Judge blocks Trump’s Pentagon from demoting Mark Kelly over 'illegal orders' video

[Mac1958]

Trump and Hegseth thought they were slick.

Outstanding.

Trump and Hegseth are troglodytes.

 

[j-mac]

Now do Hegseth.

Oh, wait, it's different when Hegseth does it, and it was Major Hegseth at the time, subject to the UCMJ.

WW

Not the same thing

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

That ************ wont EVER make a video like that again. You can say whatever you want, but thats the truth. He wont ever push military members to ignore their superiors orders again. No one else in a position of power will either.

This guy went from “ Mark Kelly will go to jail for sedition to “ Mark Kelly not to make a duplicate video of the video that didn’t get him indicted “.

What drugs are you in? B

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not the same thing

Called it.

When my guy does it "it's not the same thing".

WW
.,
.
.

 

[j-mac]

Called it.

When my guy does it "it's not the same thing".

WW
.,
.
.

View attachment 1218492

Suppose you tell us how they’re the same?

 

[Zincwarrior]

No it doesn't. A civilian judge has no authority over the military. This will be thrown out quickly.

They disagree. Sorry that your dictator dreams have been interrupted. HE IS NOT IN THE MILITARY.

 

[0311]

They disagree. Sorry that your dictator dreams have been interrupted. HE IS NOT IN THE MILITARY.

He was ******* Draft Dodger.

 

[struth]

Nope. That's not what the ruling says.

Capt Kelly (USN, Ret.) is not active and also he's Senator Kelly who has oversight on the military.

WW

Just because he is a senator doesn’t mean he’s immune to the law or above it

Retired military are still under the jurisdiction of the military code of justice https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10945

Judicial Interpretations

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 of the U.S. Constitution "expressly entrust" Congress with crafting the military justice system and that federal civilian courts must accord Congress and the military great deference on military legal matters. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has stated that any "expansion" of military jurisdiction "necessarily encroaches" on that of federal civilian courts "where persons on trial are surrounded with more constitutional safeguards than in military tribunals." Congress's capacity "to authorize trial by court-martial," the Court explained, must therefore be "limit[ed] to the least possible power adequate to the end proposed."

The Supreme Court has constrained military jurisdiction based "on one factor: the military status of the accused." The test is "whether the accused in the court-martial proceeding is a person who can be regarded as falling within the term 'land and naval Forces,'" as used in the Constitution. The Court has relied on two primary considerations when determining military status: (1) the individual's "connection with the military"; and (2) the military's "power over" the person in question. Applying this test, the Supreme Court has held that the following categories of individuals may not be court-martialed: servicemembers' dependents; former servicemembers "who had severed all relationship with the military"; and civilian employees of the Armed Forces. The Court did not defer to Congress in these rulings and overrode contrary legislation, notwithstanding Congress's general authority in this area.

The Supreme Court has not yet specifically ruled on the military status of retired servicemembers, though it has approvingly noted that they remain part of the Armed Forces and subject to the UCMJ. Federal appellate courts (e.g., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces [CAAF]), however, have consistently held that military retirees possess a military status that makes them subject to military law. In finding such status, courts have highlighted several connections between retired servicemembers and the military: they can be recalled to active duty and, accordingly, serve as a potential source of supplementary personnel; they are entitled to receive special pay and other benefits from the military, which are viewed, at least in part, as retainer conferrals; and they have the right to wear their uniforms and be referred to according to their rank (in certain circumstances). The U.S. Court of Military Appeals (now the CAAF) articulated a widely adopted position in 1958 in United States v. Hooper:

 

[Lockback]

"I've sold my soul to become yet another Democrat goose-stepper."

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

That ************ wont EVER make a video like that again. You can say whatever you want, but thats the truth. He wont ever push military members to ignore their superiors orders again. No one else in a position of power will either.

This guy went from “Mark Kelly will go to jail for edition too

Just because he is a senator doesn’t mean he’s immune to the law or above it

Retired military are still under the jurisdiction of the military code of justice https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10945

Judicial Interpretations

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 of the U.S. Constitution "expressly entrust" Congress with crafting the military justice system and that federal civilian courts must accord Congress and the military great deference on military legal matters. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has stated that any "expansion" of military jurisdiction "necessarily encroaches" on that of federal civilian courts "where persons on trial are surrounded with more constitutional safeguards than in military tribunals." Congress's capacity "to authorize trial by court-martial," the Court explained, must therefore be "limit[ed] to the least possible power adequate to the end proposed."

The Supreme Court has constrained military jurisdiction based "on one factor: the military status of the accused." The test is "whether the accused in the court-martial proceeding is a person who can be regarded as falling within the term 'land and naval Forces,'" as used in the Constitution. The Court has relied on two primary considerations when determining military status: (1) the individual's "connection with the military"; and (2) the military's "power over" the person in question. Applying this test, the Supreme Court has held that the following categories of individuals may not be court-martialed: servicemembers' dependents; former servicemembers "who had severed all relationship with the military"; and civilian employees of the Armed Forces. The Court did not defer to Congress in these rulings and overrode contrary legislation, notwithstanding Congress's general authority in this area.

