Religious freedom payback thanks to SCOTUS?

Wounded Times
Kathie Costos
June 30, 2023

After the ruling by the Supreme Court finding a web designer could not be forced to design a site that went against her religious beliefs, they proved that this case had nothing to do with the religious freedom of everyone but was limited to only those with the same beliefs they approve of.

The case was brought by a woman in Colorado. She was not hired to design a site for a gay couple. So what's the problem? She feared it could happen. OK, I guess but up until now, fear of something that may, or may not happen, doesn't seem to be grounds to end up in the Supreme Court.

What got me was this part.

Gorsuch said that a ruling against Smith would allow the government “to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty.” For example, a gay website designer could be forced to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage, he wrote. “Countless other creative professionals, too, could be forced to choose between remaining silent, producing speech that violates their beliefs, or speaking their minds and incurring sanctions for doing so.”

It seems to have escaped the "justices" that that was exactly what they have been preventing other people in this country from receiving the same protection because they did not choose what the majority wanted them to do. Not the majority of the people in this country but the majority of the 9 people that decide all the laws we all have to live by.

Want or need to end a pregnancy, then it should not be up to you to decide. It should be up to the state you live in to surrender your beliefs and choices to the whim of others when you should decide your own future for yourself.

Want your children to be raised according to what you believe is right for you? Nope sorry when they want prayers brought into schools no matter if you are raising your children to be "religious" or not.

Want them to be able to live their lives and make it home at the end of the day from school without being shot by someone they allowed to have an assault weapon? Out of luck there too since gun owners have more rights than your family.

Over and over again, we are reminded that this country is yet again returning to the times of religious persecution against anyone with beliefs those in power do not agree with. It is the Salem Witch Trails on steroids!

So will there be religious freedom payback removing all the restrictions from the rest of us and also living our own lives according to what we believe? Will we see equality the way the Founding Fathers envisioned following the witchcraft trials and gave us the right to make our own choices? I am no lawyer but it seems that good ones need to take cases to the Supreme Court based on the freedoms of all of us and not just the ones they agree with!

Kathie Costos author of The Scribe Of Salem, The Visionary Of Salem, and 13th Minister Of Salem

Isn't it time to restore sanity under the law?

This is from Cornell Law School

A state's statutes will determine what constitutes standing in that particular state's courts. These typically revolve around the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.

What harm has been done to anyone other than the one making the choice over their own body? How does it hurt those against abortions being a legal choice they make for themselves?

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue:
The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

It seems to me that this country's laws support those who have been harmed and not those who do not like the choices others make for themselves. So far, we've seen that the only people being harmed are those subjected to the will of others. I heard some claim they do not approve of it and do not want to pay for it. Somehow they fail to see there are many things people do not approve of but they pay for them all the same as a taxpayer. Could you imagine if anything else in this country was based on selective tax disbursements because someone claims it is morally wrong to them?

The thing is most people in this country support the right for people to decide for themselves, which is a good thing.

Support for abortion rights overall has increased as state legislatures and courtrooms have instituted a growing number of restrictions and bans, according to the latest PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll. Sixty-one percent of U.S. adults say they support abortion rights, marking a 6-percentage point increase since last June.

Nearly a year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, U.S. opinions about that consequential decision remain largely unchanged in this latest poll. A majority of U.S. adults – 59 percent – still say they oppose the justices’ decision, which removed federal protections for many reproductive health care services, while another 40 percent of Americans agree with the nation’s highest court. (PBS)

No one should have the right to take a right away from someone else. No one should have the right to force their beliefs on anyone else while demanding their own rights be protected. Isn't it time to restore sanity under the law? 

There are females all over this country subjected to harm after harm, including the females that wanted to have children. Should it go wrong, they are subjected to suffering because doctors have been threatened with jail and fines for providing medical help. Young females discovering their rapist, not only removed the right of choice by forced sex but also subjected them to more harm having to fight to decide the rest of their lives. The list of harm being done goes on and on while more and more states substitute their "morality" for everyone else. 

It isn't just about abortions but sexual personal decisions everyone had equal rights to decide for themselves. When parents had the right to decide for their own children what is right for them or not. This is all more reminder of how we ended up with the Salem Witchcraft Trials. Forced morality and "Christian" values are an abysmal demonstration of God's Love.

SCOTUS: Veterans can't get retroactive benefits if they miss window

This article is only part of the story. The thing is, it has always been this way. Ask any veteran before reporters started to zero in on Afghanistan and Iraq veterans, and most had no clue what the hell came back with them from war.

I've been involved in this for 40 years and can tell you most of them had no clue what it was, what name it was called, or understood that waiting to "get over it" was the wrong idea. All they knew was how they changed from the person they were before they went into whatever war they fought. (Hell, most of us had no clue just living as survivors of what civilian life can do to us.)

I don't have a problem with the decision the Supreme Court made regarding a veteran trying to get compensation for #PTSD going back to the Gulf War. While that may shock some of you, the thing is, it has always been this way. I have more of a problem that our country forces the veteran to figure out what their service did to them within a year, instead of being proactive for the sake of the veteran.

The veteran had all the obligations to file claims and appeals on time but the VA doesn't seem to have the same obligation. If you are a veteran, do not fight them on your own. Their rules are rules for all veterans. The thing is, you don't have to fight them on your own. Turn to the DAV, VFW, or any of the other groups out there claiming they help with claims. Turn to your member of the House or Senate because they are supposed to have staff able to help veterans. 

Keep in mind,  you didn't fight the war alone and should have to fight this one alone now! Call in reinforcements!

Supreme Court is unusually late with first opinion of term

The Hill
BY ZACH SCHONFELD
01/23/23

The nine justices sided with the government’s position that veterans can’t receive retroactive disability benefits if they miss a one-year application window.

The Supreme Court handed down its first opinion of the term on Monday, ruling that a veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is not eligible for retroactive disability benefits after he missed a statutory window.

The ruling in some ways marked a return to normal, with the justices resuming the pre-pandemic tradition of announcing opinions live from the bench.

The case involved Adolfo Arellano, a U.S. Navy veteran who suffers from PTSD linked to trauma from his deployment to the Persian Gulf during the Iranian hostage crisis.

Although he missed the window to receive disability benefits retroactive to his discharge date, Arellano argued that the law is subject to equitable tolling, a doctrine that allows for extensions in extraordinary circumstances. Arellano’s attorneys argued he couldn’t meet the deadline because of his mental condition.

The justices ruled that Congress specifically provided that courts should not grant those types of extensions for the provision.
read more here

GOP sold their souls for guns and ending choice

The Supreme Court just ended the right of females to decide their own futures. They used the "moral" argument to end it a day after they rules they could not limit gun rights. While most of us find all of this repulsive, the thing is, this is why they wanted the least Christian man to ever become President of the United States.

I remember when Trump was running and I heard Republican friends I knew to be churchgoers, saying how much their faith mattered to them. Yet these same people wanted Trump because he would appoint the next members of the Supreme Court. Why was this important to them? Guns and abortions. Just those two things. Nothing else mattered to them and that is why they didn't care what else he did.

These same people didn't care he used them, because they were using him. They didn't care what lies he told or how he was a complete total failure. All they care about was these two things. 

Truth didn't matter. What Jesus taught didn't matter. What He said they were supposed to be and how to treat other people, didn't matter. And yet, these same people show up at church and receive communion while their hearts have turned against everything He stood for.

Trump proved that he follows the father of lies, and didn't care about anyone but himself. We've seen all that with the January 6th hearings on what he did and how he was willing to do anything, sacrifice anyone for what he wanted and nothing else mattered. His supporters still say they would vote for him again.

They proved they were willing to support an egomaniacal minion of Satan into the abyss because they sold their souls to protect gunfights and sacrifice the rights of everyone else to make their own choices. They also ignored the fact that God Himself gave every human the free will to make their own choices.

