This was a free speech issue. The judges believe you can't restrict free speech relating to a single issue.

Otherwise a state could decide that people could be restricted from marching with signs in front of public building to protest low wages. A state would have too much authority.

And they often employ 'free speech zones' at pubic events which exist specifically to restrict marching and limit protest.
So it is hypocrisy. They have no regard at all for protest, freedom of speech and they enforce restrictions on those activities when it suits them.

Harassing people in public is illegal (disorderly conduct) but they've now granted "pro-lifers" an exception.

8 feet is much too close, and as has been mentioned in this thread the SC has a large buffer zone for themselves, that this ruling makes them hypocrites

And Stephen Breyer, the remaining liberal member of the court?

You do know that the reasoning for decisions are contained in the decisions, don't you? They are published. If a justice doesn't write a dissent, or a concurrence that has a differing rationale, that means they agree with the legal reasoning in the decision. Maybe you should read it.

I think, since their "justification" is contained in the decision itself, what you want is some sort of apology. Although why only from these two justices is an interesting question.

Only female liberal Supreme Court justices have to explain themselves to you? I think you have a little explaining to do yourself.

and ostensibly "liberal" appointments.

I'm not sure why the OP is so confident in labeling Kagan & Sotomayor liberal anyway. But if liberal is the OP's guiding principle here, Ginsberg would be the one to be perplexed about. Yet the OP claims to have forgotten her. And poor Stephen Breyer, another proven liberal, I guess he's just chopped liver. The OP isn't making much sense here.

a speech before an audience of supporters of reproductive rights. But I see what you are saying.

However, I get the feeling that there will be more discussion and they will be a part of it.

There has been discussion of this decision on various blogs & perhaps reading informed opinions would help you & the OP understand that the issue before the court was one of free speech.

Female Supreme Court Justices aren't supposed to be single-issue advocates of anything, and I think it is a mistake for liberals to want them to be. It's hard enough for women to make it in traditionally male occupations without the implication that they are expected to act a certain way on "women's issues."

is necessary and has value. And African American as well. Ditto Hispanic. Otherwise, why have diversity at all?

We value diversity for a reason. And it isn't an either/or. It's a both/and. Diversity enriches our understanding of society, a laudable goal, IMO...

And no, I don't expect the female members of the court to act a certain way on "women's issues." But I do value their perspective and if that includes being a woman in today's society, how is that bad?

You seem to be suggesting that sentiment should trump legal reasoning. Or that diversity is somehow an end in itself. Do you really think an African American justice, e.g., should arrive at a decision that benefits African Americans just because he or she is African American?

Of course you wouldn't. There are brilliant legal minds out there amongst all groups, which is why we honor diversity; brilliant legal minds don't belong to just White Anglo Saxon Protestant men. We hope that AA justice will use his brilliant mind—honed in his perspective but never subordinate to it—to reason to a good conclusion based on LAW and legal principles.

We changed that for a reason. Don't you even question what that reason was? Brilliant minds are not just those who agree with you.

And, by the way, why is women's perspective a "trump on legal reasoning"? Is it because "legal reasoning" is, as the court says, no longer the truth?

This Supreme Court is not nine white males. It's five white males, three white females, one black male. All of whom got together & agreed to strike down a law, not to 'say what the law is'. The Supreme Court doesn't make law. It only rules on whether or not existing laws follow the principles laid down in our Constitution.

I said in my post that brilliant minds come from all groups. I don't know where you got that I only think they are brilliant if they agree with me. And, I'm sorry, your last two sentences don't make any sense to me. Especially the last one. Which court said that legal reasoning is no longer the truth? Do you have a cite?

female court members in a discussion. I have no doubt they had firm legal reasoning and I make no assumptions that they all had the exact same thinking simply because they are women. I do think that life experience nuances the way we think and feel about issues. Sandra Day O'Connor couldn't get hired as a lawyer right out of law school -- she was offered jobs as a legal secretary, something no other member of the court had to endure! It seems to me that such an experience might just leave an "impression" on her, but I cannot say that changed her mind on legal reasoning. And I have no doubt she expanded the Court's world view.

Let's say the three women on the Court had dissented from the decision, instead of concurring with it. What, in your mind, would have been their justification?

Actually, I would phrase it as reasoning—what would have been their reasoning—but the OP started the thread saying that two female Supreme Court justices SHOULD give us a justification (at least!). And you want to "hear from them" in a speech or a discussion. The underlying premise of both comments sounds, to me, like a criticism that the females on the Court did something wrong.

