Where oh where has common sense gone...

captain

Dis in my way!
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
I don't know which is more frustrating, the self proclaimed Liar or our supreme court justices trying to compare this to an extramarital affair...

Maj. David McCombs, a U.S. Marine who has served four tours overseas, stood out in the cold early morning Wednesday waiting for one of the few public seats in the Supreme Court hearing room.

McCombs came to the Court to hear a case challenging the Stolen Valor Act, a law that makes it a crime to lie about receiving military awards.

"The medal of honor is the highest medal that can be awarded," said McCombs. "I believe the medal itself represents the highest sacrifice someone can pay. To lie about such an honor is a disgrace."

But some of high court justices struggled with what Justice Anthony Kennedy called the "slippery slope problem."

Kennedy asked, for instance, about a lie concerning a college degree. Elena Kagan wondered about a law that could be passed to ban lies about extramarital affairs.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., "Where do you stop? I mean, there are many things that people know about themselves that are objectively verifiable where Congress would have an interest in protecting."

The law is being challenged in court by Xavier Alvarez, who, while serving as a public official in California, introduced himself to an audience by saying, "I'm a retired Marine for 25 years. I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor."
Alvarez had never even served in the military.

As one of the first people prosecuted under the law, he was sentenced to three years probation, a $5,000 fine and community service.

Inside court, Alvarez's federal public defender, Jonathan D. Libby, acknowledged to the justices that his client is a liar. But he said the Stolen Valor Act goes too far and violates the First Amendment.

"The Stolen Valor Act criminalizes pure speech in the form of bare falsity, a mere telling of a lie," Libby said. "It doesn't matter whether the lie was told in a public meeting or in a private conversation with a friend or family member."

The government argued that the law fits into a narrow category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment.

Verrilli said the law "regulates a carefully limited and narrowly drawn category of calculated factual falsehoods. It advances a legitimate, substantial, indeed compelling governmental interest, and it chills no speech."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor focused on the harm that a lie about military awards might cause.

"You can't really believe that a war veteran thinks less of the medal that he or she receives because someone's claiming fraudulently that they got one," she told Verrilli. "I'm not minimizing it. I, too, take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true."

Verrilli said the statute is as "narrow as you can get" and stressed the importance of protecting the honor system.

"What I think with respect to the government's interest here, and why there is a harm to that interest, is that the point of these medals is that it's a big deal," he said.

"The honor system is about identifying the attributes, the essence, of what we want in our servicemen and women -- courage, sacrifice, love of country, willingness to put your life on the line for your comrades."

Justice Antonin Scalia expressed support for the law.

"When Congress passed this legislation, I assume it did so because it thought that the value of the awards that these courageous members of the armed forces were receiving was being demeaned and diminished."

Justice Samuel Alito asked why a lie should receive First Amendment protection.

"Do you really think that there is First Amendment value in a bald-faced lie about a purely factual statement that a person makes about himself because that person would like to create a particular persona?" he asked.

"Yes, your honor," Libby said, "so long as it doesn't' cause imminent harm to another person or imminent harm to a government function."

A lower court ruled in favor of Alvarez, saying that while society would be "better off if Alvarez would stop spreading worthless, ridiculous and offensive untruths," the law was "unconstitutionally applied to make a criminal out of a man who was proven to be nothing more than a liar."

The case should be decided by the spring.
 
Last edited:
Statisticly speaking, sadly common sense is no longer common.
It's been replaced by crooked lawyers, politcal correctness, and "I deserve it" and "it's not fair".
 
You lie on your job application you get fired, you lie to a police officer you go to jail, you lie to the IRS you get in trouble... You can't lie about being a doctor or a police officer but its okay to be a self proclaimed public liar telling people that you have earned and done something you haven't in the military... I think that telling a lie about military service should be punishable.
 
You lie on your job application you get fired, you lie to a police officer you go to jail, you lie to the IRS you get in trouble... You can't lie about being a doctor or a police officer but its okay to be a self proclaimed public liar telling people that you have earned and done something you haven't in the military... I think that telling a lie about military service should be punishable.

I agree, and not to make light of the subject...but the liar you're talking about is a public official.
Isn't that what they get paid to do?:laugh:
 
I agree, and not to make light of the subject...but the liar you're talking about is a public official.
Isn't that what they get paid to do?:laugh:

I have no problems with a public official being hung out on this..
 
I don't know which is more frustrating, the self proclaimed Liar or our supreme court justices trying to compare this to an extramarital affair...

Maj. David McCombs, a U.S. Marine who has served four tours overseas, stood out in the cold early morning Wednesday waiting for one of the few public seats in the Supreme Court hearing room.

McCombs came to the Court to hear a case challenging the Stolen Valor Act, a law that makes it a crime to lie about receiving military awards.

"The medal of honor is the highest medal that can be awarded," said McCombs. "I believe the medal itself represents the highest sacrifice someone can pay. To lie about such an honor is a disgrace."

But some of high court justices struggled with what Justice Anthony Kennedy called the "slippery slope problem."

Kennedy asked, for instance, about a lie concerning a college degree. Elena Kagan wondered about a law that could be passed to ban lies about extramarital affairs.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., "Where do you stop? I mean, there are many things that people know about themselves that are objectively verifiable where Congress would have an interest in protecting."

The law is being challenged in court by Xavier Alvarez, who, while serving as a public official in California, introduced himself to an audience by saying, "I'm a retired Marine for 25 years. I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor."
Alvarez had never even served in the military.

As one of the first people prosecuted under the law, he was sentenced to three years probation, a $5,000 fine and community service.

Inside court, Alvarez's federal public defender, Jonathan D. Libby, acknowledged to the justices that his client is a liar. But he said the Stolen Valor Act goes too far and violates the First Amendment.

"The Stolen Valor Act criminalizes pure speech in the form of bare falsity, a mere telling of a lie," Libby said. "It doesn't matter whether the lie was told in a public meeting or in a private conversation with a friend or family member."

The government argued that the law fits into a narrow category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment.

Verrilli said the law "regulates a carefully limited and narrowly drawn category of calculated factual falsehoods. It advances a legitimate, substantial, indeed compelling governmental interest, and it chills no speech."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor focused on the harm that a lie about military awards might cause.

"You can't really believe that a war veteran thinks less of the medal that he or she receives because someone's claiming fraudulently that they got one," she told Verrilli. "I'm not minimizing it. I, too, take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true."

Verrilli said the statute is as "narrow as you can get" and stressed the importance of protecting the honor system.

"What I think with respect to the government's interest here, and why there is a harm to that interest, is that the point of these medals is that it's a big deal," he said.

"The honor system is about identifying the attributes, the essence, of what we want in our servicemen and women -- courage, sacrifice, love of country, willingness to put your life on the line for your comrades."

Justice Antonin Scalia expressed support for the law.

"When Congress passed this legislation, I assume it did so because it thought that the value of the awards that these courageous members of the armed forces were receiving was being demeaned and diminished."

Justice Samuel Alito asked why a lie should receive First Amendment protection.

"Do you really think that there is First Amendment value in a bald-faced lie about a purely factual statement that a person makes about himself because that person would like to create a particular persona?" he asked.

"Yes, your honor," Libby said, "so long as it doesn't' cause imminent harm to another person or imminent harm to a government function."

A lower court ruled in favor of Alvarez, saying that while society would be "better off if Alvarez would stop spreading worthless, ridiculous and offensive untruths," the law was "unconstitutionally applied to make a criminal out of a man who was proven to be nothing more than a liar."

The case should be decided by the spring.

I think the case should be decided by a few real marines paying Mr. Alvarez a visit to discuss his propensity for telling lies to the american people..followed by an escorted ride too Parris Island to complete a sentence of graduating Marine Corps Basic Training..bet he don't tell no more lies. :laugh:
 
I think the case should be decided by a few real marines paying Mr. Alvarez a visit to discuss his propensity for telling lies to the american people..followed by an escorted ride too Parris Island to complete a sentence of graduating Marine Corps Basic Training..bet he don't tell no more lies. :laugh:

Basic training should be part of his sentence, continous until able to pass.
If you can talk the talk you should walk the walk.
He can get his jail time and real punishment after.
 
