Monifa Sterling’s BCD upheld
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled in the case against former Marine Corps Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling who claimed that her supervisor violated her religious rights by making her take down some Bible verses she had posted in her shared workspace.
Folks like the Becket Fund and Fox News would have you think that it’s about religious freedom, but a thorough reading of the decision would reveal otherwise. For example, she didn’t reveal to her supervisor that the passages she had on her wall were bible verses. “No weapon formed against me shall prosper” is one that most people wouldn’t recognize;
SSgt Alexander discovered the signs and ordered Appellant to remove them because “it wasn’t just her desk; it was being shared by the other junior Marine.” According to Appellant, SSgt Alexander said that she wanted the signs removed because she did not like their tone. Nothing in the record indicates that SSgt Alexander knew that the text was Biblical in origin, and the NMCCA found that Appellant never informed SSgt Alexander that the signs had either a religious genesis or any religious significance to Appellant.
There were other things at issue.
In August 2013, another of Appellant’s superiors, SSgt Morris, noticed that Appellant was not wearing the proper uniform, and he ordered her to wear “her service uniforms as directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps.” Ac-cording to SSgt Morris, Appellant refused to obey the order because Appellant said “she had a medical chit out there stating she could not wear the uniform.” SSgt Morris spoke with medical personnel at the base, who stated that Appellant could wear the required uniform, and he again ordered Appellant to change into the proper uniform. Appellant re-fused. SSgt Morris then escorted Appellant to First Sergeant (1stSgt) Robinson, who repeated the order for a third time. Appellant again refused.
On September 12, 2013, 1stSgt Robinson ordered Appel-lant to report to the Pass and Identification building on Sunday, September 15, 2013, from 4:00 PM until approxi-mately 7:30 PM, to help distribute vehicle passes to families of service members returning from deployment. According to 1stSgt Robinson, Appellant refused on the basis that “she was on medication.” On September 13, 2013, 1stSgt Robin-son informed Major (Maj) Flatley that he was having issues with Appellant.
Maj Flatley met with Appellant to “talk some sense into her, reason with her, [and] to make sure that she goes to her appointed place of duty on Sunday.” During their conversation, Maj Flatley attempted to hand the vehicle passes to Appellant. According to Maj Flatley, Appellant refused to take the passes and stated that she would not be there and would be sleeping. As a result, Maj Flatley called 1stSgt LaRochelle and directed her to begin writing a charge sheet on Appellant.
Of course, she didn’t show up to her appointed place of duty, so her leadership applied a Special Court Martial to the situation. It was during her testimony at the Special Court Martial that Sterling revealed that the phrase she’d been ordered to remove was religious in context. Removing the phrase from her shared workspace doesn’t give her a pass for all of the other crap she did.
Importantly, the NMCCA’s findings that Appellant had a “contentious” relationship with her command, “even prior” to this incident, and that, in that context, posting the words “[n]o weapon formed against me shall prosper” might be “in-terpreted as combative” are also not clearly erroneous. 2015 CCA LEXIS 65, at *19, 2015 WL 832587, at *6 (internal quotation marks omitted). Appellant herself conceded that SSgt Alexander did not like the signs’ tone, and the NMCCA found that Appellant did not tell SSgt Alexander that the signs had a religious connotation.
From the court’s dissent;
In my view, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb–2000bb-4 (2012), provides the men and women of our nation’s armed forces with the presumptive right to fully, openly, and spontaneously engage in religious exercise. This right extends to sincere religious conduct that is not specifically required by, or deemed by judges to be important to, the tenets of a servicemember’s faith. Further, servicemembers who are court-martialed for sincere religious conduct may invoke the protections afforded by RFRA even if they did not obtain the permission of the Government before engaging in that conduct, and even if they did not contemporaneously inform their chain-of-command that their actions were religious in nature.
I conclude that the majority’s disposition of the instant case is not consistent with these rights under RFRA. Moreover, I conclude that the majority’s analysis of the underlying legal issue raises the prospect that other servicemembers in the future may be subjected to conviction at court-martial for merely engaging in religious exercise that is entitled to protection under the statute. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
I don’t think that anything she did was religious at all. She was a bad Marine who listened to shit-house lawyers and she got bad advice, and a bad conduct discharge.
The Becket Fund press release hints that they may take the case to the Supreme Court, but I don’t think they have a leg to stand on.
Category: Legal
Sounds like insubordination, plain and simple. I’ve had the unfortunate privilege of dealing with insubordination, in much the same way. Good riddance.
After refusing multiple direct orders, missing duty, and lying to her superiors, seems to me that whether to quotes are religious or not is totally immaterial.
The wife is a deeply religious Christian who reads her Bible, attends church weekly, and in general is extremely literate. I sent her this quote and asked her (without cheating) to identify it – her response was that she recognized it but couldn’t remember whether it referred to a real person or a comic book character. In my book, that makes this an obscure reference.
Here it is.
Isaiah 54:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.
In reality, what the ex-Marine here quoted was a song lyric vice a Bible verse. The difference is subtle, but important.
As quoted above, Isaiah 54:17 is spoken from the Deity’s perspective, and is guidance/reassurance from the Deity to believers. What the individual here posted was different: “No weapon formed against me shall prosper.” The difference in POV/perspective is IMO subtle but significant. Further, of the multiple standard translations of the Bible, none of them use that perspective in the verse. All versions appear to speak from the Deity’s perspective.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%2054%3A17
Bottom line: Isaiah 54:17 is indeed a religious quote, and a promise of spiritual protection from the Deity. The second is not; rather, it is instead is an altered version of that quote – and due to the alteration can easily be taken as an “in your face” assertion that “you can’t hurt me”.
Had the individual in question actually been extremely religious, I suspect she would have accurately quoted the Bible. She did not. As Ex-PH2 notes below, she instead quoted a song lyric, albeit one that appears to be of a religious nature.
Isn’t it funny how much context complicates someone’s attempt to twist the Bible to their own devices?
Well, at least one good thing here…..she didn’t play the race card.
??? :poop: ? ??
That we know of…
I’d bet a month’s salary that there was existing friction between her and other Marines in the office that led to her posting the borderline-hostile quote to begin with.
It’s yardbirds like this that give religious zealotry a bad name. I agree with Hondo, this was an in your face statement of her disdain for her Marine coworkers and superiors disguised as a religious tract.
Hinging your entire case on, “He didn’t know it was religious in nature,” rather than explain it, along with all the other shitbaggery?
I’d say good luck, but she’s got about as much chance of winning that case as anything Bernath has filed in the last 5 years.
?? is what I meant.
A little help here, Lionesses… what is the feminine equivalent to “stepping on one’s dick”?
Tromping on her Clenis?
I don’t know, but she does have brass ovaries.
brass ovaries perhaps, a well formed brain? Not so much.
No, not really. Just ignorance, arrogance, and a lack of discipline and dedication to duty, along with more than a healthy dose of disloyalty. Good luck with that felony conviction, you shitbird twatwaffle.
There is no equivalent, unless you want to use ‘made an ass of herself’. There is
also ‘bitch’.
The Marines are better off without her.
Ah, come on… It’s “she got her tit caught in a wringer”!
I had a female senior NCO tell me once that the female equivalent was “walking on her tits.” 😀
She Stopped on her clit,,, now it hangs down like an elephants trunk. On the upside she can use it to pick up peanuts from the sidewalk and feed herself.
I KNEW you guys would be wells of sympathy for the young lady!
Sympathy- in the dictionary between “shit” and “syphilis.”
Or, when addressing someone from the “sensitive and easily offended” crowd: between manure and venereal disease. (smile)
I’ve known people like her. Bipolar. Freakin nuts. Breath smells funny, too.
That question brings out the very worst in all of us. I deleted all of my guesses, going to slit trench, twisting, and kicks.
Look, normally I would applaud something such as this, seeing it as a FY to the heathens and Weinsteins of the world. But this ain’t that. She’s trouble and this went much too far. Nice to see that the Marines have them, too.
“She’s trouble and this went much too far.”
Yep, and the command played games with her much longer than it should have.
Here is the Trial Counsel’s comment at sentencing:
“As you go through and deliberate upon what punishment would be appropriate, I would just ask you . . . to make it quick. [LCpl] Sterling, as she has said, is recently married. And she has also said, she is not long for the Marine Corps one way or the other. And so whatever punishment you give her, I would ask that it be a punishment that quickly brings [LCpl] Sterling’s association with her command and the Marine Corps to an end. LCpl Sterling is no longer in a position that she can be an asset to her unit … [t]aking that into account, we would ask that whatever punishment you
assign … quickly allow[s] both the Marine Corps … [and LCpl] Sterling, herself, to move on to a place where both sides can prosper.”