If they had ruled the way you wanted them to, what would have been their justification?

to hear more from them about what went on in their minds and discussions. I am curious. There are facets to this decision that have other people and me wondering, too. I won't go into all of them but quickly I could list what the number of feet have to do with expression of free speech. Another would be who, exactly, gets buffer zones to restrict speech and who do not? And why?

Since I have not read the decision, I cannot say one way or the other that I think they ruled the "wrong" way.

But to your question. I speak with some experience here. I worked for a clinic providing abortion services, along with a broad range of gynecological and reproductive health care during the 80s when clinic invasions were happening and it nearly happened to my clinic. We were warned in advance by a Yale student who had attended the anti-choicers meeting, pretending to be "pro-life." Quickly, a band of pro-choice women and men, predominately from the Yale community but elsewhere, too, formed a protective ring around the building. The would be invaders got back in their cars and scurried away. I also worked for Planned Parenthood of CT and for the national office of the ACLU (where Ginsburg had been General Counsel to the Women's Rights Project). There was a lot of "legal reasoning" going on, I can assure you! Did it change my mind about free speech? I would say it provided nuance and background to the issue, as well as my exposure to the legal debate in some detail, e.g., when is it speech and when is it an infringement of a woman's right to abortion?

I'm interested in these female justices point of view. Perhaps some of them will talk about it in the future.

I have been out of the loop for a few days.....

that is the current panic du-jour.

...it just so happens that Colorado has an 8-foot limit that has not been struck down so people are assuming that 8 feet is still okay. But the decision says nothing about smaller limits, it just struck down the Massachusetts law and its 35-foot limit.

Secondly, what do you mean, exactly, by "that is the current panic du-jour"????? Are you implying that people should not be up in arms about this horseshit ruling? If so, please explain.

melt downs every time some decision or law seems at first glance to not be something some how might be bad the panic-o-meter goes ballistic. Then people actually read the decision and seek out people with some knowledge and realize that what they panicked about isn't so.

But, please proceed.

Our local analysts don't see it being threatened. (See the Colorado Independent article here for assessment http://www.coloradoindependent.com/147990/mclachlan-supreme-court-ruling-strengthens-colorado-bubble-bill )

The big difference is that the 8/100 applies to all medical facilities and all protesters, while the MA 35 only applies to a specific class of facility and a specific class of protester. That specificity is the biggest problem.

clinics and opinion on the President's recess appointments. Both opinions favored the objectors.

I was off reading teh cell phone/internet contradictory ruling.

Whole damn country seems to be off the rails anymore.

I have no idea what opinion you are talking about. A half dozen have been released recently.

Regardless when they join the majority opinion that is their justification and the court is not 100% conservative.

I also have no idea what you are talking about with respect to te uselessness.

but I don't disagree with the decision.

It was a hard case, in my opinion and I understand the decision.

This battle is in a difficult arena, but a free speech battle none the less.

Why are there 'free speech zones' at public events, specifically designed to limit speech? Where is the consistency?

that they can't protect without them- which I think is very problematical. Do you approve of the free speech zones?

... but women seeking an abortion do not? This decision is simply hypocricy, period and no amount of hand waving and nuance peddling can fix that.

Secret Service.

And frankly, I"m against free speech zones period.

in terms of that particular part of the decision.

They believed that the law targeted the folks on one side of one issue unfairly.

Free speech zones around the SCOTUS building would be considered by them to be content neutral in that it affects all sides in all issues.

That's what I get from the decision. I'm not saying I agree or disagree (I haven't decided) so don't shoot the messenger.

..

a right to infringe upon that based on "free speech". 8 feet is not enough, and these thugs have already shown themselves to be violent.

It is a terrible decision taking away one persons rights to visit a health care provider in privacy, verses a "stranger's" right to harass that person.

They owe no one more than that.

the recess appointment or the buffer zone decisions stemmed from ignorance.

Here on DU and in the media! They haven't a CLUE!

Sheesh!



Arrogant much?

These were very clear cut cases.

Personally, I think your post is shockingly arrogant.

We can all Google. There is a plethora of detailed articles written on the subject over the past 48 hours, or you can even read the decisions yourself.

The OP posits, ridiculously, that these decisions indicate the Court is now "100% conservative" or some other such nonsense. The OP is a great example of opposition based on ignorance.

