts far more often to get its way than is good for the nation, and they do this because their policies fail in the marketplace of ideas, and in the political arena. The average citizen is more conservative in his or her views than the left would like to see. Consequently, the left’s ideas tend to be rejected by voters. By and large, American voters want a secure border, they want their 2nd amendment rights protected, they want some limitations placed on access to abortion, they want the rights of parents respected, they want freedom of speech and religion to be protected by gov’t instead of being limited by gov’t. ALL of these things are antipathetic to the left - which wants unlimited immigration across an open border, elimination of the 2nd Amendment, unlimited abortion rights paid for by the taxpayer, and the power to control speech and punish religion. Since it can’t achieve all of its goals in electoral politics, it seeks them in the courts. The courts are populated by judges who were once attorneys, and who tend to be more liberal than the politicians who appointed them.

</Clipped>

They gave up on the process the founders designed. They realized it was much easier to change the law through the courts than to get congress to make a new law, and exponentially easier than getting an amendment to the constitution ratified. Legislating from the bench has become the new norm. And the safeguard to stop it (SCOTUS) has joined them in doing it. But what do we expect when we have justices that believe they should take foreign laws into consideration when ruling, and that the constitution should be malleable and interpreted with the current political winds. RBG should have stepped down long ago. Kagen I'm no fan of, but even she's better than RBG.

[ScottDLS]

So, in your mind, the judges preventing POTUS from executing his Constitutionally allowed immigration policies are okay in doing so, because its Trump? How about if judges had issued multiple injunctions against Obama implementing his DACA immigration policies so Trump wouldn't even be trying to change them? Would that be okay with you?

No, now follow slowly...
Trump's recent tweets contradicted the administration's stated reasons for terminating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Judge William Alsup cited several of Trump's tweets in his ruling, arguing that the president had demonstrated on Twitter that his decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was based on politics and a flawed legal premise rather than on the merits of the policy. If trump had never tweeted, it is possible that the stay would have had no basis to be issued. President Donald Trump was once again undermined in court by his own tweets.It happened with his travel ban, and again when a judge called out Trump’s tweets in an order blocking his transgender soldier ban. In 2012 SCOTUS struck down part of the obamacare act in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius on the question of the expansion of Medicaid. Here a majority of the Court found the expansion of medicaid as proposed was unconstitutionally coercive of the states and severed the coercive mechanism from the act. That decision was cheered by conservatives at the time. The opinion rejecting Trump's "sanctuary cities" drew heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in that case when SCOTUS found that DC couldn't force states to expand Medicaid. Thus what was unconstitutional in one case that helped conservatives and hindered obama, is later cited to thwart trumps sanctuary cities stunt. As much as you might want it to be about the person, it's about the interpretation and application of the law from case to case. What's unconstitutional in one instance, is and should be unconstitutional in all instances. That's the Rule of Law and the proper application of Judicial review.

If a power is granted to the President by the Constitution or Congress through law, the courts have no proper authority to block the exercise of that power. Especially not by imputing reasons from public statements of a candidate or office holder. The plenary power to exclude aliens not already present from the United States for any reason is given the President in the Immigration and Naturalization Act and arguably in Article II of the Constitution also. Additionally, aliens abroad have no recourse to the courts to challenge an exclusion. There is no right for any alien to enter the US, except that which is granted by law.

On the "transgender" military ban, what law requires the Commander in Chief to follow the positions of his predecessor as it relates to the command of the Armed Forces? Trump can issue whatever lawful order he wishes to the Armed Forces for any reason or no reason. Even if he ordered it because he said he hates "trans" people (he didn't), what law is being broken and what basis does a court have to review his decision? This is akin to the court ordering Roosevelt to wait until June 7, 1944 to tell Ike to invade Normandy because he made a statement in his 1940 campaign that he wouldn't do it on a Tuesday. "I only want us to kill the Hun on a Wednesday".

The real threat to our Republic and Judicial Branch is judges who legislate from the Bench and replace a neutral reading of the Constitution and the Law with their political prejudices.