Things have gotten so bad in this country because of them, that people are turning away from the church, feeling they cannot turn to God even if they want to because the only thing they see and hear is the zealots preaching against all Jesus taught.

I wrote three books to help people find spiritual healing with #PTSD and had to rewrite them because people liked the story but were "offended" by the Bible passages. The GOP managed to push the other Children of God away from Him because they never knew Him or they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be corrupted by the father of lies!

Right now, I pray the people I knew repent before it is too late for them to open their eyes and see the truth again.

VA got it right on religious freedom fight and faith won!

update History does not change just because people say it did.

This is the headline from The Washington TimesVA secretary rejects Obama religious expression rules:

That is not what actually happened. This is what happened.

But this issue had nothing to do with the Obama administration, Snopes.com found. The VA chapel in Iron Mountain had been found to be in noncompliance with Spiritual and Pastoral Procedures that were established by the Department of Veterans Affairs and most recently revised in July 2008, six months before Obama became president. Those procedures require chapels at VA facilities be maintained as “religiously neutral” whenever they are not being used by chaplains for services associated with a particular faith: The rules state that no permanent religious symbols are to be incorporated in the construction or renovation of chapels.

Back to the headline from The Washington Times VA secretary rejects Obama religious expression rules: 'They did not know the makeup of the force'

Robert Wilkie, the soft-spoken and managerial-minded secretary of Veterans Affairs, went public in a big way this summer when he said he refused to be “bullied” by a federal lawsuit claiming a Bible on display at a New Hampshire VA hospital violated the separation of church and state. In an interview with The Washington Times in his office at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Wilkie said displaying a Bible in a VA hospital is a matter of liberty and that the Obama administration erred in trying to eliminate religious symbols from the veterans health care system.

Not so much on reliable reporting on that one!

VA secretary moves to permit public display of religious symbols

STARS AND STRIPES
By NIKKI WENTLING
Published: July 3, 2019

In addition to permitting public displays of religious symbols, the changes allow VA facilities to accept donations of religious literature and symbols, which can now be provided to patients and their families.

WASHINGTON — Citing a need to protect religious liberty, Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie issued new policies Wednesday permitting displays of religious and spiritual symbols in VA facilities.

A Bible is part of a memorial table display at the veterans hospital in Manchester, N.H. KRISTIN PRESSLY/MANCHESTER VA MEDICAL CENTER VIA AP

Religious symbols will now be allowed in public areas of VA facilities, including lobbies, public entrances, security and information desks and nursing stations. In directives sent to VA facilities nationwide, Wilkie clarified that displays “should respect and tolerate differing views” and “should not elevate one belief system over others.”

“We want to make sure that all of our veterans and their families feel welcome at VA, no matter their religious beliefs. Protecting religious liberty is a key part of how we accomplish that goal,” Wilkie said in a statement. “These important changes will bring simplicity and clarity to our policies governing religious and spiritual symbols, helping ensure we are consistently complying with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution at thousands of facilities across the department.”

An official announcement about the new rules cited a recent Supreme Court decision in which a 40-foot “Peace Cross,” a tribute to World War I dead, was permitted to remain at a public intersection in Maryland. The court rejected the argument that the cross was an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity, but justices didn’t reach an across-the-board consensus about how to handle religious imagery on public property.
read it here

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Supreme Court denies justice, lets military malpractice stand....

Supreme Court rejects bid to overturn prohibition on military malpractice cases

Military Times By: Leo Shane III May 20, 2019

Thomas wrote that by refusing to re-examine the issue, the Supreme Court has allowed the Feres doctrine to be twisted and strengthened over the years. He also lamented that Congress could find ways to address the issue “but it did not.”

The Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. is shown in January 2019. On Monday, the court opted not to hear a case which challenged the legal precedent barring individuals from suing the military for medical malpractice. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The Supreme Court again on Monday opted not to hear a challenge to the legal precedent barring individuals from suing the military for medical malpractice, a decision blasted by Justice Clarence Thomas as short-sighted and unfair.

