Supreme Court did a grave injustice to the military and veterans

Posted on June 28, 2012


Okay … I’ll admit it:  This current embodiment of the United States Supreme Court has me completely baffled.

They have ruled that corporations – even corporations known to have foreign owners and investors, often even from countries with which we’re  not on friendly terms – they can pump unlimited amounts of cash directly into the pockets of whatever political candidate they chose and literally attempt to buy elections.

Then they ruled this morning that the federal government is within its U.S. Consitutional rights to force Americans to buy a commercial product, regardless of whether they want it or need it.

Then they ruled that people running around our country, and around the world, claiming to have earned military honors, medals and awards — and lying through their teeth in the process — is legal as a right protected by the First Amendment?

In as short a term as I can make:   WHAT THE [profound expletive]!?!!

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a “plurality” ruling this morning — by a majority 6-3 decision — that protects those who lie about their military experiences, including those who falsely claim to have received combat wounds and medals, in order to advance their careers.

With permission from the U.S. Supreme Court, you can now tell anyone you want to tell that you’ve received the Medal of Honor — which is earned, as opposed to the Congressional Medal of Honor, which is “won”. You can tell people you were shot in combat. You can tell people you saved people’s lives. You can tell people you were, or are, a gallant, noble and respectable member of military service, and simultaneously be a despicable, lying scumbag who is desecrating the memory and honor of those who actually *ARE* … because it’s your legal right to do so.

The plurality opinion, announced by Justice Anthony Kennedy — who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — reasoned that, with only narrow exceptions, content-based restrictions on speech face strict scrutiny and are therefore almost always unconstitutional. False statements of fact do not fall within one of these exceptions, and so the Stolen Valor Act can survive scrutiny only if it is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest, the Court held. The majority concluded that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional because the government had not shown that such a statute is necessary to protect the integrity of the system of military honors.

Right … there’s no reason to protect the integrity of military honors when seen through the eyes of nine people who never served in the first place.

The United States Supreme Court just declared that denigrating and filthing the honor of people who have served, fought and died for the freedoms of the United States is less important than protecting an honorless low-life’s right to falsely claim he or she is one of them.

U.S. Supreme Court justices take the following oath upon being sworn in: “I, [name], do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.”

Today’s decision to defecate on the graves and the lives of legitimate U.S. service members and veterans is incontestable proof that this body of the Supreme Court certainly does “administer justice without respect to persons,” as long as you define “persons” as the people who have EARNED that legal protection, and not those who shamelessly and immorally exploit it for their own personal gain.

Six of nine U.S. justices should hang their heads in shame today.

3 Million veterans and 1.5 Million people on active duty certainly are.