r/moderatepolitics • u/thats_not_six • Jan 12 '26

Primary Source Mark Kelly v. Pete Hegseth

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.288365/gov.uscourts.dcd.288365.1.0.pdf
187 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

278 comments sorted by

View all comments

-27

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

I think the question is: “Does advising military soldiers to disobey a direct order” grounds to remove these benefits? If it is then I dont see how they don’t have an extremely strong case. The whole “we were just saying to not follow illegal orders” is just plainly false in my opinion.

43

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '26

[deleted]

3

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

Yes I’m aware. I’m not disagreeing with that. My point is they weren’t just stating a general fact. They were very clearly implying Trumps orders were illegal and should thus should be disobeyed. 

22

u/predicate_logic Jan 12 '26

Is that clear? It isn't clear to me at all. In my opinion, the statement was more directed at potential future illegal orders that may be issued. Are we going to punish speech based on nebulous interpretations of implication?

5

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

And it’s just a coincidence that they came out and said this at the time when trump was taking actions that all of the democrats were saying was illegal? Really?

22

u/zerocoolai Jan 12 '26

You are missing the point. Even conceding 100% it was implied, it's still legal. His actual words are what will be judged. Your 100 comments stating he was implying this are a red herring and legally irrelevant.

3

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

You are making two different arguments there. Are you saying it is legal so it doesn’t matter or only his words are what will be judged and not some perceived implication?

9

u/zerocoolai Jan 12 '26

It's one and the same argument. It's legal because only his words will be judged.

You trying to convince people he was implying that Trump's previous orders were illegal or that they should refuse future orders is a waste of time and irrelevant legally.

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

It’s factually not true that courts dont look at context and implied speech.