and all is OK again? Cool.

that once they have applied their years of education and legal experience reading the majority decision and placing it in the context of the state legislation that needs to comply with whatever the meat of the ruling is.

How should it go? Who should we trust, because it is not the freaky media and know it all talking heads who know so very little, once the Confidence Mask slips.

Why do media types think they are lawyers and rush to judgment in mere minutes, when the true experts many need several days to do a actual TRUE and accurate analysis?

Have lawyers, engineers, surgeons wasted all those years of education and experience for no good reason, seeing how everyone can skillfully wield the scalpel and read the law books and complex judicial tomes?

The Court of Public Opinion is knee deep in the bodies of wrongful convictions in the ever present rush to judgment, never mind weighing of evidence, scant evidence required in this court.

Those are your 'facts' with which you dismiss this ruling? I think a stronger set of arguments is required prior to the sermonizing. Preaching = failure to communicate.

And GeorgeGist is who I was replying to, not sure if he is so outraged.

like that' without any specifics. This enhances my opinion of your sermonizing as being based on a lack of specific knowledge.
And stop characterizing a criticism of your style as 'outrage'. Cheap sermonizing tactic. When challenged, you throw out insults.

Most of the media is lazy in this country and a disgrace to real journalists

A bit more than 35 feet. So it's OK for them but not anyone else. Looks like an uneven application of the law to me.

but pregnant women and those who provide abortion services do not? Good to know. I'm sure the victims of the slain and bombings would disagree. In fact, on MHP, they just noted that there has never been a murdered supreme court justice, but we've had 8 murdered healthcare providers since 1993.

Looks to me like the evidence on the ground points to the supreme court needing less protection than abortion providers, not more.

OP.

Here it is again.

Hard to say. Courts and legislatures do need protection, they were protected since time began.

Not so much....

thing.

nt

has been there? Are you sure about that? Really sure? Maybe ever since 1949? Maybe time began in 1949? Huh?

cave court.

And there is a case winding its way to SCOTUS about that buffer, as SCOTUS extended it within the last few years. I guess we will see just how rank their hypocrisy is.

This decision is all the more crazy considering the massive Supreme Court buffer zone.

We recently organized a musical voting rights protest on the Supreme Court steps, in honor of slain voting rights marcher James Reeb. Here's the video, showing where we actually set up:

it is not the Justices who determine the security need, it is the security experts.

There is that word again.

Which is not surprising. Because you do it every time.

sufficient, as they were fully aware that revoking the 35 foot perimeter would result in the re-application of the 8ft perimeter.

Just asking respectfully, because that would be horrid if they just arbitrarily said 8 ft., no exceptions for any building or land area or layout.

What about Congress and the White House, how should their needed buffer zones be set? Or should there be none at all?

A 35 foot zone is not. Posters who say 34 feet is ok will find that courts do not like people that play games with them. The proper zone given all the circumstances will be much closer to 8 feet than 35.

that make me any enemy? There is something really wrong with how people communicate over the net.

There are some people who feel that no protests should be allowed and therefore any zone within seeing distance should not be allowed. That obviously is not constitutional but some people regard the constitution as a piece of paper to be used for things they like and tossed away when they don't like them.

then let these protesting loons suck on it.

What was that SC case that the city can take private or public land ?

to sell Comm Ave to the clinic. That is just silly. Other clinics are in a similar situation.

Some kind of barrier? Do not know, do not know the layout, or the feasibility of any of that, but local people do, I am guessing.

"Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts condemn today’s ruling by the Supreme Court in McCullen v. Coakley, a case challenging a 2007 Massachusetts law, An Act Relative to Public Safety. In an effort to protect patient and public safety while balancing free speech rights, the law established a 35-foot zone in which no protests or demonstrations are permitted during health center operating hours.

“This decision shows a troubling level of disregard for American women, who should be able to make carefully considered, private medical decisions without running a gauntlet of harassing and threatening protesters,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.“We are taking a close look at this ruling, as well as patient protection laws around the country, to ensure that women can continue to make their own health care decisions without fear of harassment or intimidation.”
More at link
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-our-patients-and-staff-will-be-protected

... and let it make its way through the courts again.