Before Justices, First Amendment and Aid to Terrorists

I believe I warned you here that this was gonna be a can of worms for the SCOTUS.

WASHINGTON — The line between speech protected by the First Amendment and aid to terrorists appeared elusive at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and the justices’ lively questioning complicated rather than clarified matters. They discussed travel to Cuba, the Communist and Nazi Parties, Tokyo Rose, treason and whether it is a crime to teach a terrorist how to play the harmonica.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan defended the law at issue in the case, which bars providing material support to terrorist organizations, as “a vital weapon in this nation’s continuing struggle against international terrorism.”

[snkp]

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at least one part of the law, banning expert advice, seemed vague to him. “I don’t know sitting down that I could tell,” he said, whether advice about peaceful advocacy was covered.

[snip]

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that the law might sweep too broadly by making, say, harmonica instruction a crime because it involves specialized training.

...
Note: Headline links to source. Clicking on image will enlarge it (usually).

ACLU Filed Brief With SCOTUS On Behalf Of Carter Center And Other Organizations Supporting Challenge To Vague "Material Support" Law

The devil is always in the details. This is a fine example of why attorneys and not we simple folk should be writing law. We may use words which seem to mean what we all agree they do, but in reality are far too broad and encompass things we didn't anticipate.

A bad law is a bad law and this one qualifies.

This is also an excellent example of why we all need the ACLU.

"Our work to end violence sometimes requires interacting directly with groups that have engaged in it. Unfortunately, efforts like ours, and those of the many other human rights groups who signed onto this brief, are hindered by the extremely vague 'material support' law that leaves us guessing whether our work to encourage peace could actually be considered illegal. Sadly, the law being challenged in court – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens the work of humanitarian groups that share the same goal. We hope the Supreme Court will overturn this law so that groups like ours can continue the important work of advancing peace and freedom without concern of prosecution."

Even in war, medics 'help' injured enemy. That's 'material support'. Do we hang 'em?

...
Note: Headline links to source.

BITCHSLAP!

Best parade float...EVAH.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Interesting ruling and long overdue, but I just wanted to show the fucking float again.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices in the majority.

Note: Headline links to source.

Black Lawyers Rare at Supreme Court

Thurgood Marshal
Wrong on multiple levels. If nothing else, the SCOTUS should be available to all.

Coming soon to the Supreme Court: a rare appearance by a black lawyer. More than a year has passed since a black lawyer in private practice stood at the lectern in the elegant courtroom and spoke the traditional opening line, "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court."

Jesus H Christ in Speedos®, but I seem to be on a soapbox lately. Ain't it fucking great? Having a blog is so empowering.

Via SC now.

Must read IMHO

This is one to watch. Perhaps we can get the wheels back on this wagon.

Today the Petitioners in the Al Odah case submitted their brief to the Supreme Court. At issue in the case is whether detainees at Guantanamo Bay have constitutionally protected rights to habeas corpus and due process. In February, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the elimination of habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees under the Military Commissions Act did not violate the Suspension Clause of the Constitution because that clause does not apply to aliens held outside of U.S. sovereign territory.

The Supreme Court originally refused to hear the case, but in a highly unusual move, it later reversed itself and granted cert. The case, which seems likely to produce a historically significant opinion one way or the other, is scheduled for oral argument in December.

via The Anonymous Liberal.

Aren't there certain requirments to be POTUS?

OK, Bush has no respect for the Constitution nor Bill of Rights, the SCOTUS or Congress and he certainly has demonstrated he has no respect for the law. Case in point.

President Bush recently phoned in encouragement to an anti-abortion rally on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court, saying the cause "cannot fail."

Last I checked, we had a separation of powers in this nation. Roe vs. Wade is a 34-yr-old Supreme Court decision upholding the establishment clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to privacy. [link in original]

(via rangeragainstwar)