Supreme Court, and petards
Mar. 2nd, 2006 10:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThe cases Scheidler v. NOW, 04-1244, and Operation Rescue v. NOW, 04-1352, were consolidated and the deccision was handed down a few days ago.
Those who wish to intimidate women, by laying siege to clinics seem to have won.
The decision (written by Breyer) was 8-0, and seems a clear vindication of Operation Rescue and Scheidler, but those who read it that way may be too quick to rejoice, or lament.
It's been percolating through the courts for 20 years, and it's always been a difficult case (and to be honest, one I thought the clinics would lose). The problem was that the clinics were using some sophistry bordering on tamlmudic, for the finess of the hair being split. The law they were using to prevent the sorts of sieges (and they were seiges, with people being trapped inside the clinics for hours, and others being denied access) was an aspect of the RICO statues. THe problem, of course, is that 1: a single siege isn't a pattern, and two, the statute in question (the Hobbs Act) address extortion.
Extortion is a funny crime. It's what most people mean when they say blackmail. It's when one person (or group of persons) gets something from another by threat of force. THe problem is that, as generally understood, and pretty much as a matter of law, the thing gained has to be of material advantage to the person using the force.
The Clinic Protestors weren't doing that.
Which is why the decision was 8-0 (and probably would have been 9-0 had O'Connor still been on the bench when the decision was handed down).
Why then, do I mention petards?
Beacause of this story in USA TODAY.
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — An animal-rights group and six members were convicted Thursday of using their website to incite threats, harassment and vandalism against a company that tests drugs and household products on animals....
The defendants, all in their late 20s or early 30s, were not accused of directly making threats or carrying out vandalism. Instead, they were charged with inciting the harassment with their Internet postings.
This law, as well as Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (1994) which allows for injuctions to limit the location of those protesting at clinics (which is flawed, as the protesters have to be known, in advance, to be coming, and if they mix it up, or have separate groups show up, "spontaneously" there's not a whole lot one can do) and the right of cities to limit the how and where of protests (and not having a permit would be better than an injuntion, because that wouldn't require any delay) can be used to make it less fruitful to stage such protests (as well as to shut down those who put up things like, "wanted" posters for doctors who perform abortions).
The only drawback is that it requires an administration which cares about choice, and Bush's recent statement when asked about restrictions on abortion, "My position has always been three exceptions: rape, incests and the life of the mother." Asked if he would include the broader category of health of the mother, Bush said: "No. I said life of the mother, and health is a very vague term, but my position has been clear on that ever since I started running for office." (Forbes) makes it fairly clear that defending those who provide abortions to women isn't going to be high on his list of things to do.
But, if/when such an administration comes to power, the same effect that the use of the Hobbs Act had, can be had with this one, and the thing about it is, there's no way an honest judge can see it any other way; so we can expect to see a 6-3 ruling on it.
Those who wish to intimidate women, by laying siege to clinics seem to have won.
The decision (written by Breyer) was 8-0, and seems a clear vindication of Operation Rescue and Scheidler, but those who read it that way may be too quick to rejoice, or lament.
It's been percolating through the courts for 20 years, and it's always been a difficult case (and to be honest, one I thought the clinics would lose). The problem was that the clinics were using some sophistry bordering on tamlmudic, for the finess of the hair being split. The law they were using to prevent the sorts of sieges (and they were seiges, with people being trapped inside the clinics for hours, and others being denied access) was an aspect of the RICO statues. THe problem, of course, is that 1: a single siege isn't a pattern, and two, the statute in question (the Hobbs Act) address extortion.
Extortion is a funny crime. It's what most people mean when they say blackmail. It's when one person (or group of persons) gets something from another by threat of force. THe problem is that, as generally understood, and pretty much as a matter of law, the thing gained has to be of material advantage to the person using the force.
The Clinic Protestors weren't doing that.
Which is why the decision was 8-0 (and probably would have been 9-0 had O'Connor still been on the bench when the decision was handed down).
Why then, do I mention petards?
Beacause of this story in USA TODAY.
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — An animal-rights group and six members were convicted Thursday of using their website to incite threats, harassment and vandalism against a company that tests drugs and household products on animals....
The defendants, all in their late 20s or early 30s, were not accused of directly making threats or carrying out vandalism. Instead, they were charged with inciting the harassment with their Internet postings.
This law, as well as Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (1994) which allows for injuctions to limit the location of those protesting at clinics (which is flawed, as the protesters have to be known, in advance, to be coming, and if they mix it up, or have separate groups show up, "spontaneously" there's not a whole lot one can do) and the right of cities to limit the how and where of protests (and not having a permit would be better than an injuntion, because that wouldn't require any delay) can be used to make it less fruitful to stage such protests (as well as to shut down those who put up things like, "wanted" posters for doctors who perform abortions).
The only drawback is that it requires an administration which cares about choice, and Bush's recent statement when asked about restrictions on abortion, "My position has always been three exceptions: rape, incests and the life of the mother." Asked if he would include the broader category of health of the mother, Bush said: "No. I said life of the mother, and health is a very vague term, but my position has been clear on that ever since I started running for office." (Forbes) makes it fairly clear that defending those who provide abortions to women isn't going to be high on his list of things to do.
But, if/when such an administration comes to power, the same effect that the use of the Hobbs Act had, can be had with this one, and the thing about it is, there's no way an honest judge can see it any other way; so we can expect to see a 6-3 ruling on it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 01:03 pm (UTC)I wasn't surprised by the Supreme ruling, although I admit to this being the first time I remember hearing about it. Hey, I was seven when they filed.
Your quote from Bush:
Asked if he would include the broader category of health of the mother, Bush said: "No. I said life of the mother, and health is a very vague term, but my position has been clear on that ever since I started running for office." (A href =http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/2006/02/28/ap2559931.html target =blank>Forbes) makes it fairly clear that defending those who provide abortions to women isn't going to be high on his list of things to do.
Hmmm, I'll just say that I'm pissed, but not exactly surprised. I'll respond more in depth in my own journal.
DV