IntLawGrrls |
| Court OKs counterterrorism tool Posted: 22 Jun 2010 03:30 AM PDT  Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a criminal ban on "material support" of "terrorism" first placed in the Federal Code in the 1990s.Plaintiffs in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project had argued that to include things like "expert advice" in the list of punishable "support" violated the 1st Amendment. Their bid for a declaratory judgment to that effect was rebuffed by the 6-member majority, which interpreted the ban to cover advice given in "connection" with a group whom the Secretary of State has designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The Opinion of the Court by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. stressed that the ruling was not intended to include speech that -- though it might favor goals also favored by such a group -- was made independently of any such group. Justice Stephen G. Breyer read parts of his dissent from the bench. In his view, the majority deferred too much to the political branches, and thus gave short shrift to its constitutional duty  to protect individual liberties. Joining his opinion were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor (right). The latter joinder deserves particular note, for it marks a break by the newest Justice (herself a former prosecutor) from a counterterrorism policy of the President who nominated her.The attorney who argued the case for the United States this past February (transcript here) is the subject of the post below: President Obama's current nominee to the bench, Solicitor General Elena Kagan. My own take on the decision is here, published at The New York Times' "Room for Debate."  |
| Posted: 22 Jun 2010 02:20 AM PDT (Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)
-- Dahlia Lithwick (above right), in a Slate commentary anticipating the hearings, set to begin  next Monday, on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan (left) to the U.S. Supreme Court. (In addition to the post above, which mentions Kagan, check out SCOTUSblog's views on Kagan-as-likely-4th-ever-woman-Justice here.)Lithwick's question was part of her analysis of a recent speech by ex-Justice David Souter (below right). With statements like that quoted below, Souter, who retired last Term (prior posts), challenged those who claim that all constitutional questions are susceptible to a "fair reading" -- his phrase for viewpoints that others might characterize as the originalist or the umpire mode of judging: A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like  |
| Posted: 22 Jun 2010 01:04 AM PDT  On this day in ...... 1940 (70 years ago today), in a wagon on a railway track in the Forest of Compiègne, northeastern France, Nazi Germany and France signed an armistice, thus making way for establishment of the Vichy regime that would govern until the Allied liberation of France in 1945. Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel signed on behalf of Germany. Keitel, shown at right the day before the signing (photo credit), would sign the pact of Nazi surrender in Berlin in 1945, and be convicted by the International Military Tribunal and hanged at Nuremberg in 1946. (Prior June 22 posts are here, here, and here.)  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from IntLawGrrls To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
IntLawGrrls Part 1
IntLawGrrls Part 1
IntLawGrrls Part 1
Tags: IntLawGrrls, IntLawGrrls watch online, full IntLawGrrls video, IntLawGrrls download, IntLawGrrls torrent, free IntLawGrrls, IntLawGrrls megavideo, IntLawGrrls full, IntLawGrrls eng sub
0 comments:
Post a Comment