Supreme Court Strikes Down 'Stolen Valor' Law

Wall Street Journa;l ^ | June 28, 2012 | Evan Perez

[BIGLOOK]

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court cited First Amendment rights to free speech in striking down a law that made it a federal crime to falsely claim to have been awarded military-honor medals.

The 6-3 majority opinion upheld a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had declared unconstitutional the Stolen Valor Act, a 2006 statute Congress passed "to protect the reputation and meaning" of military honors.

[BIGLOOK]

Heads up ping

[a fool in paradise]

Generalisimo Nagin is pleased with this decision.

[pepsi_junkie]

You may all now begin addressing me as Supreme Allied Commander Gerneralisimo pepsi_junkie

[ozzymandus]

I’m headed down to the bar to pick up some chicks with my 4 Medals Of Honor. Hope I don’t run into any real vets. Better go to a democrat bar.

[KC_Lion]

Whoa! Hold on a Minute, I thought The Supreme Court didn’t like to strike down Congressional Law, you know, things like Ubamacare!

[Bullfrogg]

John F’n Kerry is now a Viet Nam war hero......

[BIGLOOK]

Hell’s Bells ping!

[a fool in paradise]

The Supreme Court cited First Amendment rights to free speech in striking down a law that made it a federal crime to falsely claim to have been awarded military-honor medals.

So the Supreme Court just defended the concept of phony soldiers. Remember when liberals got outraged at Rush even mentioning that some of the Iraq protesters were PHONY SOLDIERS? As if no one ever played pretend to grant themselves more credibility?

[a fool in paradise]

Next we will be told by this court (and the wise latina) that identity theft is merely more free speech by foreign nationals.

[xzins]

Whoa! Hold on a Minute, I thought The Supreme Court didn’t like to strike down Congressional Law, you know, things like Ubamacare!

Sure they could have pulled a rabbit out of their hat on this one too.

Instead of first amendment, they could have said they really meant to say "consumer fraud" which the government has the power to regulate. It's not a mandate, it's a tax, so it's ok. It's not free speech, it's fraud, so the law's ok.

[Jumpmaster]

Fine, but anyone correcting this bad behavior should be immune from prosecution!

[Jane Long]

Next we will be told by this court (and the wise latina) that identity theft is merely more free speech by foreign nationals.

Bamster's now legit.

[stockpirate]

But the government can tax you for lieing about your military service.

[BIGLOOK]

Decorated phonies are going to be strutting around all over now. Having a hard time already trying to deal them and btw no LEOs were dealing with them anyway. Wondering if I can be sued by a fraud for slander when exposing them.

[ConorMacNessa]

SCOTUS screwed us big time today - upholding Obamacare and striking down Stolen Valor. Isn't it wonderful that the First Amendment protects flag-burners, pornographers and posers?

I want my country back - not the socialistic regime that has been loosed upon us! Obama, with the cooperation of Congress, RINO's, perverts and traitors has converted us from a proud Nation of free citizens to a nanny state in which we are nothing more than subjects!　



Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

[Cicero]

So. It looks like Justice Roberts has come completely out of the closet as a flaming liberal.

The Court is now 5 liberals, 3 conservatives, and 1 swing vote.

And Obama didn’t even need to make another appointment.

I wonder what kind of threat they are holding over Roberts? He has voted conservative in the past, but evidently no longer.

[Star Traveler]

Well ... anyone can be sued, if there is the least shred of possibility that it’s valid. If there is absolutely no basis at all, and it’s apparent from the “get-go” - then something will be “thrown out” - but other than that - the lawsuit will go ahead.

HOWEVER “winning” the lawsuit is a completely different matter. And no, they can’t win it - if you expose a fraud and they can’t prove it’s not a fraud - and you can prove it’s a fraud. SO ... the bottom line is that you will prevail in a lawsuit!

But, the other “bottom line” to this issue - is what the Founding Fathers thought about “Free Speech” - in that it’s “free speech” itself which will be what “argues against another’s free speech” - in which that other free speech is FALSE.

The idea here is that truth always rises to the surface and lies sink to the bottom - if all things are equal and the government does not intervene and try to “maintain” one kind of speech over another.

[JimSEA]

Gee, now I don’t have to tell folks I was just a duffus putting up antennas for two years. I can tell them I was a swift boat commander with silver and bronze stars sent home in glory after getting three purple hearts. How exciting.

[nothingnew]

In my lifetime I've witnessed 3 of the worst USSC decisions:

Roe vs Wade

Kelo

The decision today on the healthcare debacle.

Now we have this.....What's next?

Keep your powder dry!

FMCDH(BITS)