Judge Alito will be so pleased

[xoxoxoBruce]

Too late at night? That's when you need the fuckers.

[classicman]

In Ghailani’s case, prosecutors chose not to introduce any of the statements Ghailani made when he was interrogated while in CIA custody and at Guantanamo, although prosecutors told the judge the statements amounted to a confession of his role in the embassy plot. Defense lawyers contended that the statements were coerced and inadmissible.

Hmm ????

The judge recognized the potential damage of excluding the witness...

on what grounds?

when he said in his ruling that Ghailani’s status of “enemy combatant’’ probably would permit his detention as something akin “to a prisoner of war until hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda and the Taliban end, even if he were found not guilty.’’

So it was basically meaningless in this case - He'll never get out.

Link

I'm not sure what to make of this - There seems to be too much info missing or I'm just not getting it. Finding him not guilty on 284 out of 285 charges seems bizarre. Oh wait, here it is .....

On Monday, the prospect of a deadlock was raised when a juror asked to be removed because she was alone in her view of the case and felt she was being attacked by other jurors.

Was she? or did the jurors make a deal? The plot thickens..... To be continued.

[xoxoxoBruce]

...attacked by other jurors.

Beat her up? Pants her? Pee in her drink? Most likely they said they were right and she was wrong. If she feels that's an "attack", she's too emotional to be making rational decisions anyway.

[glatt]

You can attack someone verbally. If there were a bunch of other jurors all in her face yelling at her, that's an attack. Not an assault, but an attack.

[xoxoxoBruce]

In legalese, not reality.

[classicman]

The verdict came after a four-week trial in which prosecutors built a circumstantial case to try to establish that Ghailani played a key logistical role in the preparations for the Tanzania attack.

They said the evidence showed that he helped to buy the Nissan Atlas truck that was used to carry the bomb, and gas tanks that were placed inside the truck to intensify the blast. He also stored an explosive detonator in an armoire he used, and his cellphone became the “operational phone’’ for the plotters in the weeks leading up to the attacks, prosecutors contended.

Thats a little more than renting a car .... just sayin'

[TheMercenary]

Common Cause is a well known Lefty-Liberal group who has been known to get lots of money from George Soros, I guess ole George just doesn't like the competition. Where was Common Cause when Soros was buying off American political influence or bankrupting the UK banks?

[TheMercenary]

But the main point here is that the focus on Citizens United allows liberals to engage in conspiracy theories about why they lost the last election rather than face up to the fact that the grassroots uprising against the policies of the Obama administration is what accounted for the GOP landslide victory in the congressional elections, not the money that some conservative groups were allowed to spend last year.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...p/tobin/387477

[TheMercenary]

Good God what a bunch of hypocrites.....

Racist and eliminationist rhetoric at a Common Cause rally.

The website of Common Cause describes the group as "a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to restoring the core values of American democracy, reinventing an open, honest and accountable government that serves the public interest, and empowering ordinary people to make their voices heard in the political process."

The bio of Common Cause's president, Bob Edgar--a former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania--informs us that "under Bob's leadership, Common Cause is championing a number of critical issues and reforms, including the public funding of political campaigns at all levels, election reforms that make voting more accurate, secure and accessible, improved ethics at all levels of government, redistricting reform and a diverse and open media."

It all sounds very high-minded. How's it working out in practice?

On Sunday, Common Cause hosted a panel discussion called "Uncloaking the Kochs," which, according to the Common Cause website, "was followed by a rally outside the posh Rancho Las Palmas resort where the Koch brothers were holding one of their political strategy meetings." The Koch brothers' support of free-market causes makes them enemies of "democracy," in Common Cause's view.

Christian Hartsock, a videographer who contributes to Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, attended the Common Cause rally and produced a devastating four-minute video of his interactions with the Common Causer supporters.

His coverage of the rally opens with an ingenuous twentysomething white woman holding forth: "There's a devastating influence in our country, and it's coming from fear and anger and widespread misunderstanding of what's actually causing the problems in our society. And I think that the racist Tea Party is one example of that, and it makes me feel ashamed to be an American."

