Posted on 02/26/2003 3:05:57 PM PST by unspun
|
|
|
| Jokingly calling himself a "Racketeer for Life," Joe Scheidler celebrates the Supreme Court decision today |
|
|
"We're pinching ourselves this morning," said Tom Brejcha, attorney for the Scheidlers. "When you realize that we were fighting this case for nearly twenty years - all I can say is that it has been a long, long road."
The Supreme Court ruled that the federal racketeering law was improperly applied and wrongly punished aggressive anti-abortion protesters, a major victory for pro-life voters and protestors in America.
The court's 8-1 ruling was written for the majority by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, stating 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.
| A recent addition to the reporting staff of the Illinois Leader, Kevin McCullough is a radio talk show host for Chicago's WYLL AM1160 from 3-5 PM weekdays. |
(Excerpt) Read more at illinoisleader.com ...
Finally, a reversal of that travesty.
Everyone laughed about RICO applying to abortion protesters, till it actually happened.
Good... Jesse Jackson can still get prosecuted under RICCO.
(Now, Howlin otoh..)
:)
Rehnquist's requirement for "tangible property" to be involved pretty much rules out RICO's use in the clerical sexual abuse lawsuits plaguing the Catholic Church.
Has that even been suggested? (RICO on the Catholic Church)
I never thought about it, but prior to this ruling I suppose it might have been possible.
Has he ever voted on the right side of ANY issue? To bring a smile and a warm heart, imagine Justice Miguel Estrada replacing retiring Justice Stevens... Here's hoping.
I do not oppose abortion. (Though I can see a rational case for its being regulated in the final trimester, when it is possible for the fetus to be made to survive outside the womb.)
I have met Joe Scheidler, and he is one of the most hectoring, impulsive, overbearing, obnoxious, and mindlessly partisan human beings I have ever had the misfortune to deal with.
I detest the mob actions that have grown up around the movement that has opposed abortions.
Yet I am absolutely delighted to see today's Supreme Court ruling. And about what this now spares Scheidler, and others, who have been flagellated by the federal government under the unconstitutional RICO statute.
Whether I agree with someone like Scheidler or not, and I mostly do not, he has a fundamental right of free expression, one that this abominable law was used to deny to him.
If the Court had ruled that RICO was a travesty of non-objective law, as it should have, I would have been jubilant, instead of "merely" being absolutely delighted. But in an age of shredding the Bill of Rights, I'm gonna take what I can get.
Supreme Court Says No Extortion in NOW vs. Scheidler
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
By Kevin McCullough, Political Correspondent - Bi-Partisan Decision in 8-1 ruling
Jokingly calling himself a "Racketeer for Life," Joe Scheidler celebrates the Supreme Court decision today CHICAGO -- Today, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a decision reversing all lower court rulings in the case of NOW (The National Organization of Women) vs. Scheidler. The reversal sets landmark status to the profile of what the federal law known as RICO truly means.
"We're pinching ourselves this morning," said Tom Brejcha, attorney for the Scheidlers. "When you realize that we were fighting this case for nearly twenty years - all I can say is that it has been a long, long road."
The Supreme Court ruled that the federal racketeering law was improperly applied and wrongly punished aggressive anti-abortion protesters, a major victory for pro-life voters and protestors in America.
The court's 8-1 ruling was written for the majority by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, stating 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.
The court's ruling is a victory for 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 meet the standard of extortion.
"This was such a major decision of jurisprudence, considering how hard the Department of Justice had advocated against us," said Brejcha. "We reversed the trend that government had too freely begun of expanding the RICO statute to mean things it did not."
The outcome had created strange activist alliances. For instance, actor Martin Sheen, animal rights groups and even some organizations that support abortion rights wrote briefs in support of the Scheidler's side. They argued that protesters of all types could face harsher penalties for demonstrating, if the court ruled otherwise.
"The DOJ has too freely stretched the limits on the interpretation of extortion," said Brejcha. "What protestors like Scheidler do is more or less coercion - which the court ruled is legal expression of free speech."
"It is important to realize that the President's administration also argued on our behalf on a side issue as well," Brejcha told the Leader. "Had this gone any other way, people would have been suing into the foreseeable future for something as little as passing out a piece of literature."
Brejcha said that the high court's decision has narrowed the meaning of RICO to be a very narrow and specific definition of extortion which is the obtaining of property by act or threat of force, fear, or violence."
"The prayers that have been prayed by thousands of Americans on our behalf have paid off," said Ann Scheidler to the Illinois Leader. "This victory lifts the injunction, nullifies all previous judgments, and has reversed all lower court rulings. This means we can get a whole lot more active than we have ever been before."
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.
Rehnquist said that in some instances of abortion protest some protestors had 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.
Justice John Paul Stevens filed the only dissent. But two of the courts Clinton appointees Justices Breyer and Ginsberg, respectively, both sided with the majority.
"The extensive reach of RICO and its use would be too dangerous," wrote Ginsberg. 
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.