Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Rules For Abortion Protesters In Civil Disobedience Case (RICO)
Associated Press / SFGate ^
Posted on 02/26/2003 7:21:42 AM PST by RCW2001
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:53 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortionlist; billofrights; catholiclist; constitutionlist; face; prolife; rico; scotus; scotuslist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 541-546 next last
1
posted on
02/26/2003 7:21:42 AM PST
by
RCW2001
To: xzins
ping
To: RCW2001
HUGE VICTORY FOR LIFE!NARAL loses BIG TIME!!!!!!! When even the liberal jackals on the Court shut these pro-infanticide clowns down, the irrelevancy of the Kate Michelmans of the world is magnified!
Great news!!!!!
3
posted on
02/26/2003 7:25:36 AM PST
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I'm SO glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government.)
To: dd5339; cavtrooper21; Mr. Silverback
life ping!
4
posted on
02/26/2003 7:25:36 AM PST
by
Vic3O3
(Texan-to-be...at least there's CCW!)
To: Sabertooth
Hey! What do you know. The SC agrees with me! 8-)
5
posted on
02/26/2003 7:26:06 AM PST
by
dead
To: RCW2001
The left is going to just about have a heart attack over this.
To: RCW2001
Gosh - I wonder why I haven't heard of this from the major news outlets /sarcasm
To: RCW2001
Great, now who pays the lawyers? How many prosecutors can we get dis-barred?
8
posted on
02/26/2003 7:27:01 AM PST
by
wcbtinman
To: RCW2001
Note the liberal slant. The law applied to people protesting NEAR the doors, not blocking the doors.
9
posted on
02/26/2003 7:27:29 AM PST
by
AppyPappy
(Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.)
To: RCW2001
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. At last - the voice of sanity!
10
posted on
02/26/2003 7:28:00 AM PST
by
A. Pole
To: RCW2001
"The wheel has turned..."
11
posted on
02/26/2003 7:28:22 AM PST
by
IncPen
To: nickcarraway
ping
To: RCW2001
bump....
13
posted on
02/26/2003 7:30:40 AM PST
by
firewalk
To: RCW2001
Good news at last.
14
posted on
02/26/2003 7:30:45 AM PST
by
nina0113
To: TrueBeliever9
YAHOOOOO!!!!
To: RCW2001
I am not really enamored at some of the tactics used by the prolife movement, I admit that. But using RICO laws to stop them is/was a friggin JOKE. The Supremes rule correctly on this one.
16
posted on
02/26/2003 7:32:50 AM PST
by
Paradox
To: Recovering_Democrat
Thank God.
17
posted on
02/26/2003 7:33:08 AM PST
by
Kev-Head
To: RCW2001
This is indeed good news.
This would have been a big blow against the Constitution if it had been upheld.
To: RCW2001; *Catholic_list
Thank you Supreme Court
for divining the truth in the First Amendment.
19
posted on
02/26/2003 7:34:57 AM PST
by
Petronski
(I'm not always cranky.)
To: RCW2001
The resounding major media is resounding, is it not?
This is a great ruling - notice that with the exception of Stevens, even the liberals and pro-abortion judges *still* ruled for the pro-lifers. Thank you, God.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 541-546 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson