[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."

[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!"

[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/

[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.

[OldFriend]

Wouldn't that mean it was 8-1 rather than 8-0.......

Not being picky, just trying to educate myself.