Supreme Court Screws Disabled Vets

[Dekster]

Congress could have fixed this for decades.

They still can, Until then.....

 

[whitehall]

It's trendy (among lefties) to blame the Supreme Court since Roe v Wade but when you look at it rationally the problem was around long before it went to the Court and the democrat majority in Congress and Joe Biden were too busy arming Ukraine to deal with it.

 

[Lesh]

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?

No

 

[hadit]

No

Well, here's what's going on. The court didn't screw anyone, they ruled on the Constitutionality of a law. If you don't like what that law says, you need to have Congress rewrite it to suit yourself. Likewise, no one here is bashing or refusing to support veterans, because to complain about what the court did requires you to point out where they were legally wrong, and no one has even attempted to do that.

IOW, the court rules on whether LAWS are Constitutional. It doesn't matter if you like or dislike a law, if it's unconstitutional, it should be struck down. If it, however, is Constitutional, it should be upheld.

Does any of this help you?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Notice how Lesh ignores simple questions?

 

[Blaster]

Unanimous because the law in question was clear.

Bitch to congress to change the law.

It is the responsibility of congress.

 

[MagicMike]

Then the ball is back in congress's court to make law or the administration to "guide" the VA one way or the other.

You dems are used to SCOTUS making law, This bunch isn't having any of that. Get used to it.

Bullshit!
The SCOTUS "makes law" all the time.

Here is one example:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

and here is another:

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization | Constitution Center

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

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.

Exactly right . Look at the activist fools the democrats put on the SC . Pitiful. Party over everything .

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Bullshit!
The SCOTUS "makes law" all the time.

Here is one example:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

and here is another:

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization | Constitution Center

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

constitutioncenter.org

Ohh look we have a retard on board this conversation.

 

[MagicMike]

Ohh look we have a retard on board this conversation.

Looks like Gunny is off his meds again.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Bullshit!
The SCOTUS "makes law" all the time.

Here is one example:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

and here is another:

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization | Constitution Center

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

constitutioncenter.org

"Shall Not Be Infringed "

 

[Mac-7]

If you read the article...that rule has been waived in the past for good reason.

This Court said "screw em"

Waived by the Supreme Court?

Of course not

You want unelected lib judges that rule by the seat of their pants

 

[1srelluc]

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.

What, you depend on the likes of the 9th Circuit to render sound decisions?

Your's seems more like sour grapes concerning one particular issue/class of complainant to me.

 

[White 6]

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

No based on a person's demographic, but extenuating circumstance beyond their control. That is the supreme court principle being struck down.

 

[1srelluc]

No based on a person's demographic, but extenuating circumstance beyond their control. That is the supreme court principle being struck down.

So a past SCOTUS did something they should not have done in the first place but yet you decry a new ruling that places the burden of a rule/law change back to where it belongs?

That don't make no sense. - Pete

 

[White 6]

What, you depend on the likes of the 9th Circuit to render sound decisions?

Your's seems more like sour grapes concerning one particular issue/class of complainant to me.

Ehhh, NO. I was born in 1954, the year, not 19 hours and 54 minutes ago. Just to confirm, I wasn't born yesterday.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No based on a person's demographic, but extenuating circumstance beyond their control. That is the supreme court principle being struck down.

the court did not rule that the rule cannot be stretched in the future they ruled that such stretching is totally up to the VA and that the argument that a time limit was unconstitutional was not in fact true.

 

[1srelluc]

Ehhh, NO. I was born in 1954, the year, not 19 hours and 54 minutes ago. Just to confirm, I wasn't born yesterday.

You got me by a year....Well, depending on the month of course.

So you should know better, you are supposed to be slightly wiser due to your advanced age.

 

[struth]

MSN

www.msn.com

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

haha typical dembot! the court didn’t write the law, nor did they set the effective date…Obama and Xiden admin in 2011 set the date of 2011z

Obama and Xiden admin screwed this guy…the court just followed the law written by congress

 

[White 6]

the court did not rule that the rule cannot be stretched in the future they ruled that such stretching is totally up to the VA and that the argument that a time limit was unconstitutional was not in fact true.

That is not how I read it and not how Mark Joseph Stern (long time reporter and follower of Supreme Court rulings for Slate Magazine read it either. I could be biased. I almost always land on the side of Veteran, military servicemen & women, and military retirees. You should also, Sergeant, at least in my opinion.