[victim soul]

Bump for future read.

[rhema]

At one point during the arguments, the justices grilled U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson about the government's support for NOW's use of the racketeering law, commonly known as RICO.

What lunacy is this? Who's calling the shots on Ted Olson's obliquity?

[norton]

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but it sickens me to note that someone can translate active denial of life to another human being into terms like:

"...the court asked the attorneys to address the meaning of "property," which is the basis for determining extortion...Clayton said "property" means anything tangible or intangible that someone obtains from someone else...(&)...pro-life activists used violence to scare away clients seeking abortions and temporarily shut down clinics...several justices questioned if "property" can be loosely defined in cases where actual property was not seized...controlling something does not translate into obtaining it.."My clients don't have the property today," Englert said."

Property?

Just who does "My clients don't have the property today," best apply to?
Or, must we now assume that our lives are NOT "our property" - that they can be forfeit for economic or political purposes absent any criminal act or legal recourse?

I know for a fact that if I shoot a car thief as he tries to drive away in my car - I'm the one who will be prosecuted and not the thief. Protecting my property would not keep me out of jail or worse. Only in an entirely perverse system could the case of willful, often tax supported, often for-profit, abortion of life be decided by holding (intangible) property above life.

PS: And, I'm not even particularly anti-abortion in general terms (rape,incest, etc.) it's the details that make the issue so nearly impossible to resolve.

[KeyBored]

". . .the racketeering law, commonly known as RICO."

If this case doesn't illustrate the danger too many laws, nothing does.

RICO was created for a specific purpose with a specific target in mind - ORGANIZED CRIME. You know - the dark suit, heavy set guys with the "violin cases". Does anyone seriously think that the creators of RICO had pro-life demonstrators (or ANY demonstrator, for that matter) in mind?

But the politically correct are nothing if not creative in DISCOVERING ways to thwart the clear meaning of the Constitution. (And no-one is more politically INcorrect than a pro-lifer). When politically correct fascists are in power, free speech be hanged.

Free speech for their opponents, that is. HilLIARy! call your office.

[Satadru]

Why is the Bush adminstration supporting NOW in this case? Maybe Bush is showing his true colors.

[BenR2]

At one point during the arguments, the justices grilled U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson about the government's support for NOW's use of the racketeering law, commonly known as RICO.

Come on Bushbots. Please tell me how "clever" and "brilliant" the Bush Administration is in this case. (Not.)