Supreme Court Rules For Abortion Protesters In Civil Disobedience Case (RICO)

Associated Press / SFGate ^

[RCW2001]

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a federal racketeering law was improperly used to punish aggressive anti-abortion protesters, a major victory for people who regularly block clinic doors.

The court's 8-0 ruling applies to protests of all sorts, not just at clinics.

[Campion]

And when you are a parent, you can comment on pregnant, raped, endangered 9 year olds - not until.

Since I'm a parent, do I get to comment?

I have two daughters. I would never want either of them to have an abortion, under any circumstances. (Medical treatment intended to save the mother's life which unavoidably kills the unborn child is not abortion, by definition.)

That includes rape.

You no doubt think I'm a monster. I think you're a monster, for thinking that killing a child because of the sins of her father is a "solution". Mutilating a child and violating a woman for a second time does not solve anything.

Now, go away.

[2timothy3.16]

Music to my ears:

(b) This Court’s determination as to Hobbs Act extortion renders insufficient the other bases or predicate acts of racketeering supporting the jury’s conclusion that petitioners violated RICO. In accordance with this Court’s decisions in Nardello and Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), where as here the Model Penal Code and a majority of Sates recognize the crime of extortion as requiring a party to obtain or to seek to obtain property, as the Hobbs Act requires, a state extortion offense for RICO purposes must have a similar requirement. Thus, because petitioners did not obtain or attempt to obtain respondents’ property, both the state extortion claims and the claim of attempting or conspiring to commit state extortion were fatally flawed. The violations of the Travel Act and attempts to violate that Act also fail. These acts were committed in furtherance of allegedly extortionate conduct, but petitioners did not commit or attempt to commit extortion. Pp. 14—15.

2. Without an underlying RICO violation, the District Court’s injunction must necessarily be vacated. The Court therefore need not address the second question presented–whether a private plaintiff in a civil RICO action is entitled to injunctive relief under §1964(c). Pp. 15—16.

Listen carefully, you can hear the angels in heaven singing praises to our Lord.

[Notwithstanding]

Chancellor-Palpable-Irrational-Hatred-of-All-Things-Catholic:

Any pro-lifer who is well-informed understands that life is life and no innocent life is more worthy than another inncoent life.

Killing a baby conceived through rape is ALWAYS MURDER.

You are satan.

[unspun]

Take it easy. (Don't be "The Church Lady.")

[Question_Assumptions]

Woo Hoo! Sanity at the top of the judicial system.

I think most of the liberals on the courts were able to imagine RICO suits being brought against left-wing protesters and did the right thing.

[aristeides]

Oops, looks as though that story was incorrect about the decision being 8-0. Stevens apparently dissented alone. Make that 8-1. Still, that's remarkable. Ginsburg actually wrote a concurrence, in which Breyer joined.

[2timothy3.16]

ask him what the baby did that is worthy of being ripped apart.

Ask him why we kill the bab y and not the rapist?

Ask him if he thinks a 14 year old virgin who is pregnant from a one night stand with an older, much older guy, a virgin from a real nice middle class family in a small rural town were every one kinows everyone else, should have an abortion.

If he says yes, suggest he read Luke 1:26-35.

The Lord our God, Messiah Yeshua bless you and yours.

[aristeides]

Link to decision.

[Khepera]

Only G-dless pukes feel that way and they are of no importance.

[Poohbah]

Well, it's consistent with the FedGov's unwillingness to use RICO against labor unions for conspiring to violent acts "incidental" to collective bargaining efforts.

In short, it's good for demonstrating how consistently inconsistent the laws of the land are.

Personally, as a pro-life activist...if someone were to enter an abortion clinic illegally, I would understand if the clinic owners opted to engage in appropriate self-defense measures.

Bottom line: these groups have done far more to help the pro-aborts than anything the pro-aborts could do by themselves. And you're saying I should cheer the fact that they will still be doing damage to the cause in the future.

[k2blader]

Pro-Life bump!!!

[eleni121]

Halleluiah!!!!!

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Only G-dless pukes feel that way and they are of no importance.

Interesting analysis to apply to people who simply point out a concern about an endangered 9 year old impregnated by rape.

Great PR.

[Campion]

if someone were to enter an abortion clinic illegally, I would understand if the clinic owners opted to engage in appropriate self-defense measures.