[clarionite]

Now people are upset because some obscure judge issues an injunction against Trump's travel ban, immigration policies, etc. And why were the injunctions issued? The only justification for the injunctions issued have been time and again simply that their stated purpose (protection of US interests, etc) did not match up to the actual intended purpose as espoused by the trump in his own tweets... ie, whatever their intended purpose, their real purpose was not what was stated.... You'll find the term arbitrary and capricious used over and over when these injunctions are issued. You want the courts to support the president? Then start with POTUS, because that's where the problem lies. If you truly belive that the majority of lawyers and judges are liberal, then you need to get out and meet a few more. I've found the opposite to be true in my experience.

And where does the law state that a Judge can rule on the heart of a president and not the letter of the law? How do judges get the power to stop the president from using powers specifically given to him?

[Grundy1133]

How do judges get the power to stop the president from using powers specifically given to him?

Corruption

[philbo]

If a power is granted to the President by the Constitution or Congress through law, the courts have no proper authority to block the exercise of that power. Especially not by imputing reasons from public statements of a candidate or office holder.

And this is where your argument fails. The travel bans stated purpose was to achieve national security and foreign-policy goals. No doubt this is within the presidents power. The court agreed with those bringing suit that the policy, as implemented, unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of religion because it true purpose and or effect was to improperly targets Muslims. Alluding to Trump’s campaign call, tweets and subsequent public statements the Hawaii group said the policy “is the fulfillment of the president’s unconstitutional promise to enact a Muslim ban.” The court agreed at that time. Will it stand on review? Maybe, maybe not. It was the judges ruling, not mine.

On the "transgender" military ban, what law requires the Commander in Chief to follow the positions of his predecessor as it relates to the command of the Armed Forces? Trump can issue whatever lawful order he wishes to the Armed Forces for any reason or no reason.

You have answered yourself.... the president can make any lawful order. Whose job is it to determine if the president is acting within the confines of the Constitution? Just some more obscure judges. In this instance the DC judge ruled that the plaintiffs had persuasive claims that their Fifth Amendment rights are being violated and have a good chance of succeeding in their court case. She noted, among other things, that the president's policy was announced with little apparent deliberation, "disfavors a class of historically persecuted and politically powerless individuals" and contradicts the conclusions of military leaders. She also wrote "the reasons given for [the directives] do not appear to be supported by any facts" — for instance, there is "practically no explanation at all" about how trans service members would harm "unit cohesion," she wrote. Once more a judge found the stated purpose of a policy did not match with it's true purpose and improperly impacted the constitutional rights of a specific group of people. She reached that conclusion in no small part based on the public statements of the man in charge. Again, will it be upheld? Maybe, maybe not.

I will not address the hyperbolic example other than to pose a hypothetical... if the president can truly pass whatever law he wishes concerning the military, without intervention, can he segregate the us military forces tomorrow solely on the basis of color without violating the constitution?

To pretend that a persons public statements have no bearing on their beliefs, or whether a court is proscribed from viewing the presidents tweets to glean his true intentions is naive in the extreme. This is especially true when the president uses the medium for everything including firing his Secretary of State this week. But it's not what I believe, it's what the executive branch believes. “The president is the president of the United States, so they are considered official statements by the president of the United States,” Sean Spicer addressing the President's Tweets, June 5, 2017. The president has never refuted this position. Trumps worst enemy to his own policies has again and again been his own statements used against him. Say what you want about obama, bush, clinton, reagan, or even nixon... when they wanted to do something improper they didn't speak out against themselves in public.

[ScottDLS]

And this is where your argument fails. The travel bans stated purpose was to achieve national security and foreign-policy goals. No doubt this is within the presidents power. The court agreed with those bringing suit that the policy, as implemented, unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of religion because it true purpose and or effect was to improperly targets Muslims. Alluding to Trump’s campaign call, tweets and subsequent public statements the Hawaii group said the policy “is the fulfillment of the president’s unconstitutional promise to enact a Muslim ban.” The court agreed at that time. Will it stand on review? Maybe, maybe not. It was the judges ruling, not mine.