Sorry for not wearing kid gloves?

that address the justices concerns. They just felt there were a number of issues with this one that impinged too much on free speech. The folks in the Massachusetts state legislature and the governor should go back to the drawing board with their lawyers and put another law together designed to get around the objections.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf

the more liberal justices are more concerned about the facts and not deciding based on ideology. Or, the kinds of items up for debate might appeal to various justices different ways. Making a judgment based on that is pretty specious.

At the end of the day, a 9-0 decision has the same effect as one decided by a smaller margin. Harping on the count might make an interesting soundbite or headline, but that's it.

There is a constant deluge of posts here about 5-4 decisions. So I guess that is not harping on the count? Everyone of the 13 decisions were cases of Executive branch overreach.

And you have not addressed what I wrote.

I think most of the Justices have an ideology and that factors into their decisions. To portray liberal Justices as people who have their eyes covered and are holding up the scales of justice just "looking at the facts" is very simplistic. Ideology is always a factor.

Also 5-4 decisions sometimes get reversed in a few years if there is a change in the Justices. 9-0 decisions don't. So, yes there is a difference.

I said "That is one interpretation. Another is... the more liberal justices are more concerned about the facts and not deciding based on ideology. Or, the kinds of items up for debate might appeal to various justices different ways. Making a judgment based on that is pretty specious. "

In other words,

1. For starters, there are many different ways that this can be interpreted.
This is an idea you didn't attempt to address at all. Probably because it is too difficult for you. The author of the piece didn't prove their thesis at all, didn't attempt to show why other possibilities aren't more right than hers or any of those things.

2. "the more liberal justices are more concerned about the facts and not deciding based on ideology"
"More concerned" doesn't mean "have their eyes covered and holding up the scales of justice..." that is your straw man.

3. Or, the kinds of items up for debate might appeal to various justices different ways.
Again, something you did not address at all. An excellent example of this, while it deals with a state law, is the 35 foot buffer around abortion clinics. You have women's rights and health pitted against first amendment rights. Liberals are concerned with both and conservatives are concerned with neither but have an interest in attacking women's rights. This decision is a no-brainer for conservatives but a difficult one for any Liberal justice.

Always quick with the insult. But you are probably right so don't waste your time engaging me in the discussion.

This will assure that in the future Planned Parenthood and other clinics will have sufficient private property upon which access can be restricted.

Clinics do not get to choose the best place to have a clinic. They have to take whatever they can rent, sidewalk or mall.

nt

A women's clinic I walk by in Brooklyn fairly often has their doors literally 6 feet from the street and frequently has protesters in front of it.

I doubt they can afford to relocate and if they could, I dont think they could get the space they need. But I know they would try.

...also Ginsburg. But really, not just the women and not just the "liberal" justices owe us an explanation of why some old lady's "right" to counsel people (who didn't ask to be counseled and probably don't want to be counseled) supersedes others' right not to be harassed when seeking medical attention.

I want to see protests on the steps of the Supreme Court. AT LEAST within 35 feet of the front door but preferably right at the door and right in their fucking faces.

So they don't 'owe' us anything but it would have been nice to have heard more about their rationale.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

I've been comparing the language of the Colorado law (which apparently still stands) to that of Massachusetts (mostly to see if I'm going to have to start clearing a weekday morning to go back to escort duty.)

I think the major difference is that, in Colorado, one cannot protest at any medical facility. The current Colorado law provides an 8 foot floating bubble within a 100 foot radius from the entrance or the property line of any medical facility -- dental office, eye doctor, dermatologist, reproductive, surgical. Basically, a zealot cannot approach anyone within 100 feet of the door. Our law protects all medical privacy, and that's good.

The Massachusetts law specifically applies only to reproductive clinics. Yes, I know that nobody is protesting dentists or dermatologists, but at the same time, going to the dentist or dermatologist should be just as private and protected as getting contraception or having an abortion. The problem I see with the Massachusetts law is that it is not universally applicable and sets up the reproductive health clinics to be targeted by singling them out for special protection and sets up a special class of protesters (the anti-choice zealots). To me, it makes the clinics' job harder to be specially protected instead of treated as just another medical facility. If I oppose Viagra, in Colorado, I am not allowed to protest at a urologist's office. In Massachusetts, that's perfectly fine. And that's the narrow, free-speech issue. Ban all medical protesting, not a specific belief.

