Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters

[kpete]

Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer


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.

Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the 7th Circuit had asked a trial judge to determine whether a nationwide injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence absent a connection with robbery or extortion

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

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend to create "a freestanding physical violence offense" in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060228/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion_protests

[jsamuel]

1. note that this ruling also backs AFL-CIO unions

[bryant69]

2. I guess i don't really understand this case

Was the contention that the existence of Anti-Abortion protesters is automatically backed up by the threat of violence?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Pretty much.

It was essentially collective guilt by indirect association. The decision was the right decision if you support the 1st amendment.

[papau]

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

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.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

5. I think it's a proper decision

The use of the extortion and racketeering laws was a very far-out gamble that the pro-choice folks tried. Hey, it was worth a shot, but it was badly framed, from a legal standpoint.

It's proper.

But, this fight is still on. And the pro-union part of it is good. Gotta be careful with that "right to assemble" thing in the Constitution, even when it's a group you find repugnant.

Back to the drawing board.

[papau]

8. I agree :-)

:-)

[Caution]

6. I'm vociferously pro-choice but I back this decision

[Richard Steele]

7. Now that I understand the issue in question, I agree with this ruling. nm