Sounds like she got what the Trial Counsel was asking for to me.
Yep, a felony conviction and tossed out on her ass.
Depends. If she was tried by a GCM, yes. If by BCD-SpCM, no.
BCD-SpCM is limited in sentence authority to 1 year max. Due to that fact, no BCD-SpCM conviction can be a felony. For Federal purposes, the conviction must have been for a crime with a maximum possible sentence of in excess of year, and a BCD-SpCM cannot impose such a sentence. See 18 USC 3559(a), available at
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3559
Thought otherwise myself, but one of our military lawyer readers set me straight on that point several months ago.
WM refusing orders?
Not shocked. That is common place in coed units.
I read the dissenting opinion and am interested in parsing the parts that read as follows:
This right extends to sincere religious conduct that is not specifically required by, or deemed by judges to be important to, the tenets of a servicemember’s faith. Further, servicemembers who are court-martialed for sincere religious conduct may invoke the protections afforded by RFRA even if they did not obtain the permission of the Government before engaging in that conduct, and even if they did not contemporaneously inform their chain-of-command that their actions were religious in nature.
I doubt this Marine was sincere, I say that not knowing the depth of the commitment to religion by the Marine but based on missing duty for being on “medication”…she seemed more a malingerer than a religious fanatic needing accommodation. I find the dissent very interesting in its overview of the how the restoration act should be interpreted but the word sincere is where the dissent comes apart in my humble opinion.
None of the malingering behavior was based on religious observations and she wasn’t given the BCD for hanging a sign, she was given the BCD for being a shit bag Marine who malingered instead of performing her sworn duty as directed. Consequently I believe the dissent is without merit in regards to this Marine and her performance as she made no claim her medication or medical requirements were religious based in nature and in fact her medical claims were disputed by competent medical authority…she received an outcome appropriate to her actions.
Well said.
I fail to see where religious practice was a major factor in her being shit-canned from the USMC. I do see, however, repeated instances of insubordination. She’s a shitbag and not worthy of wearing the Corps uniform.
Fortunately, for her, she’ll fit right in with her entitled millenial peers.
Yes, but equally unfortunately, if she’s this socially dysfunctional, she’ll be worse as an employee with an entitlement attitude.
Remember those interns who got themselves fired a short while back? Same thing with her.
It’s not as if recruiters at Fortune 500 companies will be beating a path to her door with a BCD hanging around her neck like an albatross.
About 20 years back Monica Lewinsky had a good shot while serving as an intern but she blew it.
On the plus side know whebever she goes out to in and the check comes she can pay it by reaching into her dress and “pulling out a wad of Bill’s”
Coffee spew,now I need another keyboard.
Good one
I’d be willing to bet that she doesn’t have that shit eating grin NOW, that she was sporting in the photo above.
She’s such a piece of crap that I’m confident that even IDC SARC wouldn’t even hit it with a long handled, saw tooth, cast iron, trenching shovel.
Not with those chompers.
I was gonna say…nice dental plan.
Those aren’t her real teeth. They’re falsies – caps, if you will. Far too perfect for that shit-eatin’ grin.
He might hit it with Bernath’s dick
See IDC SARC’s comment below – one can never underestimate what he’d hit. He’s fearless.
Discharge upgrade in …….
Shitbagget.
For anyone interested, the preliminary versions of the court’s decision and the dissenting judge’s opinion can be found here:
http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Sterling-Opinion.pdf
The CAAF decision of the appears to have been 4-1, meaning only one judge out of the five hearing the case supported the dissenting opinion.
He we have a case of, ‘part of the story’ to the press. She was quick to throw up the 1st amendment violation, but left out the other ‘bad’ things that led her to get a BCD out of the Marines. Of course the press ran with it ( I won’t point out the obvious reasons why). Now the truth comes out, and the next thing you’ll hear is she is being picked on (insert next obvious reason here).
She’s just a self-centered asshole, not much else. Definitely not a team player, does not care what happens to other people because it’s all about her.
After reading both the excerpted text and JL’s accompanying commentary, I have to ask how the freakin’ H-E-double hockey sticks she managed to get through boot without being booted?
As to her quote, which she edited to make into something more combative, it’s from Isaiah 54:17, thusly: No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
Some Christian rocker name Fred Hammond made a song out of it.
10-1 says her name will pop up in the future with a stolen valor tag attached to it.
