Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters
Yahoo news ^ | 2/28/06 | TONI LOCY, AP

Posted on 02/28/2006 7:27:13 AM PST by conservatrice

Edited on 02/28/2006 8:38:19 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-195 last
To: mkjessup

And then to require the mother to provide for a decent and honorable burial of her child.


181 posted on 03/01/2006 5:43:49 AM PST by woollyone (...a closed mouth gathers no feet...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

Thank you for your measured response..I mostly agree with you, but would just add this: those of us who repent this act wear our scarlet letters in our hearts, always. Blessings on you and all the little babies.


182 posted on 03/01/2006 6:11:36 AM PST by ariamne (Proud shieldmaiden of the infidel--never forget, never forgive 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: conservatrice
There is a lot to be thankful for this Lent.

In a way, though, this illustrates why I am not that fired up about the Patriot Act. RICO was originally passed to stop the mob, and some how got applied to infanticide protesters. I am very fearful of mission creep.
183 posted on 03/01/2006 6:42:48 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Interesting alliance here!

The AFL-CIO aren't stupid. If an abortion protest can fall under RICO, then a picket line surly will.

184 posted on 03/01/2006 6:49:44 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

"...Actually, thius case had nothing to do with the 1994 FACE law and nothing to do with freedom of speech. This was a case that began before 1994, so NOW couldn't use the FACE Act, so they sued under RICO. RICO requires proof of certain "predicate acts" -- violations of certain federal criminal statutes. NOW claimed that the protestors were committing 'extortion.'"

RICO was invoked as yet another means to an end -- namely to have abortion clinics be granted protected status around which free speech cannot be exercised.

The fact that the unions and social activist groups became involved shows that they also were concerned that the legal precedent could possibly extrapolated to quash their non-violent means of demonstrating/putting pressure.

Threats, violence and property destruction -- covered under FACE and RICO -- were already illegal before either Acts were enacted. NOW and Planned Parenthood were attempting to devise an officially protected point of view on a certain issue of which dissent will not be tolerated.

I still maintain therefore that this is not so much an anti-abortion 'victory' but one of free speech and peaceable assembly.


185 posted on 03/01/2006 7:07:31 AM PST by walford (http://the-big-pic.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Very good point. I have advocated, in the past, laws that prohibit protesting at funerals such as Fred Phelps does, but you're right - the precedent could be taken out of context to apply to other things. Darn.


186 posted on 03/01/2006 7:45:16 AM PST by conservatrice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: conservatrice
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.

At last!

187 posted on 03/01/2006 7:50:45 AM PST by A. Pole (Saint Augustine: "The truth speaks from the bottom of the heart without the noise of words")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama; A2J; Agitate; AliVeritas; Alouette; Annie03; aposiopetic; attagirl; Augie76; ...

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

188 posted on 03/01/2006 11:37:41 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (GOP Blend Coffee--"Coffee for Conservative Taste!" Go to www.gopetc.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Now maybe some people I know can fight the fact that they lost everything.I hope they do because we were the first case.Congrats Joe.


189 posted on 03/01/2006 7:22:16 PM PST by fatima (Just say it if it is for love-have no regrets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: jan in Colorado

Ping for later.


190 posted on 03/01/2006 11:41:13 PM PST by jan in Colorado (Beware of the ENEMEDIA!!! What treason have they perpetrated today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatrice
Yahoo news | "The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics..."
They are not clinics.

Cordially,

191 posted on 03/02/2006 8:11:33 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan
Did pro-life protestors really assult patients as the writer claims?

That was not at issue before the Supreme Court, because the issue there was whether extortion took place. Harassment and even assault aren't "extortion" according to the law; extortion must be violence or a threat of violence in order to obtain property. The SCOTUS ruled that the "in order to obtain property" part had never been proven WRT any of the "predicate acts", hence RICO and the Hobbs Act could not apply.

However, NOW presented evidence of various kinds claiming that Joe Scheidler had committed violent acts. Some of it appeared to be blatantly perjured; in fact, one witness apparently bragged about how she had been paid off.

There was also the issue that one of the parties to the suit had already sued, and lost, in state court in Wisconsin. There's a principle of law called res judicata which states that a party can't retry a suit in federal court if they've already lost in state court. (IANAL, just a Joe Scheidler contributor, so I may not have all of this right.)

192 posted on 03/03/2006 3:16:54 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The Court does not strike down the 1994 FACE Act, and in fact relies on that Act to show why it is not necessary to use the RICO statute against clinic protestors.

Actually they used the passage of FACE in 1994 as evidence that Congress did not consider RICO and the Hobbs Act to already prohibit the activities that FACE outlawed. IOW, they told NOW, "If RICO and Hobbs had done what you claim they did in 1986, there would have been nothing to be gained in passing FACE in 1994."

193 posted on 03/03/2006 3:23:59 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: conservatrice

What I find interesting about this story is how quickly it was buried by the MSM. This was a unanimous decision and will be almost impossible for future courts to overrule.


194 posted on 03/03/2006 5:47:56 PM PST by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Thanks. Much appreciate the informative and thoughtful reply.

FReepRegards,
BJN


195 posted on 03/04/2006 5:18:03 PM PST by BJungNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-195 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson