SCOTUS
What Does Justice Sotomayor Like Most About Helping Terrorist Groups?
Keith Thompson Monday, 21 June 2010 13:44
The Supreme Court rules that giving material support to terrorists belongs in the same category as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In other words, neither constitutes "protected speech." Justice Thompson's one-word concurring opinion: "Duh." Note: The Court upheld the constitutionality of a particular provision of the Patriot Act. Which is different from whether some or all members of the Court would have voted for that provision of the Patriot Act if they were ... legislators, which they are not. Don't agree with that provision of the Patriot Act? Fine, go lobby Congress.
Ann Coulter (University of Michigan Law School graduate before going on to clerk, in Kansas City, for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit), puts the lie to Justice Steven's ridiculous assertion that he, Stevens, didn't move left during his tenure on SCOTUS — no, the Court moved to the right while he didn't change much. Coulter demonstrates Stevens' fetish for pretending to protect us all from the state establishment of religion, while in fact establishing himself as "the most fanatically anti-religious justice in modern times."
He has long found any religious practice not crushed by the government to be an "establishment of religion."
In the 1989 abortion case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, for example, Stevens argued that a state law that defined life as beginning at conception violated the First Amendment by -- yes, establishing a religion. The abortion law, he said, gave "a theological answer to the question of when life begins." (You've all heard of the First Church of When Life Begins, United, haven't you?)
Fortunately, Stevens didn't read far enough to see that the Bible also condemns murder generally, or he might have voted to strike down all laws against murder.