Religion played a part only after she lost the first time around. More than anything this was about a contentious relationship between a command and a substandard individual posing as a Marine whilst doing everything she could to avoid living up to the standards they maintain.
When I was a division CPO at an “A” school, the other DIV CPO had a female Sailor just like this one.
First time I heard about her was when she refused to salute officers. Didn’t understand why she had to.
She just never got the military part of the military. Her DOR was about 5 inches thick. No joke. And this is a Seaman Recruit were talking about.
The icing on the cake was when the Gulf War broke out. I was stationed at DLI and she was a very talented Arabic linguist. As a matter of fact, she was chosen to go through Intermediate Arabic right after Basic. Almost unheard of. Well, she started going on about how the war was wrong and she didn’t agree with it, etc, etc. And it came out that she had developed a close relationship with members of the Saudi embassy in San Francisco.
Yikes!
Anyway, right after I was commissioned, our Echelon 2 Admiral came to my new command. He got an urgent call during a wardroom meeting and it turned out this Sailor was the subject. When he mentioned her name, I burst out laughing. He jacked me up. “What are you laughing at, Ensign?” The issue was whether to keep her and give her a clearance.
“Sir, I don’t know what you plan on doing, but I wouldn’t let her have the Plan of the Day.”
I never heard what happened, but she must have gotten shitcanned.
This was a Sailor who was going to be a Cryptologic Technician. She was a Snowden in waiting.
So smart. So stupid.
I’ve always wondered why they haven’t moved DLI out of Monterey.
That whole area is nothing but one big security risk.
My guess is it’s a combination of “the staff likes it there” and “we’d have to pay for a new facility”. But more the former, IMO.
There must be some very nice golf courses nearby if Higger Command likes it that much!
Oops,”HIGHER Command, I need to do a better job of proofreading before posting. An Edit button, please?
If Jonn gave the option of an edit button, we would be deprived of some pearls of wisdom from former senior All Points Logistics executives once the Night Train wore off. A slight embarrassment on our part is a small price to pay for an eternity of enlightenment from lucky sperm.
Higger,,, is that like Wigger? Except it stands for “High-ranking” vice “White”
… begins cleaning the PC monitor ….
It’s easy. Who wouldn’t want to go to school in Monterey! 😉
The dopey little SR sought out the Saudis up in San Fran. She was a real nutjob, just like the Marine.
Anyone who went there pre-COLA…. damn place ate me alive financially. Nice area, good cycling, decent ranges, but yeah, it was real pricey for an E5 with kids. Given that the BRACs always focus on the places they can get high-dollar returns from sales, I have always been shocked that DLI is still standing. Probably because if they moved it to someplace like Edwards or Goodfellow most of the instructors would suggest where they could put those teaching jobs.
Just move the DLI to Fort Irwin.
Problem solved. Hey, It’s still California, right?
That way the Arabic/Farsi/Afghan/Iraqi/whatever other raghead language speakers won’t have to be desert climate acclimated before heading out to their first assignment.
And the PT test required before graduation can be performed at Death Valley and the old adage of “Only the Strong Survive” can really mean something.
She’s like the Airman who was punished for reading his Bible instead of counting rivets on the fighter planes. He said he could understand his punishment had he been reading a girlie magazine; but, he claimed he should get a pass because it was sacred scripture. He was soon outside the gate wondering why.
8th Comm Bn. That explains a lot.
8Th crime battalion. ?
The motto for the Comm Bns is “Tap, Rack, Bang!”
8th Communications Bn 2nd FSSG? Use to be in French Creek back in the late 70’s.
I don’t get why so many people think “No weapon formed against me shall prosper” is an overly combative quote. Religiosity aside, it seems like a fitting slogan for someone in the Armed Forces.
That said, she was kicked out for being a shitty Marine, and her play of the victim card is absurdly idiotic. Good riddance.
No weapon formed against you shall prosper,
And every tongue which rises against you in judgment
You shall condemn.
This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
And their righteousness is from Me,”
Says the Lord
She altered the wording, so who knows how she presented it. Lacking context I assume those who found it combative knew her to be that sort of asshole.
Fair point.
Was her name supposed to be Monica? Looking at my keyboard, I think she might be a typo.
The Christian name is correct.
It’s the shortened version of mortiferous – the bringer of spiritual death.
My former unit was having a Class A uniform inspection. For the females, they were required to wear a skirt vs pants. Two females in my section decided that wearing a skirt was sexism and refused to wear them.
