Justices weigh RICO in protests

The Washington Times ^ | 5 December 2002 | Julia Duin

[Stultis]

Supreme Court justices used a 1986 abortion case to debate the limits of political protests yesterday, professing skepticism as to whether protests that shut down a business could be called extortion.

At issue was Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (NOW), in which a jury found two pro-life groups and three individuals guilty of using extortion to shut down abortion clinics.

[Stultis]

O.K. Freepers... Multi facets here. Don't focus exclusively on the fact that this case was against pro-life protestors. The relevant statutes could be used more nobely. Think about the communist/anti-capitalist scum that regularly trash major cities hosting international trade meetings and the like. This application of RICO would allow police to agressively go after leaders for such destructive efforts rather than the dupes they send out to trash the nieghborhoods. Or how about slapping down environazis trying to destroy businesses and ranchers? It's even possible to imagine nailing Je$$e Jackson, cabals of trial lawyers, etc for extorting money from businesses.

The other side of the story: Do we really want The Leviathan, the Federal Government with all its overwhelming resources, in these delicate areas touching on the rights of speech, political demonstration, and agitation for societal change? Isn't this best left to the law enforcement resources of the states? After all, genuinely destructive means of protest are already illegal.

O.K. Discuss... [sipping coffee]

[DoughtyOne]

You came up with a better example than I did, but I find it interesting that RICO isn't used more often to stop street gang activity. Imagine letting gangs who commit murders etc proliferate, but anti-abortionists get RICO thrown at them for good measure. Kind of seem like things are upside down to me.

[leadpenny]

I'm not for destruction of property or other criminal acts but the Supremes need to re-level the 'playing field.' First they uphold the 200' (or whatever it is) restriction on protests, thereby infringing on free speech, and then they go after those who try to find ways around it. Remove the limit around abortion clinics. That would be a step in the direction of making it a fair fight.

[GulliverSwift]

Protecting free speech should always be first because you never know when another Clinton will come around.

[livius]

Don't focus exclusively on the fact that this case was against pro-life protestors.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The simple fact is, that outside of prosecutions of the Mafia and things that are clearly organized crime in the classic sense, RICO is used solely against abortion protesters.

I don't think it should be used against any protestors, frankly. But if it's used against one group, then it should be used against all of them.

It's pretty obvious that the "anti-globalization" crowd causes a lot more damage than a group of people with signs and rosaries, so there would be a lot more reason to use it against the anti-globalization groups than against the anti-abortion groups. But the sole purpose for its use at present is to harrass a group that is out of favor with liberals and the left.

[firewalk]

bump to read later....

[Ben Ficklin]

"This application of RICO would allow police...."

The defendents were not criminally prosecuted under RICO. When this case made its first trip to the SCOTUS, the justices labored on their groundbreaking decision to allow the application in a civil case. Perhaps wrongly.

[EODGUY]

"You came up with a better example than I did, but I find it interesting that RICO isn't used more often to stop street gang activity. Imagine letting gangs who commit murders etc proliferate, but anti-abortionists get RICO thrown at them for good measure. Kind of seem like things are upside down to me. "

But street gangs, at least the ones with whom I dealt, are comprised primarily of minorities. The left provides excuses (poverty, lack of education, lack of midnight basketball programs available)for the criminal behavior of minorities who commit capital offenses, but salivate at the opportunity to obliterate those whose only goal is to peacefully uphold the sanctity of life. And the peaceful nature of the Pro-Life defendants in this case was documented on video tape, but lower courts refused to accept the tapes into evidence. However the testimony of anonymous abortion clinic workers (who are shown in the tapes to have lied in their testimony) was accepted without question.

You are absolutely correct......things are clearly upside down.

[leadpenny]

Debate just started on C-SPAN The Prosecution of Pro-Life Activists.

[Diamond]

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor interjected, "We're not talking about conduct that is lawful."

In O'Connor's topsy-turvy world, killing the innocent is 'lawful' conduct, but saving them is not. They have have turned the purpose of law completely upside down and the result is legal and intellectual chaos and contradiction, with all the attendent injustice.

Cordially,

[FreeTheHostages]

I like your post 2 talking points. Very intelligent rendition of both positions.

I kinda think: civil disobedience for political ends can be a good thing, but if you do the crime, you do the time. If we don't like the fact that RICO could apply to this, Congress should redraft/amend RICO. Not sure the Supreme Court should do anything but read the law literally. It's not the Court's policy choice to make here.

[toenail]

"In O'Connor's topsy-turvy world, killing the innocent is 'lawful' conduct, but saving them is not. They have have turned the purpose of law completely upside down and the result is legal and intellectual chaos and contradiction, with all the attendent injustice."

Blackmun was an idiot -- a first-class, bona fide idiot. But it came naturally to him. O'Connor labors greatly for her idiocy.