Supreme Court rules against abortion clinics

Associated Press ^ | Feb. 28, 2006

[presidio9]

The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over anti-abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the 7th Circuit had asked a trial judge to determine whether a nationwide injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence absent a connection with robbery or extortion.

The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 decision by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend to create ga freestanding physical violence offenseh in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act.

Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with anti-abortion protesters in arguing that similar lawsuits and injunctions could be used to thwart their

[BibChr]

Put me down for one "YAY," and one "DUH!!"

Dan
Biblical Christianity BLOG
Pyromaniacs

[2banana]

8-0 - The dam breaks...

[zerosix]

More Good News. Thank you, President Bush.

[SittinYonder]

8-0 ... who was missing and why?

[BenLurkin]

8-0 !

[Battle Axe]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586988/posts

[Beth528]

One step forward..Now to take care of the ACLU and their ilk bringing lawsuits against anything Christian..

[American_Centurion]

I'm going to guess Ginsburg, I don't think there's anything she wouldn't rule for where abortion is concerned.

[muawiyah]

Just guessing Alioto was not voting because, voila, he had not heard the arguments.

That's a normal situation with any new justice.

[Red Badger]

8-ZIPPO!......

[NYer]

Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Pietro]

"...who was missing and why?"

Don't know but my guess is Ruth "buzzy" Ginsberg.

[Phil Connors]

Time to put the bastards out of business! Start the protests NOW!

[SittinYonder]

That's a normal situation with any new justice.

It was my understanding that new justices do typically rule even when they haven't heard the arguments because they have the transcripts. You may be right, but I don't think not hearing the arguments precludes him from ruling.

[commish]

8-0 ... who was missing and why?

Not sure when this was heard, but if it was before Alito was confirmed, he may have abstained from voting since he did not hear arguments.

[Lucretia Borgia]

A small victory, but still a victory.

[uncitizen]

Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with anti-abortion protesters in arguing that similar lawsuits and injunctions could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.

Well of course there has to be something in it for them, or they wouldn't do it.

[gondramB]

"8-0 ... who was missing and why?"

Alito may not have been present for the arguments.

[AmishDude]

Yeah, a really dumb way to phrase this: A "win" for anti-abortionists. This is a win for the law and a blow against its arbitrary application.

[Antoninus]

The journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step.

[Sensei Ern]

SEE! This happened because Bush put radicals on the Supreme Court! Oh, wait. It was 8-0? /sarc

HOO-AH!

[.30Carbine]

Supreme Court rules against abortion clinics
Associated Press

Justices Side With Anti-Abortion Groups
Yahoo news

Interesting variance in the headlines.

[pabianice]

If Bush can replace one more liberal doofus on SCOTUS his presidency will have been a huge success despite any other developments.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

It wasn't really a ruling against abortion clinics. Come on MSM, your bias is showing again.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

The Yahoo news story, located here: http://tinyurl.com/okwhj, says Alito did not take part in the vote. No explanation.

[cgk]

Discussion II:

Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...

[TXBSAFH]

I admit I am very critical of GW as of late, but in his court appointments I am pleased. And in this decision I offer praise to the Lord.

[presidio9]

It was the same AP story in both cases. Mine was from MSN.

[RobbyS]

Our abortion law qualifies for "arbitrary." Now that O'Connor's "swing" vote has disappeared, maybe a rational rule can be devised.

[Mr. Lucky]

=Had they ruled the other way, it would have been a huge defeat. As you point out, a small victory trumps a huge defeat.

[capt. norm]

8-0 ... who was missing and why?

Maybe Ruth Bader Rodham Ginsburg was getting her beauty nap. In her case it would take extended hibernation to have any effect.

[stevio]

Now to take care of the ACLU and their ilk bringing lawsuits against anything Christian.

Just stop the funding from congress and initiate tort reform and it will take care of itself.

[Procyon]

And it would have been 9-0 if Alito voted, right?

[mtg]

Beauty!!!

[LS]

And all those people who say there's no difference between Republicans and Dems. You say "duh," I say, HUH?

[SmithL]

The Gas Suit case was also 8-0, and that story pointed out that Alito did not vote because he hadn't heard arguments in the case.

[Beth528]

You are so right...

[markomalley]

Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with anti-abortion protesters in arguing that similar lawsuits and injunctions could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.

---

So it is not even an abortion decision here, the way I see it...it was the overactive imagination of the 7th Circuit that would have massively impacted the speech and assembly rights clearly protected under the constitution.

This is not an indicator that the court is either getting more pro-life or pro-abortion; it is just correcting a HORRIBLE ruling (on multiple levels).

You can read the decision here. Breyer, hardly a pro-lifer, wrote the decision.

He pointed out that the position of Planned Parenthood was that the Hobbs Act protected the abortion mills against actions that limited their ability to protect their property (i.e., the abortion business). While what the Hobbs Act actually says is to provide that protection against efforts that use "means of actual or threatened force, or violence."

A pretty straightforward decision, imho.

[SuziQ]

The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 decision by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

8-0 huh? Can't blame that one on the Catholic "right-wing extremist" judges, can they?

[SuziQ]

ROTFL!! Love that cartoon!

[rwfromkansas]

Alito since he had not heard arguments.

If a case ends in a tie, or perhaps even 5-4, Alito could rehear the case, but there is no sense in doing so with unanimous rulings like this.

[Rakkasan1]

anyone on suicide watch at DU?

[romanesq]

One can only hope. Actually this case is also a big victory against the Clintons who tried to use every RICO and Federal agency against anti-abortion groups.

So Shrillary, go chew on this.

[NRA1995]

YYYYYYYYYYYYYESSSSSSSSSSSSS

[Pikachu_Dad]

The order tells you who didn't vote...

"JUSTICE ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of these"

[old and tired]

If Bush can replace one more liberal doofus on SCOTUS his presidency will have been a huge success despite any other developments.

I agree.

[HapaxLegamenon]

Justice O'Connor, because she is no longer a member of the Court, who vote does not count.

[linda_22003]

(bzzzzt!) No. But thank you for playing.

[Aussie Dasher]

You bloody ripper!!!!

Well done Joe Scheidler!