I gave both of them one day to present themselves in the proper uniform or I would recommend to the Commander that charges should be brought against these two women.
They showed up in the proper uniform the next day.
I may be off in this since it’s been awhile since I’ve read the AR, but it is my understanding that the skirt vs pants is the servicemembers choice and that command CANT dictate which one is worn. Sounds like an illegal order to me, provided I’m remembering the AR correctly
Really? I’ve never heard that before. This occurred back in the late 1980’s.
Does that mean our new transgender soldiers can also choose between a skirt or pants?
???
Her smile, in that pic, makes my face hurt.
Ignorant bitch.
I guess you couldn’t really use Cocksucker, given her grille.
owie! A double decker pecker wrecker!
Black & Decker Pecker Wrecker?
Technically she is a cocksucker, however, due to the circumstances I have waived the cocksucker name calling and decided on the appropriate “Ignorant Bitch” name calling.
I would not wish those chompers on my worst enemy.
I wonder if she’ll throw the Race Card anytime soon?
I’m sure she’s shuffling the deck right now..
If I’d been on that bench presiding over this scrunt’s sentencing, I’d have looked real hard at trying to find any and all reasons to impose as much jail time as possible, after hearing that “let bygones be bygones” bullshit from her lawyer.
Had to be admin. Enjoy your GI Bill. LOL Oh, wait, maybe not. Thank you for your service?
My understanding of getting a BCD is that there are no benefits. She was court martialed and that is the equivalent of a felony conviction.
Um, not necessarily. See comment below.
Does anybody know if 1STG Moerk is gonna be dropping by to bitch us out for this one? lol
I’d hit it.
With those teeth? Man, you do like living dangerously!
It would cost a fortune to put gold grillz on those chompers too!
it’s all in her technique, not in her dental work. I’ll refrain from further explanation out of respect for your tender sensibilities.
“. . . tender sensibilities”???
Fella, I think you just stepped in it there. (smile)
be that as it may, this former Marine was a problem child way before the Marines. I’ve witnessed actions and attitudes such as hers a sufficient number of times in employee’s. Had she been working for me, her ass would have been fired immediately with not a chance at drawing UI….
John, you should have gone with the picture of her wearing purple nail polish in utilities uniform. That picture, right there, tells you all you need to know about what kind of Marine she was.
http://i.imgur.com/B8yrxdU.jpg
Anyone but me think BLM will soon have a new member?
“… would ask that whatever punishment you assign … quickly allow[s] both the Marine Corps … [and LCpl] Sterling, herself, to move on to a place where both sides can prosper.” Yeah, I’m thinking with a BCD there may not be much financial prosperity in her future that comes as the result of meaningful employment.
Re the religion angle, I don’t believe this had much to do with religion. This was, IMO, an attempt at ‘in your face’ passive aggressive/entitlement behavior. I can’t begin to understand what she hoped to gain from such behavior. What point was she trying to make? Did she believe she could prevail in a head-to-head conflict with the Marines?
Know what? She is the type who, if stopped for a traffic offense, would give the LEO Holy hell. She would demand a supervisor, and possibly a supervisor of color. You know, someone who understands why she ran a stop sign b/c they can relate to her years of oppression or whatever.
She got what she deserved. Maybe less than she deserved. She will be hounding the BCNR for an update, guaranteed. THAT will be when the race card is dealt. I see her trying to enlist the assistance of the ‘Reverend’ Al or similar buttwipe who is well versed with the race card. I’m hoping the BCNR does not roll over and give her an upgrade. She is a waste of space.
What does BLM have to do with this? But it looks like you don’t understand.
Airdale: Actually I do understand. It was sarcasm, so perhaps you missed the intent and you didn’t understand. Perhaps you now do understand? Hoping so. Sarcasm …
The “weapon” formed against her was a Court Martial.
Boy howdy did it prosper.
Buckwheat and Monifa. Twins separated at birth.
Where did you get the video of her court martial testimony.
Both of you HOly Fucking shit.
OW!!! OW!!!
Grown men should not cry,
I can’t even fucking breathe.
…
A Barracks Lawyer that represents herself has a dumbs for a client.
She actually defended herself in that court martial. She found out too late that the teflon on her cameos wore off.
We called them Sea Lawyers in the Navy. Typically E2 – E4 with less than a year in service who knew everything about the UCMJ and every right a sailor had. BTW, they knew everything about rights but often little about responsibility. I can’t recall knowing a Sea Lawyer who was otherwise a squared away Sailor. They would advise what orders could be ignored, among other stellar advice. So we had the very junior Sailor advising other very junior Sailors about what they could get away with.
