Let's talk about Hegseth vs Senator Kelly: Court edition.... - Belle of the Ranch

[TexasTowelie]

Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about Hegseth versus Senator Kelly, court edition.

If you remember, a while back, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona along with other veterans and former intelligence professionals put out a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders. The video itself was incredibly tame and mirrored training troops routinely receive. That didn't stop the Trump administration from taking the video very personally.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon was initiating retirement grade determination proceedings and that a letter of censure was being issued over the video. Senator Kelly sued back in January. In February, a federal judge blocked the Pentagon from proceeding with their punishments because while yes, troops lose a lot of their First Amendment rights while you're in, that restriction is there to preserve the chain of command and good order. When you leave those restrictions are gone. No court has ever held that the restrictions on speech that troops give up during active duty extended to retirement. If they did, pretty much all of Hegseth 's Fox career would have been against Regs.

Even though a federal judge blocked the Pentagon and made it clear this was ridiculous and an assault on Kelly, veterans, and the Constitution, the Trump administration didn't care and appealed. It really doesn't seem like it went any better at the Appeals Court and at times it almost seemed like the judges were mocking the Trump administration's position. At one point, Judge Florence Pan said, "You're saying that if he wants to speak freely, he should discharge himself, which means giving up his retirement pay, giving up his rank, giving up all of those things, that that is the price that our military retirees and veterans should pay if they want to speak freely?”

When Trump and Hegseth 's position is simply stated as a basic question, the absurdity of it just echoes. I wonder if this applies to other basic rights that are sacrificed during military service. Do veterans lose their Fourth Amendment rights forever, too?

Ben Mizer, who is a lawyer for Kelly, made the case that Trump's move was “textbook retaliation against disfavored speech.” Mizer said things like, The senator did not counsel disobedience of lawful orders. He simply recited the bedrock proposition of military law that every service member learns when they enter the military, which is that service members can refuse illegal orders. Must must refuse illegal orders.”

While I'm sure it was necessary for Kelly's attorney to make that case, for protocol's sake, I don't think the judges really needed to hear that Senator Kelly is allowed to say what he said. They seemed way too hung up on just the general concept of how the administration still believes it has authority over Kelly's speech.

At one point, a judge asked if the loss of rights started the second somebody opened a draft letter. At time of recording, the ruling isn't out yet, but I feel like the Pentagon isn't going to be punishing Senator Kelly anytime soon.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.