[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.

[valkyrieanne]

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

Property rights are of two kinds. First, there is the safety and security of the owner's real property (in this case, the clinic's private property.) People who trespass are going to get arrested (usually a misdemeanor in most states.) This SCOTUS ruling doesn't change that.

Then there is the money that the clinic earns. As another writer pointed out, no private individual in general has an automatic right to another private individual's money (some exceptions like alimony & child support we will not discuss.)

People are free to tell others not to patronize a certain business or activity. That's what advertising is. That's what boycotts are. Pro-lifers are in front of the abortion clinic property to exercise their constitutional rights - to peaceably assemble and protest abortion; to inform the passing public about the nature of abortion; to inform the incoming women about abortion.

The abortion clinic has the right to keep protestors off their property. It has no right to the dollars a woman decides NOT to spend on an abortion.