I’d bet they carried tear-off tablets of report chits in a back pocket and handed them out like candy, didn’t they?
Yep, that is why the brig is chock full of Marines and Sailors smarter than the Corps and Navy.
The Marines did the right thing in DX’ing her. Good riddance.
Not like she does not have a future. There is always the advertising gig for equestrian tooth paste..particularly for certain stallions.
“I’m sorry lady I don’t know how to pronounce your baby’s name you made up.”
Still say the record holder was a Houston lady who went with “Ta-a” – wtf? Taya? Tah-ah? Turned out to be Tadasha… true story.
I know I am going against the grain here, but I think the court got it wrong and the dissent got it right. The majority opinion creates and then invokes a standard that is not part of the law when it says that a person must prove that the act is a sincerely held religious belief. That’s backwards and is akin to saying “you have the right to own a weapon if you can prove you need it.” The right exists with the individual and it is up to the government to prove that is has a compelling interest to restrict that right. Secondly, it does not matter that the no one could recognize the verse. I doubt that many people could recognize passages from the Talmud, the Shruti, the Tripiṭaka, etc. That the text was not recognized by the supervisor is not the fault of the individual. Furthermore, the RFRA does not require the person tell anyone at the time of the incident but allows the claim that the text was religious in nature to be made at the trial for the first time. Once again, the majority changed the law and that is always troubling to me. Being that the lower court (the Court martial) used standards that are not part of the law, the case should have been sent back to the lower court as the dissent says. Sending it back does not mean that she would have gotten a different verdict. It does not mean that Sterling would have been able to keep the verses up as that may be an accommodation that is deemed unreasonable. Given that the cubical was not hers alone I am not sure taht I would see the verses being kept up all the time as a reasonable accommodation. It only means that the reasoning the court used to convict her of this one part of the charges was faulty. The rest of the case against her, the disrespect, the uniform violation and the failure to report are all reasons to do whatever the Marines wanted to do with her, including… Read more »
Even the dissenting opinion uses the phrase “sincere religious conduct”. As I said previously we lack the context of knowing the young woman and have no idea about sincerity of her religious conduct. Based on her malingering I suspect her religious practices were about as sincere as mine are which is not at all sincere as I’m a heathen without a god.
Consequently I would be thinking even under the dissenting opinion some level of sincerity was required to make this case. But that’s just me and my opinion could easily be far off the reservation. Thanks for making me consider the dissent, it’s always interesting to review dissenting opinions and thought processes.
VOV,
I am not saying that the belief must be anything other that “sincerely held.” I don’t want people hiding behind religious beliefs in order to be jerks or use religion as an excuse.
All I am saying is that the dissent notes that the trial court got the RFRA part of the case wrong. The majority says the logic used by the lower court was wrong as well, but they felt they did not have to address it and instead went with the other events Shelton caused and whether the order to remove the verses was legal. Those events and issues are numerous and in my opinion, Shelton should be gone from the Marines.
But as the majority and the dissent says the lower court got the thinking and logic on the RFRA part of the case wrong, it should go back.
Personally, I don’t believe that the command to remove the verses or shield them from other people coming into the area was a substantial burden on Shelton’s beliefs. She testified that she put them up to encourage her and if that is the case, then there is no need for the rest of the world to see them or not to remove them when she is not in the cubicle.
My main concern is that the Appeals Court shifted the burden from the government to at least offer evidence that the belief was not sincerely held to the plaintiff to prove the belief was sincerely held.
The majority in this case didn’t create anything, gitarcarver – the requirement for a religious belief to be sincere has been in use for at least 50 years by Federal courts when evaluating conflict between military duties and religious beliefs, and probably far longer than that. See US v. Seeger (1965) for an example.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/163/case.html
The court did create something, Hondo – the requirement that the person asserting the belief must prove that it is sincere. If the person states that it is their belief, the government must then prove or show it is not.
The government never offered any evidence that her belief was sincerely held. Even the appeals court never addresses the issue other than to say courts don’t have to take a person’s word as proof. Yet the government never addressed her claims.
For an RFRA claim to be dismissed, it must first be evaluated. Both the majority and the dissent agree that it was not. The majority says that is okay. The dissent says it is not.
