Skip to comments.
Leftist 9th Circuit Court Claims It's Legal to Abet Terrorists
NewsMax ^
| 12/4/03
| Wires
Posted on 12/04/2003 7:58:32 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
There will likely be a re-hearing of the case by a larger panel of the 9th Circuit, as in the California recall case. The 9th Circuit isn't always insane
2
posted on
12/04/2003 8:01:10 AM PST
by
BCrago66
To: BCrago66
Who were the Judges who mad the ruling?
3
posted on
12/04/2003 8:03:21 AM PST
by
Dog
(George W. Bush - - - -" Avenger of the Bones..")
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Judge Harry Pregerson wrote in the 2-1 decision. A 2-1 decision.
Come on!!!!
4
posted on
12/04/2003 8:03:54 AM PST
by
OXENinFLA
(Islam is like a new Communist infestation akin to what McCarthy exposed.)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection; All
5
posted on
12/04/2003 8:04:39 AM PST
by
dighton
To: OXENinFLA
Judge Harry Pregerson is as far left as you can go.....
6
posted on
12/04/2003 8:12:28 AM PST
by
Dog
(George W. Bush - - - -" Avenger of the Bones..")
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
INTREP - JUDICIAL TRYANNY ALERT
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
WHile some parts of the ruling I disagree with, the "Bake Sale" argument is pretty compelling. There's a big difference between knowlingly supporting a terror group and being tricked into supporting them. Should Ryder be held liable for renting Tim McVeigh a van? Of course not. Ryder had no idea McVeigh would use it in a terrorist attack. Punishing someone for unknowingly supporting a terror outfit is like punishing gun manufacturers ans sellers for the crimes committed with their products.
8
posted on
12/04/2003 8:26:33 AM PST
by
bobjam
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Time for Congress to limit their jurisidiction to Patent Law.
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The law was written too broadly (see the "bake sale" argument/example).
There's no reason why Congress and/or the Justice Dept can't draft a similar law that's more narrowly tailored or revise this one and still accomplish the same goals.
10
posted on
12/04/2003 8:31:09 AM PST
by
gdani
To: bobjam
While some parts of the ruling I disagree with, the "Bake Sale" argument is pretty compelling. There's a big difference between knowlingly supporting a terror group and being tricked into supporting them. Should Ryder be held liable for renting Tim McVeigh a van? Of course not. Ryder had no idea McVeigh would use it in a terrorist attack. Punishing someone for unknowingly supporting a terror outfit is like punishing gun manufacturers ans sellers for the crimes committed with their products.***DING DING DING*** No more calls; we have a winner.
The key problem with the law is its failure to require a clear element of criminal knowledge and intent.
11
posted on
12/04/2003 8:39:24 AM PST
by
steve-b
To: gdani
12
posted on
12/04/2003 8:41:31 AM PST
by
BCrago66
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the poster child of why the logjam on judicial confirmations needs to be taken care of in the US Senate.
13
posted on
12/04/2003 8:48:39 AM PST
by
RicocheT
To: BCrago66
The 9th Circuit isn't always insane.No, but that's the way to bet...
To: Dog
Isn't this the circuit we are being firewalled on?
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The Ninth Circuit Court rules that individuals have no Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
The Ninth Circuit Court also rules that it is unconstitutional to punish people for providing training or personnel to a terror group.
The United States Supreme Court refuses to review the rulings of the Ninth Circuit Court.
If my truck's engine ran like America's Federal courts, I'd pull it out and rebuild it.
16
posted on
12/04/2003 9:02:51 AM PST
by
The KG9 Kid
(Semper Fi)
Comment #17 Removed by Moderator
To: seamole
NOTE THAT THIS A 1996 (KLINTON) LAW.
18
posted on
12/04/2003 9:05:15 AM PST
by
expatpat
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"The Justice Department was not immediately prepared to say how it will respond. The government has weeks to decide whether to appeal before the decision becomes law."
The Courts are out of control. Once again, legislating from the bench.
The only solutuon is Juridical Nullification (the Act of the Executive and Legislature ignoring insane decisions by the Courts) or Court Stacking - adding as many conservative appointees as possible to existing courts to bring their decisions in line with Constitutionality, rationality and public opinion. The Courts today ignore the laws, ignore the Constitution, and ignore Public opinion, substituting their own visions of social justice in their place.
What is a Judge? Merely a political appointee with a law degree. Yet they behaive like little gods, and are beyond public recall.
This is truly tyranny.
20
posted on
12/04/2003 9:13:46 AM PST
by
ZULU
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson