High Court Injustice - by Stephen Lendman
Two June 2010 decisions show the workings of a right wing High Court, with five Federalist Society members - Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito.
Once confirmed, Elana Kagan will solidify their control when the Court reconvenes in October - her record exposing extremist positions, including outlandish anti-terrorism practices, unconstitutional federal litigation, and "love (for) the Federalist Society," affirming her endorsement of an organization supporting rolling back civil liberties; defiling human rights; ending New Deal social policies; opposing reproductive choice, government regulations, labor rights, and environmental protections; subverting justice in defense of privilege; and as Solicitor General, arguing against First Amendment rights without which all others are at risk - an ideology the Court endorses, one protecting privilege against the rule of law.
Rolling Back First Amendment Protections
In his same day article, New York Times writer, Adam Liptak, headlined, "Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror (despite no tie whatever), saying:
"In a case pitting free speech against the national security, the Supreme Court....upheld (in a 6 - 3 decision) a federal law that makes it a crime to provide 'material support' to foreign terrorist organizations, even if (it entails) training for peacefully resolving conflicts."
Affirming a bogus terrorist threat, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:
"At bottom, plaintiffs (supporting free speech) 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."
US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, 2339A, defines "Providing material support to terrorists" as:
(1) "....any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (and) transportation, except medicine or religious materials;
(2) the term 'training' means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and
(3) the term 'expert advice or assistance' means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge."
As Solicitor General, Elena Kagan agued the case in February, Justice Roberts at the time contradicting himself saying "The government is wrong that the only thing actually at issue in this litigation is conduct," not protected speech, then adding that combatting terrorism takes precedence over First Amendment rights, Justices Breyer, Ginsberg and Sotomayor disagreeing in their decision.
So did Center for Constitutional Rights plaintiff David C. Cole saying:
"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. (This decision says) that the First Amendment permits Congress to make human rights advocacy and peacemaking a crime. That is wrong."
It also criminalizes opponents of US laws in violation of constitutional protections, the Patriot Act and others post-9/11 most prominent, ones making America a police state, supported by High Court complicity. In addition, charity is now a crime, when given to bogusly designated terrorist organizations or any individuals or groups against American imperialism, making them enemies of the state, the Dallas-based Holy Land Foundation Charity (HLF) an example, the largest US Muslim charity until the Bush administration shut it down.