Posted on 04/16/2024 9:24:06 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Supreme Court released opinions on Tuesday in two cases argued earlier this term, rendering favorable rulings for a veteran plaintiff seeking educational benefits and a Texas landowner in a takings dispute.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the first opinion of the day, a 7-2 decision that sided with veteran James Rudisill in his effort to take advantage of education benefits available under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Rudisill served in the Army on three separate occasions between 2000 and 2011.
The majority decision in Rudisill v. McDonough reversed a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which has jurisdiction over veterans’ claims.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who was back at the high court on Tuesday after an unexplained absence on Monday, dissented along with Justice Samuel Alito. Thomas argued the high court’s approach “conflicts with the statute’s plain text.”
Next, Thomas wrote a majority opinion in Devillier v. Texas, a unanimous decision that held a plaintiff landowner in Texas and other property owners whose land was flooded by the state’s action to prevent flooding on the highway could pursue their claims under the Constitution’s takings clause through a cause of action under Texas law.
I’m sympathetic toward the vet but the law should be enforced as it is plainly written.
These types of laws can be rewritten and then passed by the legislatures/Congress.
I am a Vietnam Era GI Bill veteran. I also stayed in for 22 years, putting me well into the Montgomery GI bill era. The Vietnam Era bill was MUCH more generous. Obviously, I used my Vietnam Era bill benefits.
Every time they rewrite a new GI bill, it has less and less provision in it.
The military has Active Duty tuition assistance, sometimes paying up to 90% tuition. That is a good benefit to use while keeping your GI Bill benefits for later.
I was one who could have use the Montgomery GI bill, but there were so many hoops to jump thru that in the end I could never get the VA to approve it for me to use. The same thing is happening now disability benefits. Trust me, you don’t want to get me started on that.
I really do feel for you guys. I joined in 1977 and was given entre to the Veterans Educational Assistance Program, which messed over thousands of veterans out of any education benefits at all.
I used VEAP. While on terminal leave, drove to Chanute AFB, walked into AFAC and made a $10,000 deposit into my VEAP account.
But VEAP was pretty dismal compared to GI Bill and Montgomery GI Bill, etc.
The highest level of VEAP donations was $2700. I am curious how you put $10,000 into it?
Hmmm...
Property rights decision today may have some bearing on the government imposed tragedy by breaching Irongate and Copco hydroelectric dams.
“Next, Thomas wrote a majority opinion in Devillier v. Texas, a unanimous decision that held a plaintiff landowner in Texas and other property owners whose land was flooded by the state’s action to prevent flooding on the highway could pursue their claims under the Constitution’s takings clause through a cause of action under Texas law.”
Yes, I thought so. I was lucky and got in under the old GI Bill in 1975
I definitely used it.
Okay, you got me thinking. Long time ago.
YOU are correct!
I ended up maxing out VEAP ($2700) and took the remaining money and put in a 2-year CD and had a total of $10,000 for college. I remember doing the CD thinking that interest rates were pretty good.
In 2000 they gave your commander say in whether you got Montgomery GI Bill benefits or not.
And if your Capt was a POS, well you didn’t get it. (NY Army National Guard)
2012, you weren’t given the option in actuality to use Montgomery GI Bill even if you were technically eligible to be under it due to prior service, they automatically put you under the post 9/11 rewrite. (Again, NY Army National Guard)
Was any of the above the correct action, no but that doesn’t matter it’s what happened.
Sick part, recruitment still talks about the Montgomery GI Bill despite it being supplanted and replaced by the post 9/11 bill.
Ah, VEAP. I remember it well, and yes, many veterans, myself included, got screwed.
That would explain a lot. I was active duty Air Force, but the last commander I had WAS a total douche. I was also laid up several months because of a bad car accident, and they wouldn’t extend my delimitating date (I think that’s what you call it). Yep, the military definitely looks after it’s own.
Was any of the above the correct action, no but that doesn’t matter it’s what happened.
Looks like the Supremes have rectified this. It matters today.
Mist important take-away from this article is that Clarence Thomas was back at work...
We don’ need no steenkin’ “satute’s plain text”,
seven ‘Justices’ FELT in their ruling.
statute’s
Well, rectified until brass decides that they have this wiggle room because x or y isn’t defined narrowly or this phrase is/isn’t in there etc.
But it IS something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.