Unconstitutionally discriminates "because it's true cause and effect..."? What basis in law and the Constitution does the judge have in this ruling? Answer, none. Aliens abroad have no legal right to enter the US. The Immigration and Naturalization Act states that the President can restrict any alien, nationality, or class of alien from entering the United States if he deems it in the national interest. There is no requirement in the law for him to justify himself, particularly not by parsing previous statements that are not a part of the law. Are we to believe that Congress has empowered the judiciary to intuit the personal opinions of government officials, that are not part of an official act or written order, nor contained in the language of the statute. If so, in what statute? Also, the First Amendment is silent on the rights of aliens abroad, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They have no more right to enter the US than they have to keep and bear arms, based on the Second. The "People" in the Constitution means the People of the United States in the United States or otherwise subject to it's jurisdiction. In some cases this can include lawful immigrants already present in the US, but not aliens abroad. And the lower courts' opinion (effectively) did NOT stand on review and was overruled by SCOTUS. It never should have made it to a hearing in any federal court, much less appellate court, but this is state of Constitutional illiteracy of (some of) the courts. The INA 1965 is a law laying out the rules and procedures for the granting of IMMIGRANT visas and the number thereof. It contains language specifying quotas for such visas and how such quotas are to be applied, but nowhere does it create a legal requirement for the Executive branch to issue a visa abroad for a given class of aliens, or create a judicially reviewable right of entry.

...
You have answered yourself.... the president can make any lawful order. Whose job is it to determine if the president is acting within the confines of the Constitution? Just some more obscure judges. In this instance the DC judge ruled that the plaintiffs had persuasive claims that their Fifth Amendment rights are being violated and have a good chance of succeeding in their court case. She noted, among other things, that the president's policy was announced with little apparent deliberation, "disfavors a class of historically persecuted and politically powerless individuals" and contradicts the conclusions of military leaders. She also wrote "the reasons given for [the directives] do not appear to be supported by any facts" — for instance, there is "practically no explanation at all" about how trans service members would harm "unit cohesion," she wrote. Once more a judge found the stated purpose of a policy did not match with it's true purpose and improperly impacted the constitutional rights of a specific group of people. She reached that conclusion in no small part based on the public statements of the man in charge. Again, will it be upheld? Maybe, maybe not.

So where in the Constitution or law does the court find the authority to prevent President from ordering the military to discharge military personnel who dress up as the opposite sex? Did I have a Constitutional right to wear a woman's uniform and grow my hair longer than allowed by regulation when an officer in the Navy. Did I have a right to take steroids or womens' hormones in contravention of regulations on prescription and other drug use? Where in the penumbra of emanations is this? The commander in chief is not required to provide an explanation for his lawful orders to inferior officers of the United States. If he said on the campaign trail or even in office that he thinks "trans" people are perverts and shouldn't be allowed in the armed forces, I fail to see how he is breaking the law. He didn't, and it may be bigoted, but there is currently no law protecting military members who are mentally ill (think they're the opposite sex than they are) from being discharged. It DOES hurt unit cohesion and good order and discipline, but this is irrelevant as the President is commander in chief. If you want to get Congress to pass a law giving free sex changes to military members, it needs to be taken through the legislative process.

I will not address the hyperbolic example other than to pose a hypothetical... if the president can truly pass whatever law he wishes concerning the military, without intervention, can he segregate the us military forces tomorrow solely on the basis of color without violating the constitution?

To pretend that a persons public statements have no bearing on their beliefs, or whether a court is proscribed from viewing the presidents tweets to glean his true intentions is naive in the extreme. This is especially true when the president uses the medium for everything including firing his Secretary of State this week. But it's not what I believe, it's what the executive branch believes. “The president is the president of the United States, so they are considered official statements by the president of the United States,” Sean Spicer addressing the President's Tweets, June 5, 2017. The president has never refuted this position. Trumps worst enemy to his own policies has again and again been his own statements used against him. Say what you want about obama, bush, clinton, reagan, or even nixon... when they wanted to do something improper they didn't speak out against themselves in public.

No because the 14th amendment and federal civil rights LAW, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. A Presidents public statements have NO bearing on the interpretation of a particular statute. His political statements are NOT official acts subject to review for compliance with the law. If he says I think we should tell the Army to get out all the whitey officers in a drunken midnight tweet, it might be despicable, but there is nothing illegal about it, until he (in an official act) orders the Army to do so. And yeah, I know he doesn't drink and I don't like all of his tweets, but I'll take them over Obama actually DOING illegal official acts and trying to obscure them, by "keeping quiet" unless caught on a hot mike.

[The Annoyed Man]

I just saw this comment to a TFB post about the impending ban on bump stocks:

Wow.....another regulation usurping a duly passed (if lawful?) law......we might as well get rid of Congress and save the taxpayers a bunch of money. Between activist judges and all the "regulators", Congress really doesn't have much use anymore......geez.....

That’s the problem with judicial activism, and Congress delegating its authority to regulators...... The People’s representatives are rendered unnecessary.... and welcome to the administrative state.

In my book, when Congress passes legislation for the regulation of ANYTHING, it should be their job to detail HOW it is to be regulated before it is turned over to the regulators for enforcement. If POTUS (or anyone else) wants ATF to make a change to existing law, then ATF should contact the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, and inform them that ATF believes that a change to the law is necessary, and would they please address it?

End of story.

But Congress will continue to delegate it’s authority to unelected bureaucrats, because anything else would be too much like doing their damned job.

[philbo]

Unconstitutionally discriminates "because it's true cause and effect..."? What basis in law and the Constitution does the judge have in this ruling? Answer, none.

Answer, wrong. Executive orders, like other rules issued by the federal government, are subject to judicial review and have been since 1803 when SCOTUS struck down part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 in Marbury v. Madison. When reviewing constitutional questions the court utilize the Rational basis of review. This means that the court examines the proposed law, statute, etc to determine if it is rationally related to it's stated purpose. You can read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

It is a long standing judicial principle. To ignore that it exists is your priviledge, but you're still incorrect.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act states that the President...

Once more, wrong. The appeals court in California examined the Immigration and Naturalization Act and found that only Congress is equipped to implement an indefinite ban on issuing visas to blocs of foreigners. While the president may temporarily block particular groups of people from accessing America’s shores, the three-judge panel wrote, a president “cannot without the assent of Congress supplant its statutory scheme with one stroke of a presidential pen”. Mr Trump may seek to “prevent entry of terrorists and persons posing a threat to public safety”, but “Congress has already acted to effectuate these purposes”. Hence the injunction was also issued on the basis that the executive branch was over-reaching by exercising a power limited to congress. This argument will likely have traction in the supreme court as it follows a previous line of reasoning from the Texas 5th District in which the majority wrote that the Obama administration’s interpretation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act would effectively vest the Secretary of Homeland Security with the power “to grant lawful presence and work authorization to any illegal alien in the United States—an untenable position in light of the INA’s intricate system of immigration classifications and employment eligibility.” or, the executive can't do what lies within the province if the legislature.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/415077/

And the lower courts' opinion (effectively) did NOT stand on review and was overruled by SCOTUS.

Answer, once more wrong. SCOTUS lifted the stay from the lower court and allowed the law to go into the effect. IT DID NOT OVERTURN THE LOWER COURT. This is still set for hearing on both constitutional and statutory grounds and SCOTUS will have it's say.

A Presidents public statements have NO bearing on the interpretation of a particular statute. His political statements are NOT official acts subject to review for compliance with the law.

Answer... see above. Presidential speech may speak to the purpose, content, or meaning of a particular legislative enactment. I've included a link to some light reading on the subject by someone more knowledgeable than I for your continued education:
https://texaslawreview.org/beyond-bully-pulpit/

No because the 14th amendment and federal civil rights LAW, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race.

So, you can acknowledge that an executive order is limited by the constitution and other law in at least one place. Why then can you not acknowledge that the plaintiffs in the DC case raised a 5th amendment argument and the stay was issued on that? There will be further legal wrangling on this issue, but at present the military is allowing transgender soldiers to serve openly.

[ScottDLS]

Unconstitutionally discriminates "because it's true cause and effect..."? What basis in law and the Constitution does the judge have in this ruling? Answer, none.

Answer, wrong. Executive orders, like other rules issued by the federal government, are subject to judicial review and have been since 1803 when SCOTUS struck down part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 in Marbury v. Madison. When reviewing constitutional questions the court utilize the Rational basis of review. This means that the court examines the proposed law, statute, etc to determine if it is rationally related to it's stated purpose. You can read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

It is a long standing judicial principle. To ignore that it exists is your priviledge, but you're still incorrect.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act states that the President...

