Stolen Valor Act

[PerryB]

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... r-act?lite
What a crock of crap The stolen Valor act has been over ruled by the supreme court.

[RangerX]

I wonder if it is illegal to claim to be a Supreme Court Justice, or Member of Congress, for profit?

Not that I would sully my reputation like that.

[Jim]

I wonder if it is illegal to claim to be a Supreme Court Justice, or Member of Congress, for profit?

Not that I would sully my reputation like that.

Mark Twain used to say that:"In America we have a criminal class and we have Congress. But, I repeat myself."

[colt1rgr]

That and we would literally go broke trying to prosecute all of these @#$clowns! So its back to outing them, calling them liars and cowards to their miserable faces and throat punching when/as necessary.

[RangerX]

Just finished reading some excerpts from the ruling. A lot of inferring, but I think the aim is to get the law rewritten in a more effective manner. The key thing they focused on was material damage. In other words using the lie for profit or material gain. This would eliminate the pursuit of "Walter Mitty", freeing up time and resources to punish those that look to gain from their lies.

Which would leave the collective "Us" to deal with the remainder in whatever way we see fit, short of physical violence...dammit.

[Ranger Ron]

A sad day today!!

[IEDmagnet]

It's just a way for Obama to legally wear all the medals on his dictator uniform if he is reelected in November.

I agree it's a sad day though, and the founding fathers are rolling in their graves because of the perversions taking place today.

[hobbit]

There was a time in this nation when even Supreme Court justices could get their faces slapped while being challenged to meet their protagonists on a field of honor at 4:00 AM the following morning.

[GoldCoast]

Just finished reading some excerpts from the ruling. A lot of inferring, but I think the aim is to get the law rewritten in a more effective manner. The key thing they focused on was material damage. In other words using the lie for profit or material gain. This would eliminate the pursuit of "Walter Mitty", freeing up time and resources to punish those that look to gain from their lies.

Which would leave the collective "Us" to deal with the remainder in whatever way we see fit, short of physical violence...dammit.

I've read more case law than the average American, and less than the average lawyer. And waaaaayyyy more than Obama. That said, the Supreme Court usually writes their opinions in the way you described. Despite the fact that everyone with an agenda immediately starts beating their drum every time a ruling is handed down I've found pretty much every Supreme Court ruling I've ever read to make a shit ton of sense. The way they are written pretty much always opens the door for a savvy listener to fix their error and get what they want in the long run.

[Sleepy Doc]

The original argument I heard against it was that they were essentially making it illegal to lie, and that is where the problem was. At what point do you stop? Most politicians would be put away for life. The other part of the argument was that if someone was taking monies by falsely claiming they were a vet, than that was fraud and there were already laws on the books making that illegal. Besides, this cat said it was much more effective to publicly humiliate them.

As much as I think it's bullshit calling it free speech, I can see he point made by the SCOTUS. The problem is, just try and get something like that passed today.

[RangerX]

Read somewhere last night (don't remember where - beer) that there has already been a new one in the works since last year that specifically focuses on the fraud element rather than lying. So somebody in Washington saw the writing on the wall. To say I was shocked is an understatement.

[Slowpoke]

I got this in an e-mail from one of my old LRRP Brothers. I don't know that I agree with all of it but it does provide some food for thought.

Dear RedState Reader,

As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision. Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it.

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.

Sincerely yours,
Erick Erickson
Editor,RedState.com

[RangerX]

I got this in an e-mail from one of my old LRRP Brothers. I don't know that I agree with all of it but it does provide some food for thought.

Insightful stuff, and your friend is not alone in his observations. I've seen at least two articles this morning expressing similar opinions.

Oh, we do live in interesting times.