I don't know if she would.
Hilarious that you can "absolutely" tell us how the SC would rule on a case when it supports your argument but you give non-answers like this when you know the real answer doesn't help you at all.
They're two complete different things. In the first, I'm speculating that a court which just ruled that states and states alone have the right to decide what constitutes a legal marriage within that state would likely follow the same logic in a future case and rule that each state can decide whether to allow or disallow same sex marriages. Cause one follows from the other.
In the second, you're demanding that I must guess whether or not someone would make a distinction based on a set of criteria that isn't relevant to the point at hand. The point at hand is that she intentionally contrasted her loss of legs to someone's sprained ankle. Whether she would make the same comparison if the ankle had been sprained while serving in the military is something I can't say for sure. But if you want me to speculate I'd suggest that she absolutely would do so. You don't think that someone who lost two legs and partial use of an arm in combat might take issue with someone who got a sprained ankle while taking a shower, but since that person happened to be on active duty, it qualifies for the same VA benefits?
I think she would. I think most veterans would. It's the same as taking issue with someone who got treated for a splinter, but since it happened in a war zone, he got a purple heart for it. But that never happens, right?
You know if she would. You just don't want to say it.
No. I honestly don't care. My point was about the impact of her statement about her legs. She was playing up her injuries in relation to those being claimed by someone else. And I think that's a cheap shot.
You claimed she was essentially saying "anyone who doesn't have their limbs missing shouldn't get any benefits".
If we are to take her statement at face value, then yes, that's what she's saying. Her statement only has weight *if* the severity of the injuries are relevant to the issue at hand. But it's not. It's when/how/where the injury was sustained that matters. So why make the statement?
Her statement isn't intended to be taken at face value. It's intended to garner audience response. Hell. It's why this thread exists in the first place, right? That was my point.