This is followed by clips of Hartsock's other interactions with Common Cause ralliers, some of which we've transcribed:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

[TheMercenary]

Here is some of the video:

http://www.breitbart.tv/breitbart-co...m-protest-mob/

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It might make other custody battles more tenuous, but I would think that "decided by the Supreme Court" is as un-tenuous as parental custody can be.

Unfortunately, they didn't clearly rule. South Carolina said, the father gets the girl. The Supreme Court said, the law does not require taking the child away from the adoptive couple in this case--but having issued this ruling on the spirit of the law, they did not actually make a ruling on custody, they just kicked it back to the South Carolina court with their opinion added. Now, the South Carolina court may choose to re-examine the case in light of the Supreme Court's clarification and reverse their previous ruling, or they may decide to stick with their original ruling in favor of the father anyway.

It should be noted that I am strongly on the adoptive couple's side here. Aside from everything else fucked up about the situation,

Veronica is 3/256ths Cherokee.

[Lamplighter]

Sam Alito strikes again...

Previously.

In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, however,
the plaintiffs have asked for a radical redefinition of takings so elastic
that even Justice Antonin Scalia, a strong advocate of property rights
and of a broad interpretation of the takings law, rose up in protest.

“A taking of what?” he asked the petitioner’s lawyer during
oral argument before the Supreme Court last week.
His question was echoed by Justice Elena Kagan, who asked,
“Where is the taking?” and by Justice Sonia Sotomayor,
who was even blunter: “Why are we even in this case?”

In government "permit" situations, conditional meant:
If you do this..., your permit will be approved
If you don't do this..., your permit will not be approved.

According to Sam, not any more. Corporations rule !

NY Times
By JOHN D. ECHEVERRIA
Published: June 26, 2013
A Legal Blow to Sustainable Development

<snip>
The court handed down a decision on Tuesday that, in the words of
Justice Elena Kagan, will “work a revolution in land-use law.”

The court’s 5-to-4 decision, with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. writing for the majority,
arose from an order issued by a Florida water management district denying
an application by Coy A. Koontz Sr. to fill more than three acres of wetlands
in order to build a small shopping center.

The district made clear that it was willing to grant the permit if Mr. Koontz agreed
to reduce the size of the development or spend money on any of a variety
of wetlands-restoration projects designed to offset the project’s environmental effects.
Because Mr. Koontz declined to pursue any of these options, the district denied the permit.
<snip>

Before Koontz, a developer could raise a constitutional challenge if the charges were unreasonable,
but judges typically deferred to local governments in such cases.
After Koontz, developers have a potent new legal tool to challenge such charges
because now the legal burden of demonstrating their validity is on the communities themselves.

In the wake of this under-the-radar ruling, the cost of protecting a community
from a harmful building project now lies not with the developer
but with the local residents and taxpayers.

It’s hard to fathom that the framers of the Constitution would call this either fairness or justice.

[Lamplighter]

Once more Sam et al. will change the course of US public life
... CORPORATIONS [SHALL] RULE !


NY Times
ADAM LIPTAK
November 24, 2013

Court Confronts Religious Rights of Corporations

The stores play religious music.
Employees get free spiritual counseling.
But they do not get free insurance coverage for some contraceptives,
even though President Obama’s health care law requires it.

Hobby Lobby, a corporation, says that forcing it to provide the coverage
would violate its religious beliefs. A federal appeals court agreed,
and the Supreme Court is set to decide on Tuesday whether it will hear the Obama
administration’s appeal from that decision or appeals from one of several related cases.

Legal experts say the court is all but certain to step in,
setting the stage for another major decision on the constitutionality
of the Affordable Care Act two years after a closely divided court
sustained its requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.

“The stakes here, symbolically and politically, are very high,” said Douglas Laycock,
a law professor at the University of Virginia, citing the clash between religious teachings
and the administration’s embattled health care law.

In weighing those interests, the Supreme Court would have to assess
the limits of a principle recognized in its 2010 decision in Citizens United,
which said corporations have free speech rights under the First Amendment.
The question now is whether corporations also have the right to religious liberty.

<snip>

[Lamplighter]

It is announced today that the USSC will take up this case.

Get ready for GE to tell you which god (CEO) to worship.