Skip to comments.
Federal appeals court says abortion foes intimidated doctors
Associated Press ^
| May 16, 2002
| David Kravets
Posted on 05/16/2002 1:26:15 PM PDT by gdani
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
Supreme Court, anyone?
1
posted on
05/16/2002 1:26:15 PM PDT
by
gdani
To: gdani
"During the trial, U.S. District Judge Robert Jones had told the jury the posters and Web site should be considered threats if they could be taken as such by a "reasonable person."
Sorry, the last surviving reasonable person died of old age in 1986.
To: gdani
I'm curious; regardless of where you stand on abortion rights, does anyone think that the Nuremberg Files website was supporting violence against abortion providers, and do you think that violence is an appropriate tactic?
To: proxy_user
No, I'm still alive, for good or ill... 8~]
4
posted on
05/16/2002 1:43:04 PM PDT
by
tracer
To: gdani
Breakdown of judges for this decision and appointments:
Majority
Rymer - Bush
Schroedor - Carter
Hawkins - Clinton
Silverman - Clinton
Wardlaw - Clinton
Rawlinson - Clinton
Dissent
Reinhardt - Carter
Kozinski - Reagan
Kleinfeld - Bush
Belzon - Clinton
O'Scannlan - Reagan
5
posted on
05/16/2002 1:50:17 PM PDT
by
gdani
To: gdani
Jones also had instructed the jury to consider the history of violence in the anti-abortion movement, including the slayings of Slepian and two other doctors whose names had appeared on the list. Neglecting to mention that (1) No killer has been convicted in the Slepian case; (2) History shows that it is much more likely that an abortionist will get struck by lightning than 'executed'.
To: gdani
Bush Senior or Dubya?
To: HiTech RedNeck
Bush Senior or Dubya? You mean there's been TWO Bushes as prez? My world's gone topsy-turvy
(Senior)
8
posted on
05/16/2002 2:02:52 PM PDT
by
gdani
To: moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
does anyone think that the Nuremberg Files website was supporting violence against abortion providers I would like someone to explain to me why the website is relevant at all, since the proprietor of the website is not a defendant in the case. The pro-aborts are drifting from merely evil to blatantly insane; they're now prosecuting pro-lifers for "crimes" allegedly committed by other pro-lifers.
9
posted on
05/16/2002 2:08:51 PM PDT
by
Campion
To: gdani
Jones also had instructed the jury to consider the history of violence in the anti-abortion movement See what I mean? You can now be prosecuted under federal law if people who agree with you commit violent acts. If that doesn't constitute prior restraint on free speech, I don't know what does.
10
posted on
05/16/2002 2:11:59 PM PDT
by
Campion
To: moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
I'm curious; regardless of where you stand on abortion rights, does anyone think that the Nuremberg Files website was supporting violence against abortion providers, and do you think that violence is an appropriate tactic? I did spend some time looking over the site. No, I don't believe there was expressed support for violence against abortion doctors.
Is violence against providers an appropriate tactic, you ask? Considering who might be reading this thread, if I did believe violence was (is) an appropriate tactic I certainly wouldn't say so here. Talk about asking for a knock on your door . . .!
11
posted on
05/16/2002 2:18:39 PM PDT
by
toddst
To: toddst
I'm curious; regardless of where you stand on abortion rights, does anyone think that the Nuremberg Files website was supporting violence against abortion providers, and do you think that violence is an appropriate tactic? I guess it depends on how you look at it.
One thing I do know: Neil Horsely, the owner of the Nuremberg Files, was a confidant of Mark Waagner, the cretin arrested for the phony anthrax letters to abortion clinics last year. Horsely is a strange character who spent his five minutes on The Big Story with John Gibson last year yelling at Gibson because he didn't spend every show condemning abortion.
12
posted on
05/16/2002 2:32:30 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: gdani
Another biased,agenda driven judge basing a decision on"LEGAL NOTHINGNESS".SO WHAT if some "candyas*es"were intimidated!
To: INSENSITIVE GUY
Another biased,agenda driven judge basing a decision on"LEGAL NOTHINGNESS".SO WHAT if some "candyas*es"were intimidated! I agree with you. I do feel, though, that outlawing abortion all together would solve this problem.
To: gdani
Breakdown of judges for this decision and appointments:Considering the topic, shouldn't this list come with addresses?
To: gdani
Isn't the 9th court the one in San Francisco, the one also that SCOTUS overturns more than any other?
To: moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
I'm curious; regardless of where you stand on abortion rights, does anyone think that the Nuremberg Files website was supporting violence against abortion providers, and do you think that violence is an appropriate tactic? A long time ago, law dealt with facts and acts. Now, we are in a world where thoughts, feelings and attitudes are legislated.
1984 has finally arrived. ThoughtCrime is now considered in the judical proceedings of our highest courts.
As to question 2: Violence is the American Way, n'est pas? But, somehow, the prolife side is now forced to uniquely carry this albatross, along with drug thugs. I saw it on TV. It must be real.
Do an analysis of all the incidents of real violence committed by misguided prolifers against 47,000,000 dead babies.
17
posted on
05/16/2002 4:51:48 PM PDT
by
don-o
To: Recovering_Democrat
Isn't the 9th court the one in San Francisco, the one also that SCOTUS overturns more than any other?It is. There have been occasions where a SCOTUS justice stays available so that as soon as the 9th circuit makes a ruling he can issue a stay. (This is for cases where the circuit is blocking an execution at the last minute, the SCOTUS justice stays the circuit's order, and the execution proceeds)
To: moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
does anyone think that the Nuremberg Files website was supporting violence against abortion providers, and do you think that violence is an appropriate tactic?Yes to the first question and no to the second.
To: don-o
The "thought police" ARE sitting on the 9th circuit. Imagine that-- a picture is worth a thousand words, and the judges over-ruled all but a few.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 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