“Unfortunate repercussions — denial of relief to military personnel and distortions of other areas of law to compensate — will continue to ripple through our jurisprudence as long as the Court refuses to reconsider (this issue),” Thomas wrote in his dissent to the court’s decision not to take up the challenge.

The move once again shifts from the courts to Congress debate on how to fix problems surrounding the Feres Doctrine, a 1950 Supreme Court decision that blocks troops from claiming medical malpractice damages for actions related to their military service. At the time, the court found that military personnel injured by the negligence of another federal employee cannot sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
read more here

Supreme Court will take on Feres Doctrine suit!

Military Medical Malpractice Suit Stays Alive in US Supreme Court

Military.com
By Patricia Kime
2 Apr 2019

The plaintiff, Walter Daniel, is a former Coast Guard officer whose wife, Rebekah "Moani" Daniel died during childbirth at Naval Hospital Bremerton, Washington, in March 2014. The lawsuit alleges that the doctors failed to provide prompt medical treatment when Daniel, a Navy lieutenant who worked as a nurse at the hospital, began bleeding excessively. She died four hours after giving birth.

A court case that challenges the authority of the Feres doctrine in cases of military medical malpractice was not among the 150-plus petitions rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.

Walter Daniel and Rebekah "Moani" Daniel. (Courtesy Photo)

The Feres doctrine is the controversial 69-year-old court ruling that prohibits service members from suing the federal government for injuries deemed incidental to military service.

The case, Daniel v. United States, was to be distributed to the Supreme Court justices for conference on March 29, meaning they were set to discuss it Friday and to announce their decision to accept or deny it on Monday.

But when the order was released this morning, the court had accepted one new case and rejected hundreds of others. The Daniel case was not among the rejections.

A spokeswoman for Daniel's attorney said he awaits word as to whether the case is being rescheduled for conference.

Attorneys who favor reconsideration of the Feres doctrine say the delay offers hope that the "Supreme Court has taken an immediate interest in revisiting" the ruling.
read more here

Supreme Court Sides Against USS Cole Survivors

USS Cole victims opposed at Supreme Court by unlikely partners: Sudan and US

The Washington Post
By ROBERT BARNES
Published: November 4, 2018

"It is mind-boggling that the government has decided in this case to side with a state sponsor of terrorism and against men and women who are seeking to recover for grievous injuries suffered in the service of our country," Shanmugam wrote in a brief to the court.

Sailors aboard the USS Ross frame President Bill Clinton and others during a USS Cole memorial service in Richmond in October 2000. ROBERT A. REEDER/WASHINGTON POST PHOTO

The road to recovery has been a long one for David Morales, who was injured during the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole 18 years ago last month. And he knew it would be difficult to collect the nearly $315 million that he and others wounded in the attack were awarded in their suit against the Republic of Sudan.

But he didn't expect the case to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and he certainly didn't think he would see the Trump administration aligned with Sudan on the other side of the legal battle.

"I thought the United States would be on the side of its veterans," Morales said in a recent interview. "It was very surprising, especially with Mr. Trump in office. It seems like he is in support of veterans. It kind of hurts."

Years of litigation and millions of dollars in awards are on the line this week as the Supreme Court addresses a seemingly mundane question: whether notices of the lawsuits against Sudan were sent to the wrong address eight years ago.
read more here

Army General Talks About Gay Marriage Ruling

Gay Army General Reflects on Supreme Court's Historic Ruling 
Military.com
by Bryant Jordan
Jun 29, 2015

The first general officer to come out as gay following the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in 2011 says the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country makes "a positive difference in many service members' lives" for practical and heartfelt reasons.

"The practical impact is uniformity in the recognition of family," Army Reserve Brig. Gen. Tammy Smith told Miltary.com. "The heartfelt impact is that every family matters, regardless of who you marry."

