In a sign of potential sanity among the squishes on the Supreme Court, the Court issued a 6-3 order staying a district court ruling striking down Donald Trump’s ban on so-called “transgender” people (i.e., mentally ill or sexually perverted people) serving in the United States military. This is not the same as a total victory on the issue, but the tea leaves hint that the Roberts’ cadre on the Supreme Court will ultimately side with Trump.

Before 1960—that is, before the age of sex change surgeries—the military had no official ban on so-called “transgender” people serving in the military. It would have made as much sense to Americans back then as a ban on unicorns or elves serving in the military.

By 1960, though, after 30 years of Frankenstein-like medical experiments to create “sex changes,” the U.S. military decided to be proactive. It explicitly banned people confused about their sex from serving in the military. This made sense because the U.S. military is about America’s defense, not about “affirming” people’s sexual confusion or other delusions. It needs to function at a high level, and cannot do that with mentally ill people welcomed into the ranks.

X screen grab.

In 2016, however, Barack Obama decided that, yes, in fact, the U.S. military does exist to affirm delusional fantasies. If people say they’re patriots, who cares if they’re so confused that they don’t even know what’s in their undies? It didn’t hurt that with official recognition came the right to have taxpayers on the hook for so-called “gender-affirming” care for “transgender” troops and veterans, something that can run into the millions over a person’s lifetime.

Trump put an end to this madness in his first term (although subject to some waivers).

Biden, sharing Obama’s philosophy about the military as a Marxist tool rather than America’s first and last line of defense, welcomed the crazies right back in again.

In the yo-yo that is now military policy, with America cycling between insanity and sanity, one of the first things Trump did upon resuming office was to ban those same so-called “transgender” people from serving. That is his constitutional prerogative as Commander in Chief of the United States military and the last word on America’s national security.

Predictably, myriad district court judges promptly attacked the order. In D.C., Judge Ana C. Reyes, a Uruguayan lesbian whom Biden nominated, issued a nationwide injunction blocking the ban. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed that injunction, at least while hearing arguments. Those are still pending.

Surprisingly, in Washington State, a George Bush appointee, Judge Benjamin H. Settle, also issued a nationwide injunction blocking the ban. He believes that the right of mentally ill people to serve in the U.S. military is an Equal Protection issue.

It was this order that served as the basis for a DOJ request to the Ninth Circuit for a stay pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit rejected that request, so the DOJ made an emergency petition to the Supreme Court for a stay pending appeal.

The Supreme Court issued that stay:

As you can see, the leftist women would have left the nationwide ban in place, but the squishes joined the real conservatives (Thomas and Alito) to halt one judge from controlling all of America’s military policy.

It’s important to understand that the Supreme Court’s order is not a substantive ruling. Instead, it holds that, for the time being, a district court judge cannot control military policy in opposition to an order from the Commander in Chief. There’s still a long road to hoe, as both the D.C. Circuit and the Ninth Circuit will have the opportunity to rule on the matter before it inevitably goes to the Supreme Court.

The big question still remains what the Supreme Court will say about our constitutional Commander in Chief’s ability to order that, in the interests of national security, people who are delusional or have sick sexual fetishes should be banned from the military.

There are two ways to view the current stay:

First, it could mean that the Supreme Court is signaling only that unelected district court judges do not have the authority to use injunctive relief to control how a duly elected president runs the country, especially the military. In other words, it’s not a ruling on the real issue (transgenders in the military), but on the way district court judges are abusing their jurisdictional reach.

Second, and I hope this is the case, it could mean that the Supreme Court is signaling that the duly elected constitutional Commander in Chief of the American military, and the last voice on national security, does have the ability to say that delusional and otherwise abnormal people put America at risk when they serve in the military’s ranks.

This ruling would be a reality check for the so-called transgender crowd. In a free country, you can play out your fantasies up to a point. However, you cannot force the rest of the world—including the American military—to accept your fantasies and fetishes.