Talk about LIBS

[skate]

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court upheld a federal law banning "material support" for foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting challenges that the measure could impinge on U.S. citizens' First Amendment rights of free speech and association.



The vote was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, joined by four other conservatives and liberal Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, joined by two other liberals.



WSJ article


Oh, this is good...

the case predated the 9/11 attacks and involved foreign organizations —the Kurdish separatist organization known as the PKK, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which fought for an independent state on Sri Lanka .
The primary plaintiff in the case, retired U.S. administrative law judge Ralph Fertig, is a civil-rights activist who said he wanted "to teach the PKK to advance its goals through peaceful use of international law".

[cj's dad]

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court upheld a federal law banning "material support" for foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting challenges that the measure could impinge on U.S. citizens' First Amendment rights of free speech and association.



The vote was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, joined by four other conservatives and liberal Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, joined by two other liberals.
WSJ article

Gee might one be Sotamayor ???? Just a guess !!

[Robert Goren]

The thing about this ruling is that it is going tear at the hearts of the conservatives who post here. Obama supports this law. Supreme court nominee Elana Kagan argued in favor this several months before her nomination. Some of you oppose Obama at every turn might want to rethink your position. It will be interesting to see how Rush spins this one.

[boxcar]

The thing about this ruling is that it is going tear at the hearts of the conservatives who post here. Obama supports this law. Supreme court nominee Elana Kagan argued in favor this several months before her nomination. Some of you oppose Obama at every turn might want to rethink your position. It will be interesting to see how Rush spins this one.

You gotta be kidding! "Tear at our hearts"!? Even a stone blind squirrel manages to occasionally find the chestnut. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: So, let's see...BO's batting average for finally getting something right is now what...
.0000001? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[cj's dad]

The thing about this ruling is that it is going tear at the hearts of the conservatives who post here. Obama supports this law. Supreme court nominee Elana Kagan argued in favor this several months before her nomination. Some of you oppose Obama at every turn might want to rethink your position. It will be interesting to see how Rush spins this one.

I think you misunderstand - the question should be "how did three SC Justices vote the way they did" ???

[46zilzal]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0621/Supreme-Court-ruling-barring-aid-to-terrorist-groups-why-some-lament-it


Justice Stephen Breyer and two other justices dissented, arguing that the statute’s scope was narrower than the majority had found. The law should apply only when the assistance facilitates an illegal act by a terrorist group, Justice Breyer wrote.

“We are deeply disappointed,” said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case at the high court on behalf of a group of humanitarian workers.

“In the name of fighting terrorism, the court has said that the First Amendment permits Congress to make it a crime to work for peace and human rights,” he said. “That is wrong.”

[Tom]

David Cole sounds like real moron.
Another of those ivory tower airheads.

Osama is certainly working hard for peace and human rights.

[skate]

Oh Boy, oh boy!


we get a good look at how libs become (like always) too "touchey-feeley".


"The Supreme Court ruling on Monday has put international humanitarian and peace organizations on notice that any aid to a US-designated terrorist group could land them in an American prison."

Evan Vucci/AP/File

the-skate sayeth that the Supreme says "peace organizations are put ON Notice that aid to a US-designated TERRORIST GROUP could land them is jail".

But...

Seems as if Justice Breyer says the very same, when he says the following:


"Justice Stephen Breyer and two other justices dissented, arguing that the statute’s scope was narrower than the majority had found. "The law should apply only when the assistence facilitates an illegal act by a terrorist group" Justice Breyer wrote."

the above from our friend Zilly.


Back to the-skate here, the suckers(lib type) DISSENT (Disagree) while saying the very Same Thing.