Smith, who married Tracey Hepner in 2012 at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC, was at Brooks Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, as the keynote speaker marking Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month when she received word on Friday that the high court made same-sex marriage the law of the land.

Smith paused long enough to ask her wife -- a woman who had to remain invisible before the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- up to the podium while she announced the high court's ruling and read a portion of it.
read more here

Army extends new benefits to soldiers' same-sex spouses

Army extends new benefits to soldiers' same-sex spouses
Army Times
By Jim Tice
Staff writer
December 1, 2013

Army Secretary John McHugh has approved several policy changes that support extending military benefits to the same-sex spouses of soldiers.

The changes were prompted by a June 26 Supreme Court ruling that found portions of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

As a result, the Army now recognizes all marriages that are valid in the location where the wedding ceremony was performed, and “will work to make sure the same benefits are available to all spouses, regardless if they are in same-sex or opposite-sex marriages,” according to a directive issued Nov. 7 by McHugh.

Entitlements for same-sex spouses are retroactive to the June 26 court decision. The Army will not grant any claims to entitlements before that date, under the McHugh directive.
read more here

Unfair Feres Doctrine Bars Wrongful Death Suit for Soldier's Baby

Unfair Feres Doctrine Bars Wrongful Death Suit for Soldier's Baby
By Anne C. O'Donnell of FindLaw
November 8, 2013

"We can think of no other judicially-created doctrine which has been criticized so stridently, by so many jurists, for so long," wrote Judge Nguyen of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case, Ritchie v. United States.

The doctrine to which she is referring is known as the "Feres doctrine." Under this doctrine, the government is not liable for injuries to members of the military service arising out of, or in the course of, activity incident to service. It originates from a 1950 case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which actually involved three different claims against the government:

-The wrongful death of an active service member who died in a fire in barracks allegedly known or which should have been known to be unsafe;

-A medical negligence claim alleging that an army surgeon left a towel 30 inches long by 18 inches wide in a soldier who underwent an abdominal operation; and

-The wrongful death of an active service member who died due to negligent medical treatment by army surgeons

The Federal Tort Claims Act waives the federal government's sovereign immunity, allowing it to be sued just as a private individual would be. The Feres court carved out a judicial exception to this rule, by holding that "the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service."

This principle was extended to include claims brought by third parties, which derive directly or indirectly from injuries to service members incident to military duty.

The Feres court and its progeny assert three policy rationales for this rule: (1) the government should not be subject to liability based on the fortuity of the situs of the injury; (2) there are alternative compensation systems available; and (3) the fear of damaging the military disciplinary structure.
read more here

Veterans For Common Sense may be heard by Supreme Court

Media Advisory: Judges to Decide if Supreme Court Hears Landmark Lawsuit
Contact: Veterans for Common Sense
(202) 491-6953 Date: January 3, 2013

In the next few days, the Supreme Court will determine if it will hear arguments in the case, Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki. An announcement could come as early as this Friday.

In one of the most important landmark legal cases involving veterans’ access to healthcare and disability benefits in decades, two veterans groups filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on September 5, 2012, asking the Court to hear the case. According to the Supreme Court's web site, our case was distributed for conference of January 4, 2013.

The lawsuit, filed in July 2007 by VCS and Veterans United for Truth (VUFT), centers on one key issue: whether the Veterans Judicial Review Act allows veterans to challenge in federal court the systemic delays in the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA’s) provision of mental health care and death and disability compensation.

Learn more about our VCS / VUFT lawsuit at our web site. The New York Times published several news articles about the veteran suicide crisis as well as the enormous disability claim backlog now at more than 1.1 million claims. and the paper also published an editorial supporting the plight of our veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Veterans for Common Sense also appeared on "60 Minutes" three years ago discussing the long waits veterans face when seeking VA assistance.

As a 501(c)(3) non-profit formed in the District of Columbia in August 2002, VCS leads the way on many key VA reforms. One major example is VA's new streamlined disability benefits for PTSD based on scientific research announced in July 2010.