Here, we have no issues with protesters. I lived across the street from the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood for three years. I got my house for dirt cheap because my landlord remembered the early 90s protests (and having her front yard destroyed by the zealots), but our bubble law was in effect when I moved in. CSPP owns their building and it's a freestanding corner building which puts the 100 boundary line on the opposite side of the boundary streets. The three adjacent houses are private property, with well posted no trespassing signs, with fences. It's literally not worth the Colorado Springs' zealots' effort to try to protest because they can't get within the 100 foot line to get within 8 feet of anyone coming in. They're not allowed in the parking lot, they're not allowed to hang out by the fence, nor to harass anyone getting off the bus. Let me reiterate: they don't protest. They have no chance of success.

The Boulder Women's Center is my current home clinic. It, too, is a freestanding medical building at the back of its lot. The driveway is 100 feet long, and it's private property. There is a group of about 6 people who gather on the sidewalk to pray, but they can't get close. We've learned to use security in depth quite well. For a while they were trying to accost clients as the clients got off the bus, but in this one, RTD (our transit service) came through and when that route driver notices the zealots gathering at the nearby bus stop, the driver radios back in and a transit cop is dispatched to remind the zealots that they're not allowed to use bus stop space for non-transit activities. Those six... They're not there very often.

The Denver office is the only urban office where I've volunteered (Boulder and the Springs are smaller cities, more suburban than urban.) The Denver office is in the center of a medical complex, which means that the 100 foot radius starts 100 feet from the outermost entryways because the law applies to ALL medical offices. It gives that facility excellent security in depth. There is also an urban office that doesn't provide abortion; it's the closest I've seen to an urban office (in a high rise, on a street with heavy foot traffic) but the 100 foot radius starts at the entrance to the building. They are not allowed to hang out 8 feet from the door, nor in the hallways, nor at the elevator. Using private property laws helps, and we do.

I've seen our law at work. If Massachusetts had used our language instead of making it specific, theirs would not have been overturned (ours has already been through the Supreme Court battle.) Note that ours still stands. I am well aware that Boston has specific geographic conditions that make their situation more difficult, but I also think there are cultural aspects at work -- perhaps more ambivalence on the part of the police, the perception that the clinic is weak, or spotty enforcement. I don't know -- I've never been there. But if Massachusetts is committed to helping the clinics, then copy-pasting our tested legislation is probably their best bet.

The USSC didn't help -- on that, I agree -- but they did not open the floodgates. They left a strong, effective law in place that just has to be applied.

Hopefully the Massachusettes legislature and craft a new law based on the outcome that will withstand a court challenge.

are 9-0 or 8-1 (Clarence Thomas).

Their signing on effective says "this is what we're thinking." So they have explained themselves to you.

If you haven't actually dug through the opinions, note that there are three lines of reasoning:

1) Roberts + the liberals - struck down the law because the kinds of speech it outlawed was overly broad; not just harassment, but any attempt to engage a person entering a clinic.

2) Alito - struck down the law because it effectively outlaws speech on ideological grounds.

3) Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy - struck down teh law because they see no need to protect people from unpleasant speech.

Personally, I think the majority reasoning is sounds, as is (though it pains me to say it) Alito's. It was a poorly-crafted law, even if it had the best of intentions; there's nothing stopping MA from passing a better one.

The Court correctly ruled that forcing people to stand back 35 feet before they'd even done anything violated the first amendment.

It also affirmed the power of state and local governments to enforce anti-harassment laws and to pass stronger laws criminalizing interference with people obtaining reproductive health services.

A win all around.

This is why it's NEVER a good idea for dems to support or proffer middle of the road types.

Juts look at all the times Kagan/Sotomayor recused themselves on important cases.. republican NEVER recuse themselves.

Democratic presidents usually push for candidates who can get approval from republicans..Republican presidents always get the most ideologically right wing people they can find..and then they lie their asses off to get in.....and we are always somehow "surprised" when they vote the way they do...

They basically ruled a blanket denial of pro-lifers' 1st Amendment rights is not the appropriate remedy for unlawful actions by a few protesters. The justices said other remedies should be pursued. That is the right ruling.

"We are jurists who interpret the Constitution. We aren't policy wonks or political hacks. We were put on the Court to serve for life,
not to fulfill the fantasies and desires of those with axes to grind. Oh, and guess what: YOU have the same right to free speech as the people you don't like, so why not exercise yours instead of bitching to us? Have a nice day, and prepare to be disappointed again
someday."

by a Presidents of this country, they should be willing to the dialogue.