I am not objecting to the idea that the belief must be sincerely held. The objection is that the government and the court flipped the burden of proof on determining whether that belief is sincere.
Negative. See Holt v. Hobbs, 2015, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 2007. Though brought under auspices of a different part of federal law, those cases clearly state that in such a case it is the responsibility of the challenging party to demonstrate that their religious belief is “sincere” via a preponderance of evidence as well as to explain how government action has violated their religious beliefs. The government must then either accommodate the individual or show that the government action chosen was the least restrictive method available for furthering a compelling government interest. The other case I cited (US v. Seeger, 1965) says much the same with respect to conscientious objectors. That case traces history of such religious exemptions and the Congressional intent for same back to at least 1940.
In short, that’s a longstanding principle in Federal case law. If you’re going to claim “the government violated my religion”, it’s on YOU to demonstrate – via the preponderance of evidence – (1) that your belief is “sincere”, then (2) to specify how the government’s action has violated your belief.
Requiring that much is merely common sense. That much at a minimum is necessary to provide a chance of preventing unethical persons from using false religious claims (1) as grounds to avoid prosecution for bona fide crimes or (2) as the basis of an attempt to defraud others through bogus claims of religious discrimination. Requiring claimants to demonstrate via preponderance of evidence an apparent sincerity of belief as well as to articulate how some action has violated those sincere beliefs is the minimum necessary to do that, and even that is not always IMO sufficient. Anything less would not be sufficient.
In short, the CAAF did not “create” anything here. They simply applied longstanding applicable precedent from multiple earlier cases involving similar Federal law.
Sorry, but the cases you cite actually prove the point. In both cases the appellants stated that they had a particular belief (Hobby Lobby presented a more detailed explanation to those beliefs but neither had to prove those beliefs were sincerely held.)
In fact, the Hobby Lobby case cites another case which exactly proves my point – that a claim of a sincerely held belief must be challenged in order to not be taken to be insincere. To do otherwise means the people would have to prove their beliefs which as I said is akin to saying a person must prove the need for a weapon under the Second Amendment.
The right to hold beliefs rest with the individual. Period. If the government does not believe the beliefs are sincerely held, they have to prove it.
I am not disagreeing that the defendant must state and prove how the actions of the government impeded their ability to practice their belief. That’s part two of the “test.”
In short, who is the government to contradict a statement of “this is what I believe” absent of any evidence to the contrary?
You draw a totally incorrect conclusion. The court martial was for multiple counts of disobedience of both lawful and direct orders, along with a few other things that have nothing to do with religion. She got shitcanned for being a dirtbag. And an incorrect “bible verse” which in its bastardization is no longer scripture, in a common area does not even fit the law in question.
I never claimed that the court martial was for the RFRA dispute alone.
Please reread the post.
I agree that this is a troubling ruling.
I suspect that, despite how wrong they were on the religious issue, they felt the pattern of disobedience was sufficient to uphold the BCD.
In my mind she should have been given an other than honorable. I think there was is evidence she is dealing with a mental health or personality disorder.
Perhaps she was just self-identifying as a fucking arrogant bitch?
I know, I know, the 1stSGT and Major were big meanies to her and should have been sensitive to her needs.
Maybe she needed a safe space.
I suspect that, despite how wrong they were on the religious issue, they felt the pattern of disobedience was sufficient to uphold the BCD.
I would agree with that and have said nothing to the contrary on that point.
It is just that the court(s) flipped the burden of proof of a sincerely held religious belief and that is troubling.
Somebody might want to correct the record at Townhall.com…they’re making this out to be a case of religious persecution without mentioning the shitbaggery of this individual.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/08/12/former-marine-loses-appeal-for-her-right-to-display-a-bible-verse-n2203844
Somebody there lit them up and posted details.
They must have read your post. LOL!!
I had a case at EOD School. We had an E-2 report onboard as staff support. She had just come off her post boot camp leave. She was already pregnant & unsure who the sperm donor was.
At that time the Navy had a policy for single parents or husband/wife both in the service that paperwork had to be filled out naming a care provider (preferably a family member) in case of deployment.
Yeah, we were all on shore duty, but big Navy didn’t specify anything about that. Policy was a cover all the bases type thingamajig.
The E-2 was assigned to my department & working in supply. We had a female Warrant Officer in charge of admin who normally took care of the paperwork. I get a call from the WO wanting to speak with me about the E-2.