Convicted soldier urges Supreme Court to hear military appeals

Convicted soldier urges Supreme Court to hear military appeals
By MICHAEL DOYLE
McClatchy Newspapers
Published: August 20, 2012

RELATED
Army reduces soldier's murder sentence
A fragile trust: Soldiers question Iraqi police’s involvement in bombing
GI convicted of murder in Iraqis’ deaths

WASHINGTON - A military court convicted Army Master Sgt. John E. Hatley of murder in wartime. Unfortunately for the defrocked combat infantryman, military law keeps him from appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, against all odds, the native of Decatur, Texas, is going where others have failed and Congress has hesitated. Representing himself from his Fort Leavenworth prison cell, Hatley has asked the high court to grant soldiers the same appeal rights as civilians.

"I've been in the military for 20 years and endured many hardships," Hatley said, responding to a reporter's emailed questions conveyed through a friend. "I accepted that as part of the career I had chosen. What you don't know and are never told is that your rights are less than every other citizen in this country has."
read more here

Stolen Valor McClanahan does something honorable

All of us get angry when someone is caught lying about being a hero. We got really angry when the Supreme Court ruled that lying about even this is covered under free speech. Richard David McClanahan was found guilty and sent to jail but after the ruling from the Supremes, giving him the chance to clear his record, he doesn't want it. He said "I'm not the victim here." WOW. He is doing something honorable now.

Stolen Valor Case Vet Doesn't Want Record Cleared
Jul 13, 2012
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
by Chris Vaughn

Federal prosecutors in North Texas used the Stolen Valor Act, a law recently declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, to prosecute exactly one person for lying about his military record.

The man, perhaps surprisingly, was a veteran, a sailor-turned-soldier who concocted a breathtaking series of tall tales of heroism and claimed a rack of medals supposedly earned in Iraq and Afghanistan, all to impress people in Amarillo. He became a frequent speaker at colleges, nursing homes and veterans events.

Richard David McClanahan served 30 months in federal prison for his lies, a lengthy penalty imposed because he also lied about his income to buy a pickup from a dealership. Now living in Fort Worth, the 34-year-old ex-convict has a chance to have at least part of his conviction overturned after the Supreme Court's decision.

But McClanahan said he has no interest in clearing his record.

"I have no desire to have my record expunged," he said. "I'm not the victim here. The law was put into place for a very good reason.

"I understand the legal reasons why it was overturned and have no doubt that it was the legitimate decision for the Supreme Court. But I respectfully disagree with the court's decision. I wish the law had remained to prevent people like me from making absurd statements."

McClanahan's case had nothing to do with the appeal that reached the Supreme Court, which involved a public official in California who falsely boasted that he had earned the Medal of Honor. That man, Xavier Alvarez, fought his prosecution on the grounds that the First Amendment protected his speech, even though his statements were lies.
read more here

Supreme Court to rule on Stolen Valor Act

Supreme Court to rule on Stolen Valor Act
By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Oct 17, 2011 11:06:05 EDT
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case questioning the constitutionality a 2006 law that makes it a criminal offense to lie about being decorated for military service.

The court said Monday that it will hear the case of Xavier Alvarez. While running for election in 2007 to a seat on a local water board in California, Alvarez claimed that he had been awarded the Medal of Honor while serving in the Marine Corps. He later admitted that he was never in the military.
read more here

We can no longer bury our dead in this country with dignity

Albert Snyder was right more than anyone wants to admit right now. Westboro is not just about protesting at military funerals but they have the "right" as they believe to protest at anyone's funeral. They'll show up wherever they think they'll get the most attention.

Westboro Wins Final Court Battle; Marine's Family Saddened

"My first thought was that eight justices don't have the common sense God gave a goat. We found out today that we can no longer bury our dead in this country with dignity."
- Albert Snyder

Slain Marine's Father: What Is This Country Becoming?

Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder
WASHINGTON -- A lawsuit filed against the Westboro Baptist Church that won judgment in Baltimore ultimately lost at the Supreme Court, and the family who filed the suit is now questioning where the country is headed.

The First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals, The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.


The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan.
The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of the late Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who died in Iraq in 2006. Albert Snyder sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral in Westminster.
read more here
Westboro Wins Final Court Battle

Westboro hate group support by Supreme Court ruling against fallen soldiers

Supreme Court rules for anti-gay church over military funeral protests
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
March 2, 2011 11:07 a.m. EST
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The 8-1 vote upholds the right of Westboro Baptist Church members to stage protests
The father of a fallen Marine sued after church members protested at his son's funeral
The U.S. has chosen "to protect even hurtful speech on public issues," Roberts writes

Washington (CNN) -- A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.

The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.
read more here

Supreme Court rules for anti-gay church

Supreme Court eases benefit deadline for vets

Supreme Court eases benefit deadline for vets
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that a deadline for military veterans who appeal the federal government's denial of benefits need not be rigidly enforced.

The justices sided with a mentally ill Korean War vet whose appeal was blocked because he missed a 120-day deadline for judicial review by 15 days. The high court reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that said Veterans Court judges could not make exceptions to the deadline, even when a veteran's illness contributed to his delayed appeal.
read more here
Supreme Court eases benefit deadline for vets

Supreme Court just slammed wounded veterans

I'll give you one guess who voted what way against the veterans,,,,,,Congress has to do something about this or all the talk over the last few years about taking care of our wounded veterans will boil down to empty words about as good as the treaties the government gave the Indians.

Let me remind you of one of the veterans that didn't see her claim honored before she died. My friend Capt. Agnes Irish Bresnahan! Remember she suffered from Agent Orange and PTSD but was never granted the full compensation she should have had? Well she probably would have had she not decided she wanted to make sure she fought just as hard for other veterans as she fought for herself. No veteran should ever have to do thru that but they do and they will now that the Supreme Court decided that it's up to the veterans to prove it or lose it!

Should be easy to do right? After all isn't that what you're thinking right now? Easy to prove if they are telling the truth but what if the VA decides a sworn statement from Satan himself comes stating clearly what the flashbacks and nightmares are all about and they don't believe it? What if a sniper showed up and said he shot the buddy of the veteran with PTSD so many times his eye balls fell out? What if they didn't believe him either? Well that's what this comes down to. It's happened too many times and it's wrong. My husband's claim took 6 years to clear up but as bad as that was, his best friend fought for 19 years before his claim was finally approved. I've heard even worse stories.

Congress needs to set the ground rules to undo the harm the Supreme Court just did and they need to do it fast! Let's see the right wing talking heads bitch moan and complain about this the way they just did over the flap with the security warning including the possibility of some disgruntled veterans. Ever wonder why any of them would ever be disgruntled?

Court makes it harder to fight claim denials

The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Apr 21, 2009 16:48:13 EDT

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has made it harder for veterans to challenge the denial of medical claims by the Veterans Affairs Department.

The high court, in a 6-3 decision on Tuesday, said veterans who contend the VA failed to tell them what information was needed to justify their claims must prove that the VA's mistakes made a difference in the outcome of their cases.

A federal appeals court in Washington earlier ruled that the burden was on the VA to prove the errors were not harmful to the veterans.
go here for more
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/04/ap_VAclaims_ruling_042109/

U.S. SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR VETERAN'S CASE

U.S. SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR VETERAN'S CASE --
The Court will consider the extent to which the VA is liable
if it fails to adequately inform a veteran of the information
needed to process a benefits claim.


The notice of the veteran's case is in the second part of the story below.
The full petition can be downloaded or opened for reading here... http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2007/2pet/7pet/2007-1209.pet.aa.pdf
For more on this case, plug this into Google "Peake v. Sanders" using the quotes.
go here for more

http://www.vawatchdog.org/08/nf08/nfJUN08/nf061708-1.htm