I wonder why this has gone all the way to the Supreme Court.... have the court system nothing better to do? This should have been decided way lower. He lied about something serious, something people have earned, something people have bled and died for. He should be punished. The End.
 
After further research it seems that this POS is already in custody for a fraud conviction. He stole from a municipal water district while he was on its board. No wonder he has time to literally make a federal case out of this.....
 
Comments and questions by the Justices during oral argument are no indication of their positions or decision. They need to explore the boundaries of the law and challenge every position, because the opinion from this case will instruct lawmakers and judges around the country to better define and interpret the First Amendment in many other situations and cases.
 
This case would set a precedence for unprotected speech, which is why I think they are mentioning things like affairs and such. If poorly worded the law could be used top prosecute people for trivial things like affairs.

Just like everyone was talking about oklahomas abortion law that was so poorly written it left women that had a miscarriage open to prosecution.
 
This case would set a precedence for unprotected speech, which is why I think they are mentioning things like affairs and such. If poorly worded the law could be used top prosecute people for trivial things like affairs.

Just like everyone was talking about oklahomas abortion law that was so poorly written it left women that had a miscarriage open to prosecution.

Which takes us to a whole other discussion which is that we are using case precedent as opposed to teaching and obeying the law. Having each case looked at for its own worth we now look at similiar cases to see how the other guy did it.. WRONG!
 
The American system of justice is based on a concept called stare decisis, which means that we follow legal precedent. This way, judges can't change the meaning of a law depending on how they feel that particular day.
 
The American system of justice is based on a concept called stare decisis, which means that we follow legal precedent. This way, judges can't change the meaning of a law depending on how they feel that particular day.

Your joking right... Judges do it all the time.. If you do some checking with attorneys, at least the ones I have spoken to our universities don't teach law or the constitution anymore they focus on case precedent... Is that correct?
 
captain said:
Which takes us to a whole other discussion which is that we are using case precedent as opposed to teaching and obeying the law. Having each case looked at for its own worth we now look at similiar cases to see how the other guy did it.. WRONG!

I'm on my mobile, so I can't google whats what, but I'm sure the reason it has went this far is someone feels justice hasn't been served. If every judge that hears a case for the first time, has final word on interpretation of the law then there would be alot of people that never got justice. That is the good thing about our court system is the appelate process, without things being brought up for re interpretation with advancement of our culture the law would be even less functional.

Seems like people find things like this and just want to be upset, I understand that it's easy to be, but all the guy did was lie at the end of the day, he didn't perjor himself. What he did was wrong but so is lying to your wife, a cop, your kid, your parents, your boss or coworkers. They have to find the difference between them, decide what it is, and what should cone of it. I dont get Whats the big deal of how theres no common sense, seems the common sense is lost in the fact people pick and choose who should be able to seek justice.

Sorry if thats hard to read I'm on my phone. No speel check I'm aware of.
 
captain said:
Your joking right... Judges do it all the time.. If you do some checking with attorneys, at least the ones I have spoken to our universities don't teach law or the constitution anymore they focus on case precedent... Is that correct?

law is open to interpretation, the precedents establish law, ever hears a liberal and a conservative argue 2nd amendment
 
but all the guy did was lie

Complacency is killing our country... I wouldn't doubt it if we didn't hear someone say that we were discriminating against this man because he is a liar...

He is claiming that he made the same sacrifices as veterans and active service men and women. People treat veterans with a special care and respect. For someone to say that they served and then to find out that he never did is not only a disgrace but to me is the same things as saying he was a police officer or a doctor... I am all about Freedom of Speech but right is right and wrong is wrong.. try and spin it, try and explain it away, try to educate me and enlighten me to what the constitution stands for but in the end he was wrong, we must protect the Integrity and honor of those folks that have bravely served.. To dismiss this as something that should not be protected is an injustice....

cap
 
You can't pretend to be a cop so why is it so hard not to pretend to win the medal of honor and have a law to punish people who do it?

Just do not get it. Then waste all the money and time to have it be heard by the Supreme Court. It is not like he is on death row because of it. The man is a damn liar and got what he deserves.
 
Back
Top