In a victory for the Obama administration the Supreme Court upholds "terrorist" law in 6-3 vote

[Better Believe It]

-Wonderful. The federal govermment can now legally designate any organization it wishes a "terrorist group" without giving that organization a right to appeal such a designation, nor is the federal government required before a court of law to prove groups designated as "terrorist" are in fact engaged in any kind of terrorist activity! It's a totally arbitrary designation.

Americans can't offer any kind of support to organizations that might be unjustly and falsely accused of being "terrorist" by the government. If you do, you will be sent to prison.

Now a more conservative (Republican led) government can and will certainly designate left-wing organizations in Canada and other foreign lands as "terrorist" if they advocate radical/progressive/left wing or even liberal ideas that are critical of U.S. policies. What do you think conservatives and right-wingers will propose to do to "foreign" socialist groups that actually advocate the reform or overthrowing of capitalism, even via elections? And how about "foreign" labor unions and other working class organizations that organize strikes and mass demonstrations against big capital? They could turn violent because of police provacateurs and/or right-wing assaults by right-wing neo-fascist organizations? Labor unions and progressive groups will certainly be falsely labeled "terrorists". And with this reactionary court decision a right-wing government would certainly make it crime, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for Americans to offer our solidarity and meaningful support to our progressive brothers and sisters in the world.

This ruling and the terrible Obama administration decision to ask for this ruling, is yet another giant step toward tearing up our Bill of Rights and trampling on what remains of our civil liberties and human rights. The Obama administration did not have to appeal the U.S. appeals court. They have given a future Republican administration a hammer to hit us over the head with. The Obama administration could have and should have stood behind the appeals court decision which offered us some free speech and association protection. BBI -



Supreme Court upholds terrorism support law
By Bill Trott
June 21, 2010

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a law that bars Americans from providing support to foreign terrorist groups, rejecting arguments that it violated constitutional rights of free speech and association.

The decision came in the first test to reach the Supreme Court after the September 11, 2001, attacks of a case pitting the right of U.S. citizens to speak and associate freely against the government's efforts to fight terrorism.

In a victory for the Obama administration, the justices voted, 6-3, to reverse a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that declared parts of the law unconstitutionally vague.

Obama administration lawyers defended the law and called it a vital weapon in the government's effort to fight terrorism.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented with Breyer saying the court majority ultimately "deprives the individuals before us of the protection that the First Amendment demands."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65K4B420100621


-------------------------------------------


Anti-terror law upheld by high court
U.S. may block peaceful aid to foreign terrorist groups, majority rules
Associated Press
June 21, 2010

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.

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.

The Obama administration said the "material support" law is one of its most important terror-fighting tools. It has been used about 150 times since Sept. 11, resulting in 75 convictions. Most of those cases involved money and other substantial support for terror groups.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37825906/ns/us_news-security


-------------------------------------------




Supreme Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror
By ADAM LIPTAK
June 21, 2010

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 decision, said the law’s prohibition on providing some forms of intangible assistance to groups said by the State Department to engage in terrorism did not violate the First Amendment.

“At bottom, plaintiffs simply disagree with the considered judgment of Congress and the executive that providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization — even seemingly benign support — bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization,” the chief justice wrote. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer took the unusual step of summarizing his dissent from the bench. He wrote that the majority had been too credulous in accepting the government’s argument that national security concerns required restrictions on the challengers’ speech, and “failed to insist upon specific evidence, rather than general assertion.”

In his dissent, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Breyer concluded that the majority “deprives the individuals before us of the protection the First Amendment demands.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us/politics/22scotus.html


-------------------------------------------


JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYERS DISSENT IN ERIC H. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT


Cite as: 561 U. S. ____ (2010) 1
BREYER, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Nos. 08–1498 and 09–89
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., PETITIONERS 08–1498 v. HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT ET AL.
HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT, ET AL., PETITIONERS 09–89 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICES GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting.

Read the dissent and majority opinion in PDF format at the following link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf

[bluestateguy]

1. Now the Tea Party can be designated as a terrorist group

nt

[jonnyblitz]

3. a wingnut president could have fun with this as well. nt

[spanone]

4. that's the fear...they will regain the wh someday....

[Better Believe It]

7. And they will use that law with a vengence! The appeals court ruling should have been supported

by the Obama administration.

Instead, it was appealed where conservative Supreme Court justices made the call.

[KonaKane]

23. So maybe you'd better help us maintain a Democratic executive branch.

Ya think?

[Better Believe It]

5. I don't think "conservative" foreign Tea Party type organizations will be designated as terrorists.

[villager]

2. How sad that this a "victory for the Obama administration,"

...when it's so clearly a loss for the rest of us.

[LaurenG]

8. agreed

:(

[treestar]

14. That's just using the same M$M tactic

of treating rulings as "defeats for the bush Administration" when they came down one way. Now the headline writer is just reversing that.

[blondeatlast]

18. Exactly. nt

[Raineyb]

32. If the Obama Administration fought FOR that ruling it would be a win for the

administration (and future administrations). Not so much for the rest of us.

[saracat]

6. This is horrible.

[Unvanguard]

9. This case had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the "terrorist" designation.

And that is subject to judicial review in particular cases. (The PKK and the LTTE, at issue here, are unambiguously terrorist organizations.)

[Better Believe It]

15. What process is provided for in this legislation to appeal the "terrorist" designation?

If none exsits, is the Obama administration proposing an amendment to this legislation that will provide for an appeal process by the designated group?

Right now it seems the feds can just say you're aiding a terrorist group and that's it!

Can an American non-member of the allegedly "foreign" terrorist group challenge that designation? If you have some information indicating this can be done please post it.

Thanks.

[lib2DaBone]

10. This is a victory? OK..... if you say so.

[xchrom]

11. Recommend

[DJ13]

12. A few more "victories" like that & we might as well live in a prison

At least then no one would go hungry, and we would get free medical care.

[madrchsod]

13. yup...how`s that "change" thing working...

oh well they let us change the name on the door.

the president wants us to go out and rally the troops? for what?

[WeDidIt]

16. Stevens sided with the majority opinion

Solidly liberal Stevens.

I wonder how Kagan would have voted?

[retread]

17. Horrible decision. It is becoming apparent Sonia Sotomayor is a reliable liberal vote. n/t

[Better Believe It]

19. ACLU and former President Jimmy Carter statements on Supreme Court decision

Supreme Court Rules "Material Support" Law Can Stand
June 21, 2010
Court Upholds Broad Interpretation Of Anti-Terrorism Law That Inhibits Work Of Humanitarian Groups

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ACLU
CONTACT: [phone]; [e-mail]

NEW YORK – The United States Supreme Court today upheld the broad application of a federal law that hinders the ability of human rights and humanitarian aid organizations to do their work by making it a crime to provide "material support" to designated "foreign terrorist organizations" (FTOs). The ruling thwarts the efforts of human rights organizations to persuade violent actors to renounce violence or cease their human rights abuses and jeopardizes the provision of aid and disaster relief in conflict zones controlled by designated groups, said the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, on behalf of the Carter Center and several other organizations known for their work to promote peace, further human rights and alleviate human suffering around the world.

Under the law, individuals face up to 15 years in prison for providing "material support" to FTOs, even if their work is intended to promote peaceful, lawful objectives. "Material support" is defined to include any "service," "training," "expert advice or assistance" or "personnel."

The following can be attributed to former President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center:

"We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups. The 'material support law' – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence. The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom."

The following can be attributed to Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project:

"Today's decision is disappointing and inconsistent with our First Amendment position. The government should not be in the business of criminalizing speech meant to promote peace and human rights."

Organizations that signed onto the ACLU's brief are the Carter Center, Christian Peacemaker Teams, Grassroots International, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame University, Operation USA and the Peace Appeal Foundation.

The ACLU's brief is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/amicus-brief-carter-center-and-other-humanitarian-groups-support-humanitarian-law-

[Better Believe It]

20. Constitution Project statement in opposition to Supreme Court decision

Constitution Project Dismayed by Supreme Court's Rejection of Constitutional Challenge to Provisions of Material Support Laws
6/21/2010


Ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project Upholds Broad Application of Material Support Laws to Prohibit Even Pure Speech That Furthers Lawful Ends

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Dallas Jamison, [phone] or [e-mail].