According to NOW's brief in this case, one didn't need to enter the clinic (legally or otherwise) to be an extortionist. All a protester needed to do was conduct a protest which "delayed" or "impeded" a pregnant woman seeking an abortion. That protest could have been entirely non-violent and conducted on public property; as far as NOW was concerned, it was still "extortion".

Incidentally, much, perhaps all, of the evidence alleging violence on the part of Joe Scheidler in this case was perjured. In particular, a woman who testified about being beaten up by pro-lifers later bragged about being paid thousands of dollars by NOW to testify, and the "minister" who allegedly "saved" her from the protesters is apparently fictional.

[Khepera]

You were not doing that. you where assulting another persons prayer to the almighty. Here you lie openly about what you were doing and expect for people to hear your words as truth.

[Notwithstanding]

Your comical selfishness is great PR - thats why I pinged you here.

You are a hater.

Haters are repulsive.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

*snort*

The guy was calling me Satan - you mean THAT was a heartfelt entreaty worthy of my respect?

[Coleus]

Court Rules for Abortion Protesters

By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a federal racketeering law was improperly used to punish aggressive anti-abortion protesters, a major victory for people who regularly block clinic doors.

The court's 8-1 ruling applies to protests of all sorts, not just at clinics.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said that when protesters do not "obtain" property, they cannot be punished for civil disobedience with the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, an anti-racketeering law.

The court's ruling is a victory for Operation Rescue, anti-abortion leader Joseph Scheidler and others who were ordered to pay damages to abortion clinics and barred from interfering with their businesses for 10 years.

Rehnquist said that their political activity did not qualify as extortion.

Supreme Court News Court Rules for Abortion Protesters Supreme Court Considers Agent Orange Case Justices Side With Texas Death Row Inmate Court Rules for States on Orphan Benefits AP VIDEO Activists protest Roe v. Wade on decision anniversary Windows | Real Latest News Court Rules for Abortion Protesters Nicaraguan Bishops Join Abortion Debate Lawyer Asks Murder Case to Be Thrown Out Nicaragua Investigates Child's Abortion Justices Clear Way for Abortion Rules

That outcome had been sought by activists like actor Martin Sheen, animal rights groups and even some organizations that support abortion rights. They argued that protesters of all types could face harsher penalties for demonstrating, if the court ruled otherwise.

The demonstrators had been sued in 1986 by abortion clinics in Delaware and Wisconsin and the National Organization for Women, which contended that racketeering and extortion laws should protect businesses from violent protests that drive away clients.

They accused the groups of blocking clinic entrances, menacing doctors, patients and clinic staff, and destroying equipment during a 15-year campaign to limit abortions. The demonstrators were ordered to pay about $258,000 in damages and barred from interfering nationwide with the clinics' business for 10 years.

Rehnquist said there is no dispute that abortion protesters interfered with clinic operations and in some cases committed crimes.

"But even when their acts of interference and disruption achieved their ultimate goal of 'shutting down' a clinic that performed abortions, such acts did not constitute extortion," Rehnquist wrote.

The punishments were meted out under provisions of the 32-year-old Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, and the Hobbs Act, a 1946 law aimed at crushing organized crime. The Hobbs Act makes it a crime to take property from another with force.

The court's ruling lifts the nationwide injunction.

Justice John Paul Stevens filed the only dissent. He said the court was limiting the scope of the Hobbs Act and limiting protection of property owners.

The issue dates back to the 1980s when large groups of anti-abortion demonstrators used aggressive tactics to disrupt clinics. The demonstrators contended that they did not use violence. In 1998, a jury in Illinois found demonstrators guilty of dozens of violations, including four acts involving physical violence or threats of violence.

"To conclude that such actions constituted extortion would effectively discard the statutory requirement that property must be obtained from another, replacing it instead with the notion that merely interfering with or depriving someone of property is sufficient to constitute extortion," Rehnquist wrote.

The cases are Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 01-1118, and Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, 01-1119.

 

Baby's Hand reaching out of the womb during a neuro-tube defect operation, as you can see the baby saw light and the doctor's hand which means it's alive and it's senses are working and feeling.  http://members.aol.com/dfjoseph/images/bighand.gif

 

 

 

 

[Notwithstanding]

Your faux concern for this nine year old mother is satanic. Only selfish beastly utilitarians assist someone in ensuring an evil thing (murder of the baby) occurs.

Ensuring evil occurs is no sign of concern. It is a sign of satanic influence.