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

Associated Press / SFGate ^

[Robert A Cook PE]

So Stevens was the "AWOL" liberal judge who didn't have the guts to vote.

[Grampa Dave]

How will the pro abortionist, pro Islamofacist and anti American, Peter Jennings spin this tonight?

[irish_links]

"...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...."

While I cheer the decision from both pro-life and constitutionalist points of view, I have to give props to generally knee-jerk liberal Stevens on this point. Exercising free speech rights does not grant anyone the right to disrupt legal trade and commerce. This goes for pro-life protestors on the side of the angels just as well as anti-globalist anarchists trying to prevent me from buying my Vente Traditional at Starbucks in the morning/

[RobbyS]

Common sense prevails.

[RobRoy]

Thanks. I was wondering where the ninth went. 8 to 0 does not compute with the SCOTUS.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"Watch the Dimwits dig in on Estrada now."

Actually, they are starting to come apart on Estrada :)

Read here-->http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030226-378449.htm

Semper Fi

[RobRoy]

I agree with your post except to say that RICO prosecution is not the answer. It's just the wrong law.

You shouldn't be tried for raping a woman if all you did was cut her into little pieces.

[muawiyah]

Exercising free speech rights has to do with speech - not action. The SC may be getting it right finally.

Words are just words in our system which is unique in the world.

[Khepera]

This begs the question. What can they be punished for? Tresspassing? Disturbing the peace? Does this mean we can block the doors again or what?

[RobRoy]

>>Common sense prevails. <<

Lately, it seems to be going around, and popping up in the oddest of places.

[irish_links]

"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."

Correction. When I wrote the above post I was under the impression that there was no dissent and that Stevens was in agreement with the majority of the court but chose to write a separate opinion. In fact it appears that his was a dissent in favor of applying RICO in the subject case.

I rescind my props, although still posit that protection of property rights must not be ignored in this case.

[AndrewC]

BUMP!!

[pubmom]

I wish them many more days of bad news.

[Dog Gone]

(CBS) The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a federal racketeering law was improperly used to punish aggressive anti-abortion rights 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.

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 court's ruling is a victory for Operation Rescue, anti-abortion rights 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.

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 rights 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.

Abortion rights advocates claim that the protests are damaging not just for their dollar cost, but for the chilling effect they have on abortion providers. Because of several murders of abortion doctors in recent years, some rights advocates have said aggressive protesters can frighten doctors into ceasing to provide abortion services.

[RGSpincich]

That was yesterday...this ruling could reverse the momentum. Hope you're right, though.

[conservonator]

The court's 8-0 ruling...

'bout time!

Bump for Life!!!

[RobbyS]

Shows that at the national level the abortion lobby does not have the power that it has in states like New York and California. They must be grinding their teeth in frustration at the thought that their hopes for a consensus in favor of a nation-wide abortion right is slipping away.

[IncPen]

Seen this?

[RobRoy]

>>The Hobbs Act makes it a crime to take property from another with force. <<

I thought that was called robbery, or was it legal before the Hobbs act?