Lost in all the supreme court whoopla about today’s
universal health law ruling was the overturning of the stolen valor act. Unlike anything else coming from Washington,
this has nothing to do with partisan animus.
The highest (pun intended - sorry, couldn’t help it) court in the land
stuck down a law that made it an offence to steal valor by falsely claiming
that you earned some military award. The
court said, you can lie about military service, and your free speech is safely protected. Coupled with another recent ruling, Snyder v.
Phelps, in which the court let it be known that it’s ok to brutalize a mourning
family of fallen military member, today the court said it’s ok to steal what
doesn’t belong someone. Like much every
issue surrounding the great seats of power in the U.S., everything seems to be
framed as a partisan Republican/Democrat political fight. Yet both of these rulings were nearly
unanimous, irrespective of political ideology.
Both rulings, the rescission of the stolen valor act and
Snyder v Phelps baffled me, since they run counter to even the most basic logical
sense. As Mr. Snyder so lucidly stated, "…eight
justices don't have the common sense God gave a goat." I have to agree. Both rulings hurt those who carry battle
scars and burdens of decade-old wars – in order to preserve 1st
amendment rights of the public. But just
as perplexing, why does “the public” have to insert it self into the personal
business of the military members at all – particularly when 99% elude actual
military service? How often does the
public find the need to intrude into the personal lives of military members and
families? A lot, apparently. Over 600 military funerals have been
protested in the past 10 years. And does
the public need to frequently exercise its “free speech” by stealing military
awards? It appears so. From today’s ruling:
Congress passed the Stolen Valor
Act in response to a proliferation of false claims concerning the receipt of
military awards. For example, in a single year, more than 600 Virginia
residents falsely claimed to have won the Medal of Honor. An investigation of
the 333 people listed in the online edition of Who’s Who as having received a
top military award revealed that fully a third of the claims could not be
substantiated. When the Library of Congress compiled oral histories for its
Veterans History Project, 24 of the 49 individuals who identified themselves as
Medal of Honor recipients had not actually received that award. The same was
true of 32 individuals who claimed to have been awarded the Distinguished
Service Cross and 14 who claimed to have won the Navy Cross.
Most puzzling is the common argument used by the prevailing
justices, nearly unanimously, which naively assumes that the common decency
among our greater society will somehow correct the pain these rulings cause – and
that some overwhelming “counter speech” will drown out the haters and the
fakers. How naïve and disconnected from
our current society must a supreme court justice be to even offer that as a
remedy to their flawed opinions? Note to the supreme court: common decency
required for “counter speech” is NOT a prevailing trend in our society. Maybe you judges are from another era or you are
pretending that we live in 1950’s family hour TV show. Either
way you are either naïve, out-of-touch with the real world or simply insane
masters of our asylum.
