The TexasFred Blog
News Opinion Commentary
This is The Header

High court upholds anti-terror law

June 21st, 2010 . by TexasFred
High court upholds anti-terror law

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups.

The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

Material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.

“Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” Roberts said.

Full Story Here:
High court upholds anti-terror law

Wow, this is sure to piss off The Obamessiah, what with there being no “Global War on Terror” and all.

The Obama administration appears to be backing away from the phrase “global war on terror,” a signature rhetorical legacy of its predecessor.

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review noted that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ “ SOURCE

The terrorists BFF can’t be happy at all with the SCOTUS upholding an Anti-Terror law.

Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud in the courtroom. Breyer said he rejects the majority’s conclusion “that the Constitution permits the government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally” for providing instruction and advice about the terror groups’ lawful political objectives. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.

Look at the dissenting votes and realize this, if Obama gets another Justice appointed to the SCOTUS, it will be a libber that is at least as liberal as the ones listed here, possibly more so.

Elena Kagan is not the handmaiden of justice, but is, in MY opinion, the hand picked sycophant of the Narcissist in chief.

The humanitarian groups, including the Humanitarian Law Project; Ralph Fertig, a civil rights lawyer; and Dr. Nagalingam Jeyalingam, a physician, want to offer assistance to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka.

The government says the Kurdish rebel group, known as the PKK, has been involved in a violent insurgency that has claimed 22,000 lives. The Tamil Tigers waged a civil war for more than 30 years before their defeat last year.

Humanitarian groups.. UhHuh… Sure they are…

In his dissent, Breyer recognized the importance of denying money and other resources to terror groups. “I do not dispute the importance of this interest,” he said. “But I do dispute whether the interest can justify the statute’s criminal prohibition.”

Breyer said the aid groups’ mission is entirely peaceful and consists only of political speech, including how to petition the U.N.

“Not even the ‘serious and deadly problem’ of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights,” he said.

Somehow, I am of the opinion that Breyer, and many others just like him, bleeding heart libbers, are the very reason that this United States was attacked on Sept. 11th and is the reason we are in the sad state of affairs we now find ourselves in now.

To be certain, it’s not just the libbers, there are many RINOs that can claim as much responsibility as anyone, but the bleeding heart libs lead the way in opening the door for terrorists to walk in to this nation and use our own laws, and Constitution against us.

But Roberts pointed to a situation in which he said the U.N. was forced to close a refugee camp in northern Iraq, near the Turkish border, because it had come under PKK control.

“Training and advice on how to work with the United Nations could readily have helped the PKK in its efforts to use the United Nations camp as a base for terrorist activities,” Roberts said.

Thank God that the SCOTUS still has the balls to stand and do the RIGHT thing!

The other justices in the majority were Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas.

I think it’s safe to call these men *The GOOD Guys*!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Bookmark and Share
Return: Top of Home Page

10 Responses to “High court upholds anti-terror law”

  1. comment number 1 by: minuteman26

    I question why so many US citizens want to help our enemies. Seems like the current generation has more than its share of wack jobs to include the POTUS.

  2. comment number 2 by: James Shott

    Glad to see Stevens on the right side of this one.

    Not surprised by Sotomayor; little doubt that Kagan would do likewise.

  3. comment number 3 by: Robert

    SO, The “Wise Latino Woman” went all activist with her opinion.. who knew…

    I’m very glad they got this right but I fear the future is clouded in liberpuke activism from the courts.

    Kagen, Sotomayer, and the NEXT one that will undoubtedly happen within the next year or two will sway the court left. They will NOT uphold the Constitution, they will become activists from the bench like MOST of the liberpuke judges these days are.

    We got that “Hopey changey thing, and it’s coming home. BUT the true effects of the Obama era will not be felt for sometime. There will be 2nd amendment issues heard by the “Left leaning court” within our lifetime Fred, and that along with 1st amendment issues can change the face of our nation faster than Obama and pelosi can.

    We talked about this prior to the election of 08. The damage the POTUS and his minions can do is NOTHING compared to the destruction the SCOTUS can do with one or two rulings.

  4. comment number 4 by: Longstreet

    Right on, Fred, right on!

    JDL

  5. comment number 5 by: Basti

    Soon after the US Supreme Court was created many of the Founders began to have 2nd thoughts on that creation. Then Judge Marshall confirmed that 2nd thoughts were in order. Been down hill for the US Constitution ever since. We’re not governed by the US Constitution, we’re governed by how that document is ‘interpreted’ and not how its written.

    All in all the US Supreme Court has proven to be the most glaring mistake ever made by the Founders.

  6. comment number 6 by: ablur

    The Court got this right. The 6-3 ruling should be a big deal given the number of 5-4 rulings that have come down.

    As for future appointees, we need to take full advantage of the November elections.

    I am currently running a series of articles on Restoring America to her roots. We really need to educate Americans about our founders the constitution and who we really are.

  7. comment number 7 by: Bloviating Zeppelin

    I am — I have to admit — amazingly surprised that this is a

    6-3

    rather than a

    5-4

    Ruling.

    One of the liberal motherforkers had to have been asleep or drugged or otherwise distracted and that, in and of itself, is grounds for an appeal. . .

    ;)

    BZ

  8. comment number 8 by: Steve Dennis

    On a side note, it is interesting to see that Justice Stevens sided with the majority on this one because many feel that Kagan’s nomination won’t upset the balance of the court, but I would be willing to bet that it would have been 5-4 the other way if Kagan was on the court.

  9. comment number 9 by: HoosierArmyMom

    Question: Can you fire a SCJ???? Just wondering.

  10. comment number 10 by: TexasFred

    I don’t think so HAM… SCOTUS is for life, or retirement…

    Impeachment is the only other option…

    A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

    Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices “during good behavior.” “The phrase “good behavior” has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” encompasses. SOURCE

    So, it’s gonna have to over more than a cigar and a chubby intern.. :?