WASHINGTON - Today, the Supreme Court, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, upheld the extremely broad application of federal laws that prohibit material support for designated terrorist groups. The lawsuit challenged the application of the "material support" laws to organizations and individuals who seek to provide peacebuilding and human rights training to groups designated as terrorist organizations. Writing for a total of six justices, Chief Justice Roberts today rejected this challenge, finding that the application of the material support statutes to punish these groups' pure speech that seeks to further lawful, non-violent ends does not run afoul of the Constitution. Although the Court agreed that the statute's regulation of speech must be subject to a demanding level of scrutiny, the Court found that these sweeping restrictions were justified by the Government's interests in combating terrorism.

"The Constitution Project is thoroughly dismayed by today's Supreme Court's decision, which will allow for the prosecution of individuals for constitutionally protected, peaceful, speech and association activities," said Sharon Bradford Franklin, Constitution Project Senior Counsel. "As much as our government must have the tools needed to punish those who work to enable acts of terrorism, it is essential that these laws respect constitutional freedoms. We regret that the Court refused to rein in the overbroad sweep of the material support statutes to ensure that terrorist activities are prohibited but that free speech and association are still safeguarded by the First Amendment. Training groups to pursue peaceful resolution of their disputes should be encouraged, not made criminal."

Last November, the Constitution Project, together with The Rutherford Institute, filed an amicus brief in the case, urging the Supreme Court to strike down the provisions of the material support laws that conflict with First Amendment protections for free speech and freedom of association. Also in November, the Constitution Project's Liberty and Security Committee released Reforming the Material Support Laws: Constitutional Concerns Presented by Prohibitions on Material Support to "Terrorist Organizations," which proposed eight reforms to remedy serious First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns created by existing material support laws.

To view the Constitution Project's amicus brief in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, go to: http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/357.pdf.

To view Reforming the Material Support Laws: Constitutional Concerns Presented by Prohibitions on Material Support to "Terrorist Organizations," go to: http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/355.pdf.

The Constitution Project seeks consensus solutions to difficult legal and constitutional issues. It does this through constructive dialogue across ideological and partisan lines, and through scholarship, activism, and public education efforts.

# # #

http://www.constitutionproject.org/NewsDetail.asp?id=507

[Better Believe It]

21. Anti-Defamation League (ADL) statement in support of Supreme Court decision

Press Release
ADL Says Supreme Court Decision On Material Support For Terrorism, 'Right On Target'


New York, NY, June 21, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, a case in which ADL had asked the nation's highest court to uphold laws prohibiting the supply of material support or providing resources to foreign terrorist organizations.

ADL's brief, which brought the League's substantive expertise on terrorist organizations to the attention of the Court, was cited by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. for the important finding that funds raised for putatively charitable purposes by three major terrorist groups -- the Kurdistan Workers' Party (the "PKK"), the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (the "LTTE") and Hamas – have been and can be redirected for terrorist purposes.

Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director issued the following statement:

The Court's determination that material support "… helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups—legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds—all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks," is right on target.

Allowing money and resources to flow into a terrorist organization's bank account for any reason whatsoever will help fund that organization's terror activities. One cannot provide "humanitarian" support in the form of training, expert advice or assistance, service, and personnel to a terrorist organization without helping their bottom line and facilitating violence, destruction and murder. Any suggestion to the contrary is naïve and an example of wishful thinking that can have deadly consequences.

ADL is a strong believer in free speech and humanitarian outreach. However, such assistance can and must be prohibited by law when its effect would be to strengthen organizations dedicated to harming the United States and its allies.

ADL's Center on Extremism actively monitors various foreign terrorist organizations, including PKK, LTTE and Hamas. The League's amicus brief argued that all activities of terrorist organizations are inextricably linked, and that a prohibition on material support for these organizations is constitutional. ADL's friend-of-the-court brief was prepared by a team from the law firm Chadbourne & Parke LLP led by David Raim, Kate McSweeny and Joy Langford.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/5792_33.htm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Great! They've created an unlimited supply of bogemen to fund the Pentagon with.

[Better Believe It]

24. Rutherford Institute's statement in opposition to the Supreme Court decision

Press Release
6/21/2010

Rejecting First Amendment Challenge, U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Terrorism Law that Criminalizes Peaceful, Nonviolent Speech

WASHINGTON, DC — In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a federal "material support" anti-terrorism law that, according to critics, threatens to undermine the First Amendment rights of organizations and individuals to engage in free speech and free association that is lawful, peaceful, and nonviolent. Although the Court agreed that the statute's regulation of speech must be subject to a demanding level of scrutiny, the Court found that these sweeping restrictions were justified by the Government's interests in combating terrorism. The decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project constitutes the court's first ruling on the free speech and association rights of American citizens in the context of terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks. The Rutherford Institute and the Constitution Project had filed a friend of the court brief urging the Court to strike down the law as unconstitutionally overly broad.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf.

The Rutherford Institute's amicus brief is available here.
http://www.rutherford.org/PDF/2010/08-1498HoldervHLPAmicus.pdf

"While cutting off support of terrorist activity is an important and legitimate part of the United States' counter-terrorism strategy, it must not do so at the risk of undermining constitutional freedoms—especially speech that is intended to further only lawful, peaceful, and nonviolent activities," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Unfortunately, with this decision, the Supreme Court has carved out yet another loophole in the First Amendment and dangerously so."

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project involves federal laws prohibiting "material support" of terrorist groups and challenges the application of these laws to organizations and individuals who seek to provide human rights training to a designated group. The amicus brief filed by The Rutherford Institute and the Constitution Project argued that applying the material support statutes to punish pure speech that seeks to further lawful, non-violent activities is unconstitutionally overbroad. Attorneys also urged the Supreme Court to clarify the constitutional limits on Congress's power to forbid American citizens from advocating on behalf of and directly participating in organizations the government deems a threat to the national security. Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented, noting that the majority wrongly read the law "to forbid the teaching of any subject where national security concerns conflict with the First Amendment. The Constitution does not allow all such conflicts to be decided in the government's favor."

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=833

[choie]

30. considering the rutherford institute

grew out of the group of christian rightists who backed Paula Jones, it's pretty amazing that even they were against this ruling.

[Better Believe It]

31. I had never heard of this group but saw their statement during a search and was glad to see it.

At least they came down on the civil liberties side regarding this decision. They can't always be wrong! :) I assume some other conservatives and libertarians also oppose the Supreme Court decision.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. This only applies to foreign organizations

[Better Believe It]

26. This applies to all American organizations or citizens that support in any manner

a "foreign" group that is designated by the State Department a "terrorist" organization.

[Nikki Stone1]

27. This means any Quaker peace group can be designated "terrorist" without any criteria

except that any given executive branch doesn't like it.

You might as well tear up the Constitution.

[Better Believe It]

28. "Only" if whatever administration is in power says your giving help to "foreign" terrorists.

I don't think any organization the State Department lists as a "terrorist" group has any rights to appeal or challenge that designation under the terrorist law.

If the State Department says a group is terrorist, they are terrorists. Case closed.

This is a lot like the old witch-hunting "communist lists" the government used in the 50's to blacklist and prosecute people falsely claiming they were trying to overthrow the government with force and violence.

You couldn't appeal your listing on the governments official "subversive" list. And that was for American organizations and citizens!

If the government declared you or your group to be "subversive, violent and un-American" that was it! Case closed.

[Nikki Stone1]

29. Yes. That's a great analogy.

You know, I think the aliens at Roswell 1947 are a metaphor.

[Better Believe It]

33. Center for Constitutional Rights statement opposing Supreme Court decision

Supreme Court Ruling Criminalizes Speech in Material Support Law Case
President Carter Could Be Prosecuted for Monitoring Fair Elections in Lebanon

Contact: [e-mail]
June 21, 2010, Washington and New York

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to criminalize speech in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the first case to challenge the Patriot Act before the highest court in the land, and the first post-9/11 case to pit free speech guarantees against national security claims. Attorneys say that under the Court’s ruling, many groups and individuals providing peaceful advocacy could be prosecuted, including President Carter for training all parties in fair election practices in Lebanon. President Carter submitted an amicus brief in the case.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case back to the lower court for review; Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. The Court held that the statute's prohibitions on "expert advice," "training," "service," and "personnel" were not vague, and did not violate speech or associational rights as applied to plaintiffs' intended activities. Plaintiffs sought to provide assistance and education on human rights advocacy and peacemaking to the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey, a designated terrorist organization. Multiple lower court rulings had found the statute unconstitutionally vague.

Said CCR Cooperating Attorney David Cole, “We are deeply disappointed. The Supreme Court has ruled that human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists. In the name of fighting terrorism, the Court has said that the First Amendment permits Congress to make human rights advocacy and peacemaking a crime. That is wrong.”

Originally brought in 1998, the case challenges the constitutionality of laws that make it a crime to provide “material support” to groups the administration has designated as “terrorist.” CCR’s clients sought to engage in speech advocating only nonviolent, lawful ends, but the government took the position that any such speech, including even filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, would be a crime if done in support of a designated “terrorist group.”

Said CCR Senior Attorney Shayana Kadidal, “The Court’s decision confirms the extraordinary scope of the material support statute’s criminalization of speech. But it also notes that the scope of the prohibitions may not be clear in every application, and that remains the case for the many difficult questions raised at argument but dodged by today’s opinion, including whether publishing an op-ed or submitting an amicus brief in court arguing that a group does not belong on the list is a criminal act. The onus is now on Congress and the Obama administration to ensure that humanitarian groups may engage in human rights advocacy, training in non-violent conflict resolution, and humanitarian assistance in crisis zones without fearing criminal prosecution.”

The Court rejected the government’s argument that the statute, when applied to plaintiffs’ proposed speech, regulated not speech but conduct, and therefore needed to meet only a low standard – “intermediate scrutiny” – to survive. Instead, the Court found that the statute did criminalize speech on the basis of its content, but then found that the government’s interest in delegitimizing groups on the designated "terrorist organization" list was sufficiently great to overcome the heightened level of scrutiny. This one of a very few times that the Supreme Court has upheld a criminal prohibition of speech under strict scrutiny, and the first time it has permitted the government to make it a crime to advocate lawful, nonviolent activity.

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/supreme-court-ruling-criminalizes-speech-material-support-law-case

[depakid]

34. Calling violations of civil and constitutional rights "victories on the war on terror"

is why I finally stopped listening to NPR.

The framing was and is- to use what's unfortunately become a hackneyed term: Orwellian.

To say that a lot of people were disappointed in the administration's defense of the law would of course be an understatement. One more in a long and sordid series of them.

[Better Believe It]

35. Former President Carter wonders if his group will be prosecuted for their work to promote peace.

Supreme Court ruling barring aid to terrorist groups: why some lament it
Humanitarian and peace organizations say their direct interaction with violent or terrorist groups is vital to intervention efforts. The Supreme Court decision Monday means they do it at their peril.
By Warren Richey
June 21, 2010

The US Supreme Court has put international humanitarian workers on notice that any assistance to a US-designated terrorist group could land them in an American prison.

The prohibition extends beyond knowingly facilitating illegal operations. The law – part of the USA Patriot Act – makes it a federal crime to provide any help or support to a terror group – even support designed to teach a violent group how to use legal and peaceful means to achieve political change.

Violators face up to 15 years in prison.

The ‘material support law’ – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence,” said former President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center.

“The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom,” he said.

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.”

Read the full article at:

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

[warren pease]

36. I give Alan Grayson money because he's an outspoken, militant progressive...

... who refuses to be polite to wingnut corporatist scumbags of either party. This probably makes him a terrorist in this shit-for-brains country and, if so, this decision could make Grayson's supporters indictable as terrorist enablers.

With the right wingnut in the white house and another Yoo/Gonzales/Addington triumvirate making up shit and passing it off as Con law, Grayson's supporters could look forward to an extended tropical vacation at Gitmo.

That's how insane this decision is and it's a betrayal of the first magnitude to learn that the Obama administration actually called for this ruling.

I assume Ms. Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued the case for the administration? Nice choice for the high court, Mr. president.

Would it kill you to, just one time, appoint an actual progressive to the federal bench and ram the appointment through despite the McConnells and Hatches and Liebermans of the world? Just once? A little demonstration that you weren't completely full of shit when you ran as the instrument of change?

Oooops... That's probably terrorist talk now. Better keep my lips zipped and my fingers on more complimentary keys. You just never know, do you...


wp

[Better Believe It]

37. Elena Kagan did argue the case before the Supreme Court for the administration

And it appears from the decision that she did an excellent job.