The hits keep coming - Supreme Court rules 5-4 states can be sued for discriminating against Veterans
(media.greatawakening.win)
πͺ πππππππ πππ πͺ
Comments (84)
sorted by:
Trump should sue quite a few states then. Iβm pretty sure the highest military position of commander and chief would make him a veteran.
Now, that's an argument I can get behind.
Veteran title should only be applied to people who have seen active combat, it lessens the term if you apply to to everyone who took a government paycheck to drive a jeep around domestic barracks.
I disagree, fren.
Anyone that joined the armed services wrote a blank check to the American people to include any amount of service to their country, up to, and including, their life.
Even if they were stationed for their entire career in Hawaii or a naval base north of Chicago, our Deep State controlled politicians had the power, with a stoke of the pen, to ship them overseas into a major war.
Have a different name like former service man, veteran is for those who actually fought and actually risked their lives.
Iβm not splitting, Iβm sharing my opinion. If you donβt like it, you donβt have to agree with it.
This.
Both my boys are/were enlisted Marines. Each sustained debilitating back injuries in training prior to deployment, but neither saw combat. Each were medically discharged as a result. Are they veterans or are they not in your opinion?
looks like most don't agree... that's MY opinion and observation.
Youβre free to it, America is great.
That's right.
Veteran is for anyone that served honorably.
Combat or not - doesn't matter. I volunteered for Desert Storm but ended up in Turkey. In the end our base was actually attacked with live fire and we were designated as a combat zone anyway. None of that matters though because we were serving in a designated time of war/action.
Edited - I was slightly wrong. I was using the veteran definition that allows membership into organizations like VFW or the American Legion. I updated this to fix it. My initial comment limited it to serving during a specific campaign, like WW2, Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, etc. but those requirements only pertain to those memberships.
38 U.S.C. Β§ 101(2) provides: The term "veteran" means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.
Disagree, if you serve, there is a chance at any time you will be/can be called into dangerous situations. Even when you don't leave the US, you can be killed in a training accident. You take the oath knowing you are willing to give your life for your country/freedom. It's a sacrifice to join the armed forces. You don't get to choose many things in your life.
Agree 100%.
Folks in the back lines (REMFs) can still be killed by - say, a SCUD attack (Desert Storm), an artillery barrage, sappers infiltrating your base (Vietnam), your lines being overrun (Korea), etc.
This happened to me (base attacked during Desert Storm). We also had a terrorist incident (1991) where Islamic Jihad blew up one of our guys and his active duty wife was blown out (but lived) in a car bombing. At the exact time the Egyptian ambassador downtown was killed by the same group. Interesting 18 months for me.
WRONG. Anyone who served ANYWHERE is a Veteran.
Those few percent who actually see combat or serve in a combat zone, CANNOT do their jobs without the many thousands behind the lines.
There are Combat Ribbons and Medals for those engaged in actual combat to make the distinction. But ALL who serve are Veterans.
Really? I was on a ship in the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm supporting FFGs, CGs, etc. with our biggest armament being .50 cals and M79s.
Our life expectancy was 2 seconds if we got attacked, and they reminded us of that every time we went to General Quarters.
Stick your opinion up your ass.
VoteOrDie;
Stick that OPINION WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!!!!!!
As Far as I'm concerned, IT DOESN'T MATTER A TINKERS DAMN where one went or served...
REASON: You & ALL VETERANS on this BOARD, RAISED their Right Hand and swore an oath to DEFEND this Nation Against ALL enemies and upto and including their life...
Ret. E-8 30 yrs!!!!!!
In the off-chance that Voteordie is a veteran, he's probably the guy who wears his Grunt Style t-shirt and branch of service ball cap to Applebee's on Veteran's Day for the discounts and lets everyone know he is a veteran.
I concur, it is the only possible view that can be taken.....
Commander in Chief of all the American Military Forces, is the Top General over all other Generals.....
Secretary of Defense is just a Lower general to him....
Commander in Chief (US) ia a civilian.
United States Main article: Powers of the president of the United States Β§ Commander-in-chief
U.S. President Barack Obama in his capacity as commander-in-chief, salutes the caskets of 18 individual soldiers killed in Afghanistan in 2009. According to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution, the president of the United States is βCommander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.β[60] Since the National Security Act of 1947, this has been understood to mean all United States Armed Forces. U.S. ranks have their roots in British military traditions, with the president possessing ultimate authority, but no rank, maintaining a civilian status.[61] The exact degree of authority that the Constitution grants to the president as commander-in-chief has been the subject of much debate throughout history, with Congress at various times granting the president wide authority and at others attempting to restrict that authority.[62]
Just to make sure everyone is aware: this majority opinion in this case was written by Breyer, and joined by Kagan, Sotomeyer, Roberts, and Kavanaugh.
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett all dissented.
I personally agree the liberal justices were correct in this case, and disagree with the conservatives. But everyone should be aware WHO they are cheering when they jump on the bandwagon here.
Wow. These are definitely crazy times.
What Constitution are the commies reading...anyone have a copy?
Roe vs Reeeeeeeeee
Reeeeee v. Wade flows better LMAO
Bad ruling. Thomas's dissent was spot on, per usual with Goat Thomas. Did anyone here actually read any of the ruling, or Thomas's dissent? Anyone actually read the facts of the case? Or did you all just read the clickbait headline? "Oh boy good news for vets!" And yet, bad, bad news for states. The case itself is quite stupid. The veteran who brought the case, has a valid claim against the FEDERAL government for injuries suffered while in service. But he does not have a valid claim against the state of Texas for their inability to give him back his exact same job that he can now no longer safely do as the result of his injuries. There is no case. The state of Texas was not wrong. The bigger constitutional question over whether states lose their right of immunity in these types of suits, seems to be lost to nearly everyone in this thread. Actually read and comprehend Thomas's dissent. Thomas is correct. Kavanaugh and Roberts fucked up.
