Or: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others...

Yes we are being ruled by Oligarchs...

But what's good for the goose is my point. Hypocrites!

What's good for the goose, etc. If the Court gets 252 feet, clinics get 252 feet.

If the Court gets 8 feet, the clinics get 8 feet.

When the Court gets 252 and the clinics get 8, it's rankest hypocrisy. Granted, rankest hypocrisy is a standard with this Court.

Because fuck 'em, that's why. Privacy is a right. Being a member of the supreme court is not. These useless shitheads are public figures, some random woman walking into a clinic is not.

"We shall rule for life without being bothered by the simpering of the peasantry we command" wasn't in my copy of the constitution.

There are plenty of arguments for keeping the nutjobs that harass women outside clinics away from them. There's not a single one for making sure a protest can't get close enough to briefly annoy a supreme court justice.

First off, privacy is not a right beyond the confines of your home. People outside, visible to the public, have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

But privacy really isn't the issue here. A 35 foot buffer zone doesn't protect the privacy of the individual walking into a clinic.

I absolutely agree that the buffer zone around the Supreme Court is excessive. I don't know that safety is a justification for such a large buffer, even given the heightened concerns that the Justices might be targeted. There are better ways to protect them than limiting the free speech rights of protesters.

By the same token, there are better ways to protect patients than limiting the free speech rights of anti- abortion protesters. To hold that people have the right to free speech except if they want to say_________ undermines the very idea of free speech.

As for "nutjobs that harass women," I would not oppose a law that specifically addresses them. But separating the "nutjobs" from the sincere people who are exercising their constitutional rights, and then identifying which of their behaviors constitute "harassment" may be too daunting for most legislative bodies.

There are city police, state police, federal police, FBI around there at all times. Also do the justices really walk in the front door. Highly unlikely.

I almost choked on my lunch. That was awesome!

and seated above everyone else!

The reason for the barrier is that any protest might impair the dignity and decorum of the court and it's appearance of impartiality.

Doesn't wash. As public figures they chose to be judged themselves. To protect their image is not a reason to restrict our right of free expression.

However, to protect the physical safety of a private citizen is a reason to restrict our right of free expression.

I'm not crazy about this decision, but this is a bad analogy. The reason the SC has such a large buffer zone is because their entrance is that far away from the "street" or public pathway. Our local clinic has about a 50 foot buffer called the distance from the sidewalk to their entrance. Even better, you drive on property and park around back and then walk to the side entrance, never getting close to the sidewalk. Any clinic can have all the buffer zone they want, they just have to have the entrance well back from the property line. Of course this is extremely difficult for densely urban locations. This would be a reason though to have a clinic in a building with multiple suites and a common lobby. No one would know where or why you were entering until you were past the public entrance.

Or the simpler solution would be to have a buffer zone around the entrance to clinics. But I guess this 9-0 decision shows that even the "ferocious liberals" that Obama appointed think there's something wrong with that.

The buffer also goes around the sides and rear of the building, where it does cover the sidewalks.

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), enacted in 1994, prohibits anyone from interfering with a person trying to enter a clinic. Prohibited behaviors include blocking entrances or driveways.

Someone has to actually enforce it? I'm sure police are out en masse to make sure nobody steps foot in that magic 35 foot perimeter.

State police don't directly enforce federal law.

The prosecution of Federal crimes falls to the Feds, but arrests can be made by the locals.
Furthermore, FACE is enforceable through both criminal and civil actions. State Attorneys General, clinic owners, and individuals may bring civil actions in Federal Court against violators.

They hire a cop to be there during opeing hours (although I think lately they've hire a cop to park his car there). It helps avoid some of the shennanigans of which you refer. As I say, I think it was a dumb decision, these laws were passed for reasons including assualt and homicide. If anything there are probably other context in which "buffer zones" might be reasonable. Down here we have "pull over" laws about police cars during traffic stops. You have to either change lanes or slow down when passing one. We have "Fines doubled during construction" laws. And heck, the SC has upheld these "free speach" zones at political conventions and anywhere the president is.

People have been killed at abortion clinics by these whack jobs. It is reasonable to limit their ability to loiter and attack.

Especially since you can't actually "hire a cop". You can request one, but the local police have to decide to accommodate that request. Which will greatly depend on the beliefs of the higher-ups at the local police department.

Any town of any size has a formal process for hiring cops. It's pretty easy to get one, as long as you are willing to pay. Most cops earn a not insignificant amount of pay from off duty work. The unions get involved in the process as well.

There may be a chance for violence around the SC but there is a proven record of violence around abortion clinics, seems there should be more protection around abortion clinics than SC, guess the first amendment isn't everywhere.

take the matter of the buffer zone around the SC and freedom of speech to court>

I do NOT support their decision in this case...in fact, it's an outrage.

infinitely more important than us common folk who are don't understand the Constitution (sarcasm intended).

They should have been able to easily prove there is a compelling government interests to restrict the "free speech" of the abortion protestors to protect the safety of the clinic workers and their patrons.

This is one of the most corrupt, activist court of all time! Obama did us no favors appointing 2 corporate defense oriented justices. While they are no where near as bad as the UN-Fab 5, there were 100's who would have been much better. I think that is why Ginsburg is hanging on to her position.

I always love it when they talk about the "liberals" on the court. Ain't no liberal that'd voted for this mess. We have far right, right, and centrists on the court. No liberals allowed.

Over her career as a Justice she has been fair and relatively unbiased. Go back and read some of her opinions. Everyone has their biases, it's whether they can set those aside and rule on the law. It is not as easy as it may sound. She has pretty consistently been in the dissent against the RW viewpoint, this appears to be one exception, as I am sure there have been others I cannot recall. I doubt there has ever been a single Justice that you or I would have agreed with 100% of the time. I will say that this country would be a lot better off if the rest had sided with her every time, excluding the present case of course.

So are protestors at political conventions. Why is it legal for some and not for others?

Those buffer zones are pretty big, usually. And that is only about free speech, normally without harassment or threats of violence.

Given the potential for violence, the Supremes blew it, IMO.