The gal refused to fill out the paperwork. Now here we are the three of us in my office. I try the tactic of talking to her in little words & phrases. You are not going to deploy. You are on a shore assignment. This is just required paperwork. The Secretary of the Navy requires it. If you refuse to fill out the forms then you will be let go at the convenience of the government. Do you want out of the Navy? She replied that she wanted to stay in the Navy.
I asked her why she refused to fill out the paperwork. Her response at first floored me, then I had to bite my tongue & lip to not laugh out loud. Her interpretation of the form was that the Navy was going to take away her child when it was born.
Short ending. She declined, her mother advised her the Navy was going to “steal her child when born.” Yeah, she got the boot…….before the child was born.
Sad part: she was a hard worker.
Just one question, because those teeth are intimidating: how in the blue-eyed, gopher-burrowed world did this self-involved cow make it through Marine Corps recruit training?
She had a noble desire to join the USMC for whatever reason. Possibly for the educational opportunity after discharge. Then she went to hell in a handbasket. Again I ask what possesses these people to act out and in effect ruin their lives? She’s what … early 20s? She has a BCD which will seriously restrict or eliminate opportunities. Maybe a ‘career’ in the fast food industry awaits her. She will probably be all over the BCNR and her congresscritter to get an upgrade. Here’s hoping she doesn’t get it. How did she think she would prevail after repeatedly refusing to obey orders from those senior to her? I really DO. NOT. UNDERSTAND. And she represented herself at trial? Stupid has been redefined.
I don’t know exactly what drove her to join the Marines but I dont think nobilty had a damn thing to do with it. From what I gather from reading through her history she was fairly inteligent. She also gives me the impression that she was raised up thinking she could game the system. It might have worked for her in high school or whatever endeavors she had before that figured it was easier to just give in to her and let her have her way. She thought she was special and entitled. She was smart enough to keep her mouth shut during recruit training. Once she got a little lee-way she decided to test the boundaries and got her ass handed to her.
Wild guess here. She was successful at “gaming the profile”, and/or gaming superiors, in boot camp. She then ran into folks who wouldn’t follow her script, she escalated, and she got the boot. When I attended OSUT, there was a person in my platoon that milked profiles like a dairy cow. He also seemed to have a mental defect where the only things that registered were the ones that supported his mental world. Day one, he started having trouble with a back injury he had supposedly discussed with the MEPS doctor who gave various slaker instructions. If he had a “no pushups” PT profile from the medics for an allegedly sprained wrist, he would refuse to run “because I have a PT profile”. If he had an appointment with a shrink at 1000, he somehow interpreted it as to include a trip to the Infantry Museum and various snack bars and shops, and rolled back in around 1900. When training to throw dummy grenades at a trash can 25m away, he sunk one. The Drill Sargent had said “If you can hit that can, you will qualify expert.” He missed grenade qualification due to “profile”, but insisted he had earned an expert badge, “because he said I qualified expert”. On and on. He was finally dropped about a week before graduation. We caught him packing up a whole shaving kit of “soldier bling” he had bought during various “appointments” that had him wandering all over Ft Benning. He howled that he had earned all of it, for various and sundry reasons. “Someone” stuffed all the bling in the amnesty box. All his uniforms mysteriously turned up the next day in a dryer. He must have forgotten them. Out of concern he would fall down the steps or some other event to stop the outprocessing, or tyhat he might accidently “find” more unearned bling, several of the larger (or nasty tempered) people in my platoon sat “with” him until he was handed over to the Corporal who drove him to his final departure. The subject of the above article may have… Read more »
Quite possible. Kept her mouth shut until she didn’t and then found herself in a jackpot with no escape hatch. I still feel she may have joined with good intentions. Maybe she genuinely wanted to leave her douchebag life behind and start anew. Once through boot, though, her old habits returned. Character disorder/borderline personality/batshit crazy? Who knows. What we do know is she is in her early 20s and probably has a life of disappointment before her. Know what? She earned everything she got from the Marines and she earned her life of misery, if that is what it turns out to be. There should be a code for ‘too damn stupid to adapt’.
There was one recruit vaguely like this in my RTC(W) company in 1967. The boot pushers were a lot meaner back then, but this bimbo was from Canada on some kind of exchange program, so if she was a bit scroungy, no one said anything to her. Shoes not polished – pass. Tie sloppy – pass. I don’t know what happened to her when she got sent off to her next destination, but you’re right – she milked the differences, except that she wasn’t nearly this bad.