Supreme Court voids 35-foot abortion clinic protest buffer

Fox News ^ | 06.26.2014 | FOX

[dware]

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has struck down a 35-foot protest-free zone outside abortion clinics in Massachusetts. The justices were unanimous Thursday that extending a buffer zone 35 feet from clinic entrances violates the First Amendment rights of protesters. ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Chief Justice John Roberts says authorities have less intrusive ways to deal with problems outside the clinics.

[Farmer Dean]

I would have loved to have been there when you told her THAT.

[zerosix]

Right on but what about those pesky “Free Speech ‘Zones’” on college campuses (campi) ?

[reg45]

I’ll be waiting for Abortion Barbie’s comments on this one.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The Court's Opinion is here. The majority (Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) wrote a very narrow opinion-- a law saying that no one but clinic staffers and patients can be within 35 feet of the clinic is too broad, because a narrower law could protect the clinics from disruption by protestors. The other four Justices (Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) concurred in striking down the law, but would have decided it on much broader grounds-- they say any law that protects only abortion clinics but not other kinds of buildings is always unconstitutional.

[No Socialist]

All these sensible and unanimous rulings out of the Supreme Court this week have me worried that they are just trying to soften the blow for screwing religious employers by allowing Obama to dictate birth control.

[Gritty]

I guess that fenced “protest zone” the BLM set up miles away from the Bundy Ranch was un-Constitutional after all, right?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Yep. Awesome.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Bwahahahahaha! (*snort*)

[BuckeyeTexan]

Is it just me or have you noticed that Roberts has been successful in lobbying the liberal wing to vote with him?

[BuckeyeTexan]

For those living under a rock:

[RKBA Democrat]

Looks like the 9 unelected oligarchs in black muumuus are throwing us a few bones.

I’m not impressed. Reverse Roe v Wade and I’ll be impressed. Throw out GCA 68 and I’ll be impressed. Say that oh gosh, you really can’t exclude people from protesting in this fashion but you sure can in others and I’ll call it what it is: timid and lukewarm gruel.

[P-Marlowe]

What about that “pesky” free speech zone they tried to enforce at the Bundy Ranch? I think that zone was about 10 miles from the site of the illegal federal police action.

[topher]

YES! First Amendment has some life!

SCOTUS defends 1st Amendment rights!!!

[topher]

Decision is in:

Cullen v. Oakley

Cullen is a little ol' lady prolifer.

Oakley is Attorney General for Taxachusetts (Massachusetts)

[topher]

It is unclear what was said about the Colorado case that the Massachusetts law was based on. Did it get struck down?

Have to wait for SCOTUSblog.com -- there is a lot feathers flying in terms of the decisions coming out...

[topher]

Decision is in:

Cullen v. Oakley

Cullen is a little ol' lady prolifer.

Oakley is Attorney General for Taxachusetts (Massachusetts)

[topher]

To me this almost more a constitution issue (1st Amendment rights) than a prolife/abortion issue.

Folks who frequent the Constitution threads ought to comment on this decision...

[Star Traveler]

Will Westboro Baptist Church use that Supreme Court ruling in protesting military funerals?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Is it just me or have you noticed that Roberts has been successful in lobbying the liberal wing to vote with him?

He has, but only by writing opinions that reach a conservative result on a very narrow ground.

[BuckeyeTexan]

That’s what I’m seeing. Just wondered if the legal profession has noticed it. He seems rather skilled at negotiating with them.