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.

[Notwithstanding]

You need to read the articles - the doctors on site said the health of the young mom was equally at risk from abortion or live delivery.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

Reason, sanity, and justice prevail!

[Stefan Stackhouse]

Now if they would just open a RICO case against the Clinton administration, where it really belongs. . .

[Notwithstanding]

You sound like Kate Michelman when she pretends to give advice to help George Bush win points with the voters.

As if you care.

[Gophack]

BTTT!

[Campion]

Perjury is a criminal act regardless of whether NOW had won or not. Why are you so afraid of the criminal justice system scrutinizing your complaint?

I'm not Joe Scheidler, so your use of the first person is entirely out of place.

Yeah, it's a criminal act. I don't know whether they've gone to the Federal District Attorney (is that the right office?) in Cook County to file a complaint or not. I know that the perjury was brought up before the Appellate Court and the court didn't address it.

If Scheidler looks and acts like he's threatening violence against someone, shooting him is self-defense, not murder

I suggest you not buy a gun, then, because that's not what the law says in most states, AFAIK. "Looks and acts like he's threatening" doesn't cut it, especially if he's not on someone else's property and doesn't have a weapon in view.

[Notwithstanding]

In fairness, I do refer to him as satan sometimes.
(the shoe fits...)

[Campion]

Blocking access to or from public property is not nonviolent expression of opinion.

Again, as I understand NOW's position, you didn't have to "block access". All you had to do was "impede" or "delay" one of their clients. Saying, "Miss, may I talk to you" constitutes "delaying" someone.

[dansangel]

Thanks to both of you for the pings....hooray for our side! It *IS* good to see for a change!

[Salvation]

**Gosh - I wonder why I haven't heard of this from the major news outlets /sarcasm**

Exactly!

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Those wouldn't be her treating docs. Those would be the special panel of politically appointed docs, much beloved of church and state.

[2timothy3.16]

Notwithstanding said:
"Killing a baby conceived through rape is ALWAYS MURDER.

You are satan"

And you take Notwithstanding to task for this. I am curious as to why. Why would you be so upset? Would you be more comfortable if Notwithstanding had said "By your comments I would say you are a satanist."?

As a devote follower of the Lord Jesus, the Christ, commonly referred to amongst His as Messiah Yeshua, I am called a Christian, for to be a follower of the Lord is to be a one called by His name, a CHRISTian.

Now, the Lord God Creator of all things, including satan and you, has told us:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:15-20

Now judging by your words, your behavior and your adamant support of the offering of human blood sacrifices to satan in the form of abortion, I would have to draw the conclusion, based upon your fruits, that it is satan that you serve and not the Lord Jesus, the Christ.

So, instead of calling you after your lord, how about if Notwithstanding had just referred to you as a follower of your lord, a satanist.

[biblewonk]

I must say, I'm impressed with the SCOTUS this time!

[Poohbah]

I know that the perjury was brought up before the Appellate Court and the court didn't address it.

Gosh. It was brought up and not addressed. Maybe because it was transparently BS.

But why Scheidler didn't file the charges as soon as he learned of the perjury is rather interesting, to say the least.

I suggest you not buy a gun, then, because that's not what the law says in most states, AFAIK. "Looks and acts like he's threatening" doesn't cut it, especially if he's not on someone else's property and doesn't have a weapon in view.

I suggest you not act like Joe Scheidler. In many states, the courts will grant the benefit of the doubt to a small person (Scheidler's preferred target) confronted up-close-and-personal by a large assailant (Scheidler's MO).

Bottom line: many folks out there will decide that it is far better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[BlessedBeGod]

Are you saying the Chancellor is OPH?

I was wondering where he went.

[Mr. Thorne]

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.

Don't'cha just HATE IT when that happens?

Snicker!

[Scholastic]

Well, Ted Olson and Estrada look like fools!

Thank the good Lord for this news.

[Khepera]

Oh great. Try not to be confused as it hurts your arguments.

[Notwithstanding]

Poobs indicates that he thinks the number two amendment trumps the number one amendment.

Poobs also indicates that he thinks an appropriate response toward those who are doing what they legally can to prevent a murder ought to be subjected to murder. Even when people who are obviously unarmed illegally enter an abortion mill the appropriate response would not be to kill them. You do NOT have the 2nd amendment right to kill trspassers in broad daylight who are obviously not armed and dangerous.

End of story.

Poobs is legally and morally wrong.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I'm talking about a 9 year old child, and you are calling me satanic and claiming I'm offering up blood sacrifices?

Wow. Just wow.