The Supreme Court has not yet specifically ruled on the military status of retired servicemembers, though it has approvingly noted that they remain part of the Armed Forces and subject to the UCMJ. Federal appellate courts (e.g., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces [CAAF]), however, have consistently held that military retirees possess a military status that makes them subject to military law. In finding such status, courts have highlighted several connections between retired servicemembers and the military: they can be recalled to active duty and, accordingly, serve as a potential source of supplementary personnel; they are entitled to receive special pay and other benefits from the military, which are viewed, at least in part, as retainer conferrals; and they have the right to wear their uniforms and be referred to according to their rank (in certain circumstances). The U.S. Court of Military Appeals (now the CAAF) articulated a widely adopted position in 1958 in United States v. Hooper:

you didn’t say what part of the law Kelly broke.

 

[struth]

This guy went from “Mark Kelly will go to jail for edition too

you didn’t say what part of the law Kelly broke.

the demotion was related to "conduct unbecoming an officer" and disobeying orders under the military code of justice

 

[JLW]

This is how far this country has sunk when a friggin draft dodger who said fighting STDs was his Vietnam and a drunk Secretary of Defense are determining the patriotism of a true hero like Sen. Mark Kelly.

We live in a bizarro world.

 

[Cougarbear]

They disagree. Sorry that your dictator dreams have been interrupted. HE IS NOT IN THE MILITARY.

The Supreme Court has stated retired military are still under military law and jurisdiction. Hate to burst your bubble. Once military always military.

 

[struth]

They disagree. Sorry that your dictator dreams have been interrupted. HE IS NOT IN THE MILITARY.

Actually, yes, the President IS the military, he is the Commander and Chief....all Executive power vest in him and him alone

Art 3 Court have already ruled that retired military are in fact subject to the unform code of military justice. This ruling undermines the US Constitution and the SCOTUS

 

[Zincwarrior]

Actually, yes, the President IS the military, he is the Commander and Chief....all Executive power vest in him and him alone

Art 3 Court have already ruled that retired military are in fact subject to the unform code of military justice. This ruling undermines the US Constitution and the SCOTUS

The court appears to disagree, as expected.

 

[struth]

The court appears to disagree, as expected.

Not sure where you got that idea, at no point did the Court rule that the President doesn't have control over the military.

you clearly have no clue what you are speaking of

 

[Zincwarrior]

Not sure where you got that idea, at no point did the Court rule that the President doesn't have control over the military.

you clearly have no clue what you are speaking of

Which is not what I posted. The court found Hegseth can't punish a former officer for speech a decade after he retired, the same speech restating actual military law. Glad I could clarify that for you. Toodles!

 

[WEATHER53]

Unfortunately Weather53, article 3 courts can interfere, but their jurisdiction is limited.

AI Overview



Yes, an Article III court (specifically the U.S. Supreme Court) can overrule a military court, but only in limited circumstances, generally through collateral review (such as a writ of
habeas corpus) rather than direct appeal. While the military justice system is separate, the Supreme Court retains final authority to review constitutional, jurisdictional, and "full and fair consideration" issues in military cases.
Key Aspects of the Relationship:

• The Supreme Court's Power: The Supreme Court has the final say on the constitutionality of military proceedings and can review decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF).
• Limited Scope: Article III courts generally do not retry cases or review factual findings of courts-martial. They focus on whether the military court had jurisdiction, followed proper procedures, or infringed on constitutional rights.
• Final Review: After exhausting all military appellate avenues, including the CAAF, defendants may petition the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Scope of Review: Historically, federal courts only checked if the military court had jurisdiction, but modern standards allow for examining if the military case received "full and fair consideration".

While Congress has wide authority over the military justice system (Article I), it cannot completely exempt military rulings from Constitutional scrutiny by Article III courts.

This will have to go to SCOTUS.

So the SC can but thus local joke judge can’t

 

[struth]

Which is not what I posted. The court found Hegseth can't punish a former officer for speech a decade after he retired, the same speech restating actual military law. Glad I could clarify that for you. Toodles!

oh, sorry you weren't very clear.

Yes, this activist judge basically undid the rule of law, ignored the SCOTUS and US Constitution, and said that Kelly was above the law

The number of years ago he retired, is not really relevant to the law

 

[Zincwarrior]

oh, sorry you weren't very clear.

Yes, this activist judge basically undid the rule of law, ignored the SCOTUS and US Constitution, and said that Kelly was above the law

The number of years ago he retired, is not really relevant to the law

Its relevant that: 1) he retired; 2) he literally restated the law, just like Hegseth did.

Now Kelly should sue for for $10 Billion dollars, just like Trump is.