Supreme Court rules in favor of terror victims

Washington (CNN) - The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in favor of victims of terrorism and their families in a 6-2 split, clearing the way for them to collect nearly $2 billion from the central bank of Iran.

The court decided Congress had not exceeded its authority when it passed a law aimed specifically at securing such restitution.

"(The law) provides a new standard clarifying that, if Iran owns certain assets, the victims of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks will be permitted to execute against those assets," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the majority. "Applying laws implementing Congress' policy judgments, with fidelity to those judgments, is commonplace for the Judiciary."

The ruling comes at a sensitive time of U.S.-Iran relations, and as Congress considers controversial legislation that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by odd bed fellow Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented from the majority opinion, saying Congress had interfered with the role of the judiciary in passing the law while the case was pending in the courts....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/20/politics/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-terror-victims/index.html

Supreme Court Rules 8-1 Citizens Have No Protection Against 4th Amendment Violations by Police Ignorant of the Law

In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens' Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a "reasonable" mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that "ignorance of the law is no excuse," the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The Rutherford Institute had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court's lone dissenter, warned that the court's ruling "means further eroding the Fourth Amendment's protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down."

"By refusing to hold police accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law, the Supreme Court has given government officials a green light to routinely violate the law," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of the award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. "This case may have started out with an improper traffic stop, but where it will end—given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption—is not hard to predict. This ruling is what I would call a one-way, nonrefundable ticket to the police state..."

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/12/u-s-supreme-court-rules-8-1-citizens-no-protection-fourth-amendment-violations-police-officers-ignorant-law/

Supreme Court Refuses to Uphold the Constitution: Allows Indefinite Detention

“We Are No Longer a Nation Ruled By Laws”

Pulitzer prize winning reporter Chris Hedges – along with journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, activist Tangerine Bolen and others – sued the government to join the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans.

The trial judge in the case asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys.

The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge.
The trial judge ruled that the indefinite detention bill was unconstitutional. But the court of appeal overturned that decision, but in a way which limited the NDAA to non-U.S. citizens:...

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/05/supreme-court-refuses-to-uphold-the-constitution-allows-indefinite-detention/

Majority of Supreme Court justices are millionaires; Ginsburg, Breyer top list of wealthiest

At least five and perhaps as many as eight of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court are millionaires according to recently released financial disclosures, and only two hold any consumer debt.

Assets on the forms are reported in a range making it impossible to say precisely how much each justice is worth, but suffice to say, none of them are hurting financially.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg boasts the highest potential net worth at $18.1 million with Stephen Breyer a close second at $17.1 million. Both were appointed by former President Bill Clinton...

http://www.browardbulldog.org/2013/06/majority-of-supreme-court-justices-are-millionaires-ginsburg-breyer-top-list-of-wealthiest/

Monsanto wins landmark case in Supreme Court

Good ole Sack O' Potatoes Kagan. Lest we forget her recommendation as US Solicitor General to deny victims of 9/11 the right to sue the Saudi government...

"...Days later, the Supreme Court rejected the case, following the lead of the solicitor general, as it often does in deciding whether to weigh in on a matter.

The Supreme Court decision effectively let stand lower-court rulings that the Saudi government and senior members of the Saudi royal family could not be sued by U.S. citizens -- even if the plaintiffs had shown that millions of dollars in Saudi government money went to bankroll al-Qaida in the years leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks..."

Obstruction of justice? Nah, allowing families to sue would've 'interfered with US foreign policy." She now sits on the Supreme Court.