Once more, wrong. The appeals court in California examined the Immigration and Naturalization Act and found that only Congress is equipped to implement an indefinite ban on issuing visas to blocs of foreigners. While the president may temporarily block particular groups of people from accessing America’s shores, the three-judge panel wrote, a president “cannot without the assent of Congress supplant its statutory scheme with one stroke of a presidential pen”. Mr Trump may seek to “prevent entry of terrorists and persons posing a threat to public safety”, but “Congress has already acted to effectuate these purposes”. Hence the injunction was also issued on the basis that the executive branch was over-reaching by exercising a power limited to congress. This argument will likely have traction in the supreme court as it follows a previous line of reasoning from the Texas 5th District in which the majority wrote that the Obama administration’s interpretation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act would effectively vest the Secretary of Homeland Security with the power “to grant lawful presence and work authorization to any illegal alien in the United States—an untenable position in light of the INA’s intricate system of immigration classifications and employment eligibility.” or, the executive can't do what lies within the province if the legislature.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/415077/

And the lower courts' opinion (effectively) did NOT stand on review and was overruled by SCOTUS.

Answer, once more wrong. SCOTUS lifted the stay from the lower court and allowed the law to go into the effect. IT DID NOT OVERTURN THE LOWER COURT. This is still set for hearing on both constitutional and statutory grounds and SCOTUS will have it's say.

A Presidents public statements have NO bearing on the interpretation of a particular statute. His political statements are NOT official acts subject to review for compliance with the law.

Answer... see above. Presidential speech may speak to the purpose, content, or meaning of a particular legislative enactment. I've included a link to some light reading on the subject by someone more knowledgeable than I for your continued education:
https://texaslawreview.org/beyond-bully-pulpit/

No because the 14th amendment and federal civil rights LAW, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race.

So, you can acknowledge that an executive order is limited by the constitution and other law in at least one place. Why then can you not acknowledge that the plaintiffs in the DC case raised a 5th amendment argument and the stay was issued on that? There will be further legal wrangling on this issue, but at present the military is allowing transgender soldiers to serve openly.

1. There is no long standing precedent that the court can overrule the lawful orders of the Commander in Chief to the Military. Marbury vs. Madison establishes no precedent for review of executive actions except where there is a basis in the Constitution or law, which for the topics we are discussing there is none. The court made up the justifications of whole cloth.

2.

While the president may temporarily block particular groups of people from accessing America’s shores, the three-judge panel wrote, a president “cannot without the assent of Congress supplant its statutory scheme with one stroke of a presidential pen”.

Absolutely fallacious argument, even to a lay person. The Court is declaring that the President can't do what the INA 1965 specifically says he CAN do and WAS doing in the travel ban... "temporarily block particular groups of people from accessing America’s shores"... until a better vetting program could be worked out. The power to grant "access" to our shores, in this case Secretary of State issuing a visa and Customs/Immigration physically permitting entry, is completely at the discretion of the executive. The INA is an exercise of Congress' power granted by the Constitution to provide for uniform rules for Naturalization...perhaps this includes regulations for permanent immigration... However it is not a grant of authority to conduct foreign policy to Congress or the Judiciary.

The Congress shall have power to .....
....
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,

3. The vacating of the stay is a procedural step prior to allowing the case to be tried at the Federal District Court. None of the cases have actually been tried and therefore cannot be overruled, as there is no decision. The lifting of the stay indicates that SCOTUS doesn't think the Plaintiff should have a very good chance at trial, which they shouldn't. If the District court makes a decision unsupported in law, as it is wont to do. I think the Appeals Courts or SCOTUS will stay any lower court orders while they overrule. Maybe not the 9th.

4. "Presidential speech may speak to the purpose, content, or meaning of a particular legislative enactment."....The problem with this in both of the cases we are discussing is that the President's speech or writing when not addressing a particular directive to the Executive branch or performing an official act, is not relevant to any particular law. Are we to believe the Judiciary is able to peruse all Presidential statements, public or private at will to determine whether they conflict with their policy preferences? May they consider speech prior to being elected, as the Court did in the immigration case? There is no basis in law for their ruling so they are searching for political support for their unsupportable position.

5. Fifth amendment argument that male soldiers can dress up in women's uniforms in contravention of military regulation and take hormones? Where is that?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

You don't have to be John Marshal to recognize a crazy decision.