Christian Clarity Review

Months ago, it was found that through Iran anti-Christ has budgeted monies so that private citizens may sue the U.S. for any reason, thus purely seeking to tie up U.S. tax payer funds and the energies of many in trying bogus cases –which the Left loves to do as obliging them. Then a pro-Muslim/pro-terrorist organization (C.A.I.R.) sued a private U.S. citizen for exposing their true nature –and lost.

Now anti-Christ through the Left is attempting to use amicus briefs in order to force American jurisprudence into line with the Left, er, International Opinion.

(from wikipedia: Amicus curiae (Latin, plural amici curiae) is defined as, “A friend of the court. One not a party to a case who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it”. [1]. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information lies with the discretion of the court.)

—————–

excerpted from:The Counterterrorism Blog: Weekly Standard: Not So Friendly Amici

The submission that these “friends” filed makes clear that they seek to end the military commissions on the basis of international opinion rather than U.S. law, though they couch this argument in legalese. The brief notes in the opening section that it won’t address any of the contested issues of U.S. law because “to the outside world it boils down to the simple, but crucial, question of whether the system of legal norms that purports to restrain the conduct of states vis-à-vis individuals within their power will survive the terrorist threat.”

Although the brief goes on to say that Hamdan is “one battle in the war between the evil logic of terrorism” and the principle that “all states are subject to the rule of law,” the brief itself essentially ignores the rule of law. It cites no federal statutes. It cites only four Supreme Court cases–and these only to support tangential statements–but references a full 20 cases from tribunals outside the United States. These mainly come from international bodies (such as the U.N., the International Court of Justice, and even the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) but also include a couple of U.K. cases.

Moreover, the brief relies on a number of documents of dubious domestic import. Three treaties are central to its argument, though none is applicable. Two were ratified by the Senate with the express reservation that they would be of no domestic effect until Congress passed legislation implementing them, which it has not done. And the third wasn’t even ratified. The brief argues that, as a signatory, the United States is nonetheless obliged to implement its protections.

It should perhaps be unsurprising that foreign legislators are now submitting amicus briefs designed to pressure the judiciary. After all, it appears that the federal government’s most vocal proponents of respect for the international community’s views can be found not in the State Department, but on the Supreme Court. In a 2005 speech to the American Society of International Law, Justice Ginsburg quoted the Declaration of Independence (complete with gender-sensitive modifications) to assure the audience that “we will continue to accord ‘a decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind’ as a matter of comity and in a spirit of humility.” Justices Breyer and Kennedy and retired Justice O’Connor have made similar remarks.

Thus, while it isn’t unusual for foreign nations to submit amicus briefs where the issue is an interpretation of international law, they now appear to be doing so in an entirely new class of cases, first in the 2004 Guantánamo-related Rasul v. Bush, and now in Hamdan. Although electronic databases lack comprehensive coverage of brief submissions, it appears that before Rasul, when court cases touched on foreign policy issues, foreign officials weighed in only to represent the interests of a sovereign nation (for example, in commerce or admiralty cases) rather than to advance the more amorphous concept of “international opinion.” In Rasul, an amicus brief was submitted by 175 “members of both Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” The Bush administration lost that case–and if it loses in Hamdan, this trend will likely accelerate.

There are sound reasons that foreign governments have heretofore generally refrained from weighing in on the judiciary’s interpretation of U.S. foreign policy obligations. Federal courts have long recognized that the president should function as the sole representative of the country’s foreign policy. The Supreme Court said in the canonical 1936 case United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., “the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.” While this is an overstatement (the Constitution commits part of the treaty-making process to the Senate, and courts interpret treaties), the general sentiment is correct. As more parties purport to shape our foreign relations, effective diplomacy becomes more difficult.

And a look at the amicus brief’s signatories reveals that some of the foreign parties attempting to guide the judiciary are hostile to the United States and the global war on terror. While the Hamdan brief assures the reader that the amici “are aware that the threat of terrorism is real,” the biggest household name among the signatories is the notorious British MP George Galloway. Galloway’s July 2005 claim on Al-Jazeera that “the biggest terrorists are Bush, and Blair, and Berlusconi, and Aznar” certainly calls into question at least one signatory’s understanding of the reality of terrorism.

Another signatory, Peter Kilfoyle, has said, in criticizing Britain’s support for the United States: “Every cliché in the book has been employed to justify its slavish adherence to each madcap notion to emanate from this most ideologically perverse of American administrations.” And signatory Mohammad Sarwar, known for his unremitting attacks on regional ally Israel, has favorably quoted former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir bin Mohamad’s statement that it is “no longer a war against terrorism, it is in fact a war to dominate the world.”

No doubt, many of the signatories are respected statesmen. But with 422 names on the brief, surely Galloway, Sarwar, and Kilfoyle are not the only “friends of the court” who persistently seek to hamper the war on terror.

————————-

It is becoming very very plain even to the slowest of those deceived they have ‘free’ will, that the Left, the Communists and the Islamics are one and the same, –even when they do NOT have knowing cooperation among themselves: their speech and heart are the same. They can only discover as if new truth to them that they were always brothers and friends.

—————–

Psalm 17: A Prayer of David.

Hear the right, O Jehovah, attend unto my cry; give ear unto my prayer, which is not out of feigned lips. Let my judgment come forth from thy presence, let thine eyes regard equity. Thou hast proved my heart, thou hast visited me by night; thou hast tried me, thou hast found nothing: my thought goeth not beyond my word. Concerning the works of men, by the word of thy lips I have kept from the paths of the violent man . When thou holdest my goings in thy paths, my footsteps slip not. I have called upon thee, for thou answerest me, O *God. Incline thine ear unto me, hear my speech. Shew wondrously thy loving-kindnesses, O thou that savest by thy right hand them that trust in thee from those that rise up against them . Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings, From the wicked that destroy me, my deadly enemies, who compass me about. They are enclosed in their own fat; with their mouth they speak proudly. They have now encompassed us in our steps; their eyes have they set, bowing down to the earth. He is like a lion that is greedy of its prey, and as a young lion lurking in secret places. Arise, Jehovah, anticipate him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, thy sword; From men who are thy hand, O Jehovah, from men of this age: their portion is in this life, and their belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure ; they have their fill of sons, and leave the rest of their substance to their children. As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen