Posted on 03/01/2006 7:54:42 AM PST by presidio9
Former Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith took her 11-year-old family feud to the Supreme Court yesterday. But another case about sex and deception that the Court decided yesterday will surely matter more to most Americans.
We're talking about the 8-0 decision (new Justice Samuel Alito didn't participate) barring the use of federal extortion and racketeering laws, or RICO statutes, to prevent public antiabortion protests. The case of Scheidler v. NOW goes back nearly 20 years, to a suit by the National Organization for Women to harass abortion opponents who demonstrate in front of abortion clinics.
RICO was designed to go after Tony Soprano, not church groups passing out leaflets on a sidewalk. But NOW claimed the latter were engaged in racketeering to "extort" the "property" of abortion seekers by demonstrating in front of clinics. Since RICO violators are subject to treble damages, the plan was to bankrupt protesters or frighten them from ever exercising their First Amendment rights.
Had that strategy worked, it would have quickly become a favorite of anyone trying to stop acts of legal civil disobedience. Antiwar protesters and animal-rights activists would have been prime targets, to name just two liberal causes. The current Supreme Court isn't famous for protecting the First Amendment -- See
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Does this mean we can't use RICO against the ACLU?
This was so blatantly abuse of the RICO laws from the start. Why did it take 20 years?
Because "They're fierce. They're Feminists and they're in our faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace!"
lol
Oh yeah. I forgot. And "don't tell me what to do ...
Don't tell me what to say" but they wanted to shut up others.
RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) has been abused for years. It defines racketeering activity as a pattern of corrupt behavior. Courts have found that a company that sends its erroneous financial statements to all shareholders has a "pattern" based on the fact that they sent the same erroneous financials multiple times (i.e., to each shareholder). Yet the author of the RICO statute, Prof. Robert Blakey of Notre Dame, has said that catching companies and others in the net cast for the mob was perfectly appropriate. Its about time the Supreme Court has narrowed the application of RICO, but they should go much further.
It depends upon who has the Presidency. If Gore were in power, we would have a stacked liberal Supreme Court, and this decision would have been split in favor of Rico actions against anti-abortion protesters. What should have alarmed people is that any judge in this land had ever upheld using RICO against protesters, yet they did!
Perhaps they took the time to learn a bit about Randall Terry...
This was an 8-0 decision, with the opinion by (Clinton-appointed) Breyer. The decision it reversed was by the largely conservative 7th Circuit, and was written by a Reagan-appointed circuit judge. This was not your typical liberal-conservative issue.
Yes, I'm aware that it was an 8-0 decision. And I still contend that if Gore were in power, it would have been upheld.
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.