Supreme Court Declines to Hear Monifa Sterling Appeal

Disgraced former Marine LCpl Monifa Sterling’s appeal to the US Supreme Court has been denied.

After being court-martialed on an array of specifications, Sterling had teamed with the First Liberty Institute to appeal a charge related to her posting of Bible verses at her desk. The US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces had denied her appeal — with a dissent.  Her appeal to the Supreme Court was the final step.

Michael “Mikey” Weinstein was giddy, awkwardly managing to claim this constituted a win for “religious freedom.”

Even more awkwardly, Weinstein was taken to task by his own supporters for announcing that the denial of cert by the Supreme Court had been “unanimous.” The truth is that no one knows how the individual justices decided on that request for cert. Weinstein was so intent on making a sensational, dramatic, adjective-filled claim that he, yet again, said something that wasn’t true — and this time even ardent supporters called him out on it, saying it was “irresponsible” as a lawyer to make that claim.

Stung, Weinstein quietly revised the MRFF release, and his critical supporters hid their statements, as well.

They’ll forgive Weinstein that transgression and continue to support him. If they stood back with some intellectual integrity, however, they might begin to wonder how they could trust a man who so easily — and so repeatedly — stretches or outright contradicts the truth. Worse yet, even with the poor reputation of Mikey Weinstein’s integrity, he still calls on people to ‘trust him’ when he makes other, similar-sounding sensational claims.

Sterling’s case is done. Her supporters are concerned for the precedent it could set in the military’s ability to judge the relative worth of religious tenets. How that may play out in the future remains to be seen.

As for Weinstein, it remains to be seen how many times he can lie before even his supporters start to realize he is consistently untrustworthy — and then begin to treat him with skepticism rather than “faith.”

Also at Military.com and now at OneNewsNow.

ADVERTISEMENT



5 comments

  • Anonymous Patriot

    Boy are these idiots lucky I am not the President….

  • Steven Schwartz

    From the CAAF ruling:

    “As the NMCCA concluded, Appellant did not inform the person who ordered her to remove the signs that theyhad had any religious significance to Appellant, the words in context could easily be seen as combative in tone, and the record reflects that their religious connotation was neither revealed nor raised until mid-trial.”

    “Appellant [Sterling] has nonetheless failed to identify the sincerely held religious belief that made placing the signs important to her exercise of religion or how the removal of the signs substantially burdened her exercise of religion in some other way. We decline Appellant’s invitation to conclude that any interference at all with a religiously motivated action constitutes a substantial burden, particularly where the claimant did not bother to either inform the government that the action was religious or seek an available accommodation.”

    In other words, she didn’t make a “religious liberty” claim until midway through her trial, after disobeying orders. Is this “religious liberty”?

    How many times will you misrepresent things before people decide you’re not worthy of their trust?

    • @Steven Schwartz
      Your insightful and compelling argument has convinced everyone here to reverse their positions and agree with you. Or not.

      First, you cite two quotes but say almost nothing about them. Your vague statement/question was the subject of discussion on this topic months ago. You might consider a little pre-reading next time. In case you are unaware of how to do this, search “sterling” or click on the tags on this post to get a list of prior posts.

      Second, you claim something is misrepresented without describing what or how anything is misrepresented. Feeling grumpy today?

    • Freedom Fighter

      @Steven Schwartz
      I invite your attention to the EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. case. Please show me where, in the Supreme Court’s decision, religious liberty claimants are required to provide advanced notice and “trigger warnings.”

      Moreover, your theory that she didn’t make a religious liberty claim is belied by the record of trial. Sterling testified that she protested the removal order on the grounds that she was being “targeted for [her] religion.” But don’t take my word, or Sterling’s word for it. The military court itself said as much in its decision, which distinguished displaying a Bible verse from a “patently religious” act “such as the wearing of a hijab.” In other words, if you do something *everyone knows* is religious, then we agree it’s religious exercise. But if we’re so religiously and/or biblically illiterate that we can’t distinguish the Old Testament from Brave New World, then you’re out of luck, kid.

  • JD, Mr. Schwartz is an internet troll. His responses on this blog are never going to change unless his heart does. This is why I told him in the past to either repent of his liberalism and hatred of God or continue to be just another liberal who makes no sense. May God have mercy on this impenitent man, that he will be saved, and not forsaken on the day of judgment.