In this individual case, it sounds like SCOTUS has given him the right to sue the state of Texas all he wants, however he's not going to win.
Each case would have it's on certain circumstances.
It's far more reaching of a decision than that because reverses well established precedent and the original intent of the constitutional legal question.
OK, thanks. Good to know.
Reading PDFs on the smartphone becomes tedious.
Indeed, it nearly fried my brain reading everything from this one, the Oklahoma case and Dobbs... definitely better on a laptop or tablet
Link
https://saraacarter.com/supreme-court-rules-5-4-states-can-be-sued-for-discriminating-against-veterans/
u/#trumpflag
WHOOOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! SCOTUS is on fire!! Keep the good news coming!
Does this include the veterans that are unlawfully held because of the Jan 6th lie? Since DC wants to hold them and not charge them, keeping them imprisoned indefinitely. A suite against the state would be able to get these patriots in front of a Judge finally! Their treatment is absolutely discrimination.
DC isnt a State :O
Yes it is.
It's a deep state. :)
βA Supreme Court ruling released Tuesday sides with an Iraq War Veteran, determining that states cannot be exempt from being sued for discrimination against Veterans. CNN reports βThe ruling will strengthen work protections for thousands of state-employed veterans returning to work after service in the Reserves or National Guard.β
Read more at https://saraacarter.com/supreme-court-rules-5-4-states-can-be-sued-for-discriminating-against-veterans/
HUGE BOOMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!
No, veterans are not a "suspect class" and thus the government can discriminate against them in hiring and receipt of benefits and such.
Suspect class would be like race, national origin, religion, etc. If a government passes a law that facially discriminates against a suspect class, the Court reviews it under a standard called "strict scrutiny" which forces the government to show that the law is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest - a standard which the government nearly never meets.
Other classes, gender or illegitimacy for example have an "intermediate scrutiny" standard which requires the government to show an important government interest that is substantially related to the law.
But all other classes, including age, and yes, veterans, it was reviewed under rational basis which is the lowest standard. Just requires the plaintiff to show that the government is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Government almost always wins those.
But now, I have not read this case yet, but it sounds like veterans might have been upgraded to one of the heightened scrutiny standards of review, like intermediate or strict scrutiny. Don't quote me on that, but that's my initial impression. It likely isn't that, but until I read the opinion I can only speculate.
Does that include sending VA docs to the border?
I didnt know this was a thing? Where have I been?
It's ironic that the democrats judges would vote no to something discrimatory.. such hypocrites! I guess they believe that black veterans lives don't matter.
Should be 9-0.
Is there a master list or article with all these based Supreme Court rulings as of late?
Anyone who signed up is a veteran in my book.
I think the word has been mangled in popular culture to mean something different though.
This is just a great thing to hear. Veterans have been ignored and pushed aside for too long.
Won't be able to discriminate against vaxxies when they bring their plague.
Whoever thought the states should be able to discriminate against ANYONE, much less veterans?!
Reading the actual article, this does not look like a win for sovereignty of the states. https://saraacarter.com/supreme-court-rules-5-4-states-can-be-sued-for-discriminating-against-veterans/
Question: who are the "4" that voted against this? Veterans can be discriminated against with no recourse, but hell be damned if it was LGBQT...being discriminated against, right?
Frankly I think military service should remain voluntary, but be required to vote. Every TV brainwashed idiot with absolutely no stake in the country being able to vote is just silly.
That said, this ruling really wasn't about veterans, it was about states not getting sued over federal legislation. In that case, I do agree that this ruling wasn't good.
can you eli5 for me what this ruling actually does please?
I actually think it's a terrible ruling because its not just about veterans. I made a comment yesterday a out it. I knew damn well when I read the ruling that people were going to only look at the veteran side of it and not think ahead.
This case boils down to the Federal government being able to make a law way after the constitution was ratified, USERRA is the rights act in this case, that contradicts what the states originally agreed to.
The states NEVER would have ratified the constitution if the federal government could suddenly make a law and say, if you don't follow this new law, then the individual in your state can sue you."
I believe this is the federal government overreaching and contradicting the constitution as ratified.
Nice, somebody else who actually read and understood what was going on. Good work fren. Seems most everyone else here got suckered by the clickbait headline.
Can I ask a stupid question? Wouldn't land owners only, ban people who live in apartments from being able to vote? Or people who were landowners, but lost their house due to natural disaster and are having to live with someone else thereby making them not a land owner?
Banning people who live in apartments from voting seems like it'd ban a lot of trump supporters/conservatives since there are a lot of trump supporters/conservatives who don't have their own place. What about people currently serving in the military wouldn't they be banned as well since they don't own any land? Land owners only seems to be a bad way to vote. Not to mention there are a lot of "sheep" who are land owners. Land owners only voting wouldn't guarantee conservatives winning elections since as I said there are a lot of Democrats/sheep who are land owners idk if they outnumber conservatives or not, but you'd be taking a lot of votes away from conservatives
Ok I wasn't sure that's why I asked. Regardless the rest of my statement stands that allowing land owners only would ban a lot of conservatives from voting and would only make a small dent in the democrats/sheep from voting since there's a lot of sheep/dems who vote. In regards to military voting a lot of people in the military live on bases which I would assume would limit them just like those who live in apartments from voting.
Just to make sure everyone is aware: this majority opinion in this case was written by Breyer, and joined by Kagan, Sotomeyer, Roberts, and Kavanaugh. Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett all dissented.
-commenter above
Looks like a pretty lib heavy lean to pro