Supreme Court Screws Disabled Vets

[Lesh]

Do Right Wingers EVER support Vets?

They sure didn’t on the Burn Pit Bill

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do Right Wingers EVER support Vets?

Still waiting for you to demonstrate the legal error in the court's ruling.

 

[Rambunctious]

MSN

This Court is a disaster. Barrett was the driving force behind this decision but all three "liberal" Justices joined in it

 

[M14 Shooter]

View attachment 750637

Lesh is famous for hating people she disagrees with first, and finding a reason to do so later.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am a disabled vet tell me what legal problem there is with this ruling?

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

You really are twisting yourself into a pretzel to support the Court screwing disabled Vets huh?

Let me know when McCarthy introduces a Bill to fix this. In fact hold your breath till then. You won't be missed

Funny . Like you give a rats ass about a disabled vet . Your as anti American as one can be . So STFU.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I would say 1 year is to short but that wasnt the question put to the court the question was whether a limit was legal.

 

[1srelluc]

It is a little more than that, this time. The actually set law to rule out extreme circumstance as being able to be considered, something that goes back to the earliest days of the Supreme Court, thus taking away grounds for appeal in all future cases, without consideration of right/wrong or the facts of the case.

OK, so the rule (if backed by a law) is solid (even if misguided) then it's on congress to change it, not SCOTUS.

I don't get why that is so hard to grasp......Too used to activist courts of the past I guess.

 

[marvin martian]

WTF you talking about?

Making a law???

They RULE on laws…

Yes, which is exactly what they did in this case. Don't like the law? Talk to congress, not the court. It's not that difficult to understand, but your brain is so rotted with hate and bigotry, you simply can't understand it.

 

[White 6]

OK, so the rule (if backed by a law) is solid (even if misguided) then it's on congress to change it, not SCOTUS.

I don't get why that is so hard to grasp......Too used to activist courts of the past I guess.

Basically the new court is and has ruled that supreme court precedent, regardless of case is not worth the paper upon which it was printed and never has been, as can change on a whim as their interpretation changes, and they appear to be all about change, not legal continuity. While I have no problem with them saying Roe should be overturned as it was legislature that should have been doing their job to actually write laws or codify as necessary (and it was necessary), they are becoming quick to overturn precedents upheld many times over more than 100 years, on this one, pretty much wiping out legal continuity, something depended on by the public, business (domestic and possibly international) that our society runs on. You could call it conservative in name, but hardly conservative in nature. No telling where this trend leads, but certainly not to historic norms that can be depended on in the lower courts for day to day rulings.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Basically the new court is and has ruled that supreme court precedent, regardless of case is not worth the paper upon which it was printed and never has been, as can change on a whim as their interpretation changes, and they appear to be all about change, not legal continuity.

That's a rather fast and loose interpretation of the rationale presented in Dobbs.

 

[Lesh]

Not ONE “conservative” has stood up for Vets here

Shameful but exactly like their reaction to the GOP fighting the Burn Pit Bill

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not ONE “conservative” has stood up for Vets here

You only care about vets (and shildren and blacks and women and...) so far as you are able to use them to make mindless atacks on conservatives.

 

[Lesh]

You only care about vets (and shildren and blacks and women and...) so far as you are able to use them to make mindless atacks on conservatives.

I care about all those folks. Full stop.

You do not.

 

[White 6]

You only care about vets (and shildren and blacks and women and...) so far as you are able to use them to make mindless atacks on conservatives.

Chances are, being in the military, the Navy guy, no longer having an appeal leg to stand on and most other military and veterans were or are conservatives too, but now used to bolster conservative jurisprudence of this new court, like pawns unworthy of case consideration.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I care about all those folks.

So far as you can use their misfortune to make political points, sure.

Children killed with 'assault weapons' are your personal favorite.

 

[whitehall]

The Court rules on Constitutional issues. If anybody screwed Vats it was the old draft dodger, Joe Biden.

 

[marvin martian]

Do Right Wingers EVER support Vets?

They sure didn’t on the Burn Pit Bill

You warmongers are the reason we have so many in the first place.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Chances are, being in the military, the Navy guy, no longer having an appeal leg to stand on and most other military and veterans were or are conservatives too, but now used to bolster conservative jurisprudence of this new court, like pawns unworthy of case consideration.

Why do you believe the courts should or would stretch, or even ignore, time limits specified by law, based on a person's demographic?

 

[hadit]

Not ONE “conservative” has stood up for Vets here

Shameful but exactly like their reaction to the GOP fighting the Burn Pit Bill

I care about my poor neighbor so much that I raid your wine rack every month, taking the best wines you have and giving them to him. When you complain and have me arrested, I'll say that you don't care about or support the poor. See how that works?