Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters

[jayfish]

Link

By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

Does this apply to "free speech zones"?

Jay

[Jawja]

1. Exactly.

Whatever applies to those protesting abortion clinics now applies to all other protestors.

[OKNancy]

3. Social activists and the AFL-CIO

had sided with anti-abortion groups in arguing that similar lawsuits and injunctions could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.


quote from article.

8-0 decision.

[Orangepeel]

2. The ruling was 8 to 0?

(who didn't vote, I wonder?)

"Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with anti-abortion groups in arguing that similar lawsuits and injunctions could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions."

[DrGrishka]

10. Alito

Because he wasn't on the Court when the cases were hear. usual practice.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Probably Rehnquist

Remember, the actual vote was taken some months ago, long before Scalito was installed. There is usually a period of several months between the time a decision is made and the time it is released; that is so that the various opinions can be written and circulated for approval.

[TheVirginian]

24. Alito wasn't on the court when the case first came before the SC...

Since he wasn't sworn in for all of the case, he doesn't get a vote.

[TheVirginian]

25. replied to wrong message

.

[xchrom]

4. protest conservative churches!

those tapeworms get a tax free status to spread their vision of hate, bigotry and sexism -- rock the house, baby!

[jayfish]

6. How About Recruiters

link

awrence Police arrested seven protesters this morning after they spent hours chained by their necks to the doors of a military recruiting office.

[xchrom]

7. all of it. but PROTEST CONSERVATIVE CHURCHES!

right now i'm focused on this ruling re: abortion clinics.

prohibiting people from seeking medical treatment is what this will result in.

[wakeme2008]

5. Do not think so it was 8-0

on the Rico act.

[papau]

8. It reads like 8-0 on Rico not applying -no "freestanding physical violence

offense" -federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

The question was "can a nationwide injunction under RICO be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence absent a connection with robbery or extortion"

The answer was no.

[ticapnews]

9. Free Speech Zones are about National Security

Anti-Abortion protests are "God's will."

I'm sure there will be plenty of justification made for continuing the "free speech zones"

[sendero]

12. Come on..

.... RICO was never a good fit for this, who is surprised here? Not even the more liberal judges could get on board with that nonsense.

[NaturalHigh]

19. Agreed...

Trying to pull off a ban on abortion protests by using this law was just (poor) legal maneuvering. If this law applied to abortion protesters, then it applied to anti-war protesters, anti-logging protesters, anti-nuclear protesters, etc.

[Mr_Spock]

13. Supreme Court backs abortion protesters

Supreme Court backs abortion protesters
Pro-life supporters join hands in front of the Supreme Court, Sept. 5, 2005. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
By Toni Locy, Associated Press Writer | February 28, 2006

WASHINGTON --The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over anti-abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 ruling by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the appellate court sought to determine whether the injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence.

...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/28/justices_side_with_anti_abortion_groups/

[marmar]

14. Just wait until a case involving war protestors comes up...

and watch the hypocrisy! :tinfoilhat:

[Exiled in America]

15. They're entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

So, the same protections that safeguard their right to protest in front of an abortion clinic are the same protections that safeguard my right to protest in front of their church, or in front of Wal-Mart or wherever else I feel I need to.

I'm sorry, I strongly viscerally disagree with the anti-abortion position. And any threats of violence should be dealt with swiftly and immediately on a case by case basis.

But I don't care how much I don't like the opinion, any time I hear about "banning demonstrators" I get pretty damn uncomfortable.

There is no good kind of protest ban, even the ones we don't like. If there are trouble makers within those protests, then arrest them.

[Minnesota Libra]

16. PLEASE Don't tell me every one say that coming......

....come on - :eyes: that was a foregone conclusion with Roberts. :puke:

[qazplm]

23. ummmm

it was an 8-0 decision. Roberts had nothing to do with it, everyone agreed and it was the right call. You dont put limits on protesting if no one is being physically harmed or blocked.

[Demeter]

17. Another Tone Deaf Judgment

Having run the gantlet at clinics I am appalled and amused. Where does the right to privacy, autonomy, and exercise of a person's Constitutional rights come in? For there is nothing more certain to infringe upon all that than a bunch of busybodies who have nothing more important to do than make other people more miserable than they already are.

Protest is one thing; intimidation and harrassment is another altogether. RICO is entirely appropriate under those circumstances. And that's not even counting the firebombings, Superglue in the locks, ramming with vehicles, and spraying with aerosal irritants which have been inflicted on private property. Amazing how much of that went away with RICO and proper enforcement of the limits of one's freedom to annoy.

[onehandle]

18. Let the Killing Begin!

Women's health center doctors just got brand new targets painted on their chests.

[baldguy]

20. Right. Get ready for another round of assassinations & bombings.

But this time, it has to USSC's stamp of approval.

[Megahurtz]

21. So they're encouraging

the murder of Doctors?:wtf:

They can try, try ,try, on this outlawing abortion thing but they won't win,
even if they try to force it by overturning the law.
People are going to do what they want to do and find other ways to do it.

[Rainscents]

22. Your headline should had read "Supreme Court back protesters'!

This wasn't about just the anti-abortion, this was about PROTESTERS period. Your headline is misleading.

[jayfish]

27. Actually It Should Read "US Supreme Court Backs Protestors"...

but I didn't author the headline. Talk to AP.

Jay

[TheVirginian]

26. People are jumping to too many conclusions

Thanks to the misleading headline.

The Supreme Court made no rulings about what anti-abortion protesters should and should not be able to do. They made a ruling saying that a certain law could not be used to block what they're doing. This case isn't about the end results, its about the process, making sure that the laws Congress passed are applied correctly and constitutionally. That's why this was an unanimous decision.

[jayfish]

28. Oh Bull,

Quite frankly I'm a bit tired of everyone lecturing me about what the goddamn story is about. The use of the RICO statute was a means to an end. That end being the cessation of violence against patrons of clinics that provide abortion services. This decision is about abortion PERIOD. To demonstrate that, what I (and a few others on this thread)am saying is that if this case was about using RICO to stop protesters from inconveniencing Heir Bush during one of his sycophantic tour-stops, this court would have affirmed the decision of the 9th circuit. I'm not even saying the decision was incorrect. Read between the lines.

Jay

[TheVirginian]

29. And quite frankly, I'm tired...

I'm tired of wingnuts going off the deep end into conspiracy theories and wild goose chases when something routine and unsubstantial like this case happens. Why do you think Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, and Ginsberg voted against it? Because if you want to stop abortion protesters, or protesters of any kind, this isn't the law to do it with. Anybody who tries to say this ruling is about anything more than this is either lying or irrational.

[mitchum]

30. As much as I despise the anti-choice lunatics, I don't think...

that they do violate RICO. I honestly believe that the SC ruled correctly this time.
However, MANY current corporate practices DO seem to violate RICO. I would like it used against them. Fat chance of that happening, though...