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.

[GirlShortstop]

"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."

[unspun]

This is absolutely the best news that has come out of that masoleum in years!

Well... remember the Bush 43 election. ;-`

[Aquinasfan]

Major victory for pro-lifers.

[B Knotts]

This is great news! I have always thought that using RICO laws in this way was a ridiculous abuse, and is obviously unconstitutional. Looks like the SCOTUS agrees.

[Maximilian]

Thank God! (literally) I was wondering (nervously) when they were going to rule. Thought maybe this would be one of those decisions that they throw out the plane window as they leave Washington in the middle of June. The fact that it was 8 - 1 must have given them the courage of their convictions.

And let me add that while my main concern is for the pro-life movement, RICO is a cancer that needs to be eliminated in all cases. If someone is a mobster, then convict him of a crime.

[Maximilian]

Good news ping!

[VRWC_minion]

This may mean the bankruptcy law proposal might get passed sooner. The orginal hold up has been around a law not allowing a discharge in the case of law suits against protestors.

[hchutch]

FYI ping.

The RICO abuse that is being turned against people engaging in protest just got dealt a very severe setback. I believe RICO is only appropriate when protests of any sort turn violent, and it seems that with the exception of Stevens, SCOTUS agrees.

[tiki]

Victory for life through Christ! Prayer works because God IS.

[Petronski]

I can't wait until the creeps at 'the other site' find out about this one. Oh, how great will be the wailing and gnashing of teeth!

[VRWC_minion]

Another obeservation is the likelihood of the SC ruling against the CFR bill as it relates to the ban on advertising preceeding an election seems pretty good.

[Straight Vermonter]

When we had protesters getting arrested here one of the baby killers was on the TV news saying, "we haven't decided whether to use RICO or not". I thought it was pretty remarkable that the arbortionists would be making that call not the DA.

[RobRoy]

>>Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority<<

So, where's the "minority report?" Oh, it was 8-0. Never mind.

This thing was harassment from the beginning.

[MississippiMan]

You're right, but the strange thing is, they shouldn't. This ruling protects all forms of peaceful dissent and the expression thereof.

Yeah, but liberal protests never come under attack. They're exalted and glorified and protected to the Nth, so the liberals never had anything to worry about anyway. They'll be devastated, and in a practical sense on this, they should be. The smoke just got blown away and the mirrors shattered. Gosh knows how many innocent people have been trampled in the process, but this at least curbs one of the most egregious examples of gestapo tactics in a long time.

MM

[Grampa Dave]

Is Hell Freezing over? Did the sun rise in the West? Have we been hijacked to an alien mirror image world?

The court's 8-0 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.

[Straight Vermonter]

— WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that federal racketeering and extortion laws cannot be used against anti-abortion groups for engaging in a nationwide conspiracy to shut down health clinics.

By an 8-1 vote, the high court said in an opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist the judgment that the anti-abortion activists had violated the racketeering laws must be reversed.

The civil lawsuit against Operation Rescue, the Pro-Life Action League and three of the league's leaders was brought by the National Organization for Women and others. At issue were tactics that included violent demonstrations to block access to clinics.

The lawsuit invoked the federal extortion and racketeering laws and charged that anti-abortion protesters illegally conspired to use violence and intimidation to drive clinics out of business.

The ruling, a setback for the abortion rights activists, marked the latest development in a legal battle that began in 1986. Only Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

[A2J]

"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."

Okay, everybody in their best Al Gore impersonation:

"Mr. Stevens, it's time for you to go!"

[Solson]

There is typically one justice to dissent just so they can write their opinion as the Dissenting view. Stevens dissented in this case.

[Hacksaw]

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.

Chuckie and Hillary will NOT be happy about this. The Dems should replace their party's symbol from a donkey to a fetus with a slash through it.

[Dionysius]

Not only a victory for us -- but also (I hope) a first step in rolling back the insidious abuses of RICO!