More like harassing and threatening the people trying to enter the clinics.

Don't those people have a right not to be yelled and screamed at?

Unfortunately.

there is no such right.

How will this ruling affect groups that want to have their say at political conventions?! I thought we were just told we had to be caged...how is this different?

Seems "radicals" can get in the faces of the lying liars now. Humm...

Last edited Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Stupid SCOTUS.









http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1036095!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/pittwire10n-1-web.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/salvi.htm

Paint all over them, one is on the ground, and they have cut them up to make aprons out of them. Thoroughly disgusting.

If done by the "wrong" people for the "wrong" reason.

“There is always concern when a measure that has been put in place for public safety is removed.”

Welcome to D.U., hangfire00.

by Evan McMurry - June 26th, 2014

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a concurring opinion in McCullen v Coakley, today’s decision overturning Massachusetts’ thirty-five foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, caviling that pro choice advocates enjoy a special version of the First Amendment to which even this decision unnecessarily caters.

“Today’s opinion carries forward this Court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents,” Scalia wrote. “There is an entirely separate, abridged edition of the First Amendment applicable to speech against abortion.”

Scalia argued the law had already been rejected on lesser grounds, and thus didn’t need to be rejected on strict scrutiny grounds pertaining to the content of speech. He pointed to a case argued earlier in the term in which the Court had felt no need to address the strict scrutiny arguments when a law was already rejected, but argued that the presence of abortion in this case caused everybody to freak out.

“The second half of the Court’s analysis today, invalidat­ing the law at issue because of inadequate ‘tailoring,’ is certainly attractive to those of us who oppose an abortion­ speech edition of the First Amendment,” Scalia wrote. “But think again. This is an opinion that has Something for Everyone, and the more significant portion continues the onward march of abortion-speech-only jurisprudence.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/scalia-theres-entirely-separate-abridged-1st-amendment-for-pro-choicers/

This is not about speech. It's about intimidation and ignoring public safety. The protestors also follow the workers and clients to their homes, firebomb places, publicize their names through online license plate searches, and give their home phone number, addresses, the names of family members and their employers out to RWNJs who call them to make their lives hell.

The majority of clients at a Planned Parenthood clinic aren't there for abortion. I'm unsure if this is an abortion only clinic, but I doubt it.

They want to own our bodies and lives. It's the Handmaiden's Tale in slow motion here. Women will be property again.

I've yet to see any counter protests of sufficient numbers to fight these fanatics off. I guess no one cares. Being born female is going to be one of the worst things there is.

Thanks a lot, Reagan and the rest of you creeps.

Bet there is a huge buffer around the Supreme Court building to keep the Riff Raff away from the Chosen ones.

Hey man, I just wanna talk to you....it's my RIGHT as a citizen to harass..er...impart my views to you from the sidewalk in front of your house!!!!!!

I think we need to get some people out there with those vuvuzelas -- and blast the living shit out of those bastards every time they go ANYWHERE.

It was a 9-0 decision, and yes, there is a buffer around the SC building.

The female justices voted with the majority on this? I don't get it.

Four of the corporate justices wanted to broad ruling. To appease Roberts they likely had to agree to at least a narrow ruling against, otherwise it would have been a 5-4 broad ruling.

I've only seen Scalia's opinion. I realize there was no dissenting opinion, but can't there be another analysis by another justice?

It could have been by seniority in which Scalia.

The majority opinion is written by the chief justice or if he is on the other side, the senior most justice. If that justice does not want to write an opinion she or she designate the author.

Now any justice can write an opinion, thus the massive growth of concurring opinions and more then one dissent in recent decades. Thus Saclia's opinion is above Alito's but Alito had the right to a separate opinion.

Read the opinion. The court found the buffer zone to large. The state could not even produce one arrest for the smaller buffer zone the the court approve of in 2000 (and are still constitutional by this ruling).

The court found the evidence the the larger buffer zone was needed lacking (the court then pointed out the lack of arrests for violating the smaller buffer zone permitted since 2000 as evidence that the larger zone was to restrict SPEECH not to protect women entering the clinic, since the court found the purpose of the larger buffer zone was to restrict speech it violated the first Amendment).

Will the media report that it is the inadequate safety measures allowed by SCOTUS that allowed it? We should start calling it Vigilante Judicialism

When will the next arrest take place? That was the problem with this law. Under the 2000 ruling upholding buffer zones no one was arrested for violating that smaller buffer zone. Thus why was the larger zone needed? The smaller buffer zone appeared to have been working. The reasons sited by the Massachusetts's Attorney General was found not to be sufficient, given the lack of arrests for violation of the smaller buffer zones. Thus the court found this larger buffer zone violated the right to free Speech without good reasons for that violation.

Fuck women.

Your tax dollars in action.

Boston's finest musta read my request in the other thread. A couple of bobby sticks in the butts of trailer trash might make them think twice about harassing patients. Sorry to be that way, but I have little respect for anti-choice folk who cannot think logically.

Is someone is going to get close enough to these women to threaten them, they and their escorts have every right to defend themselves.

Since when are they all on the same page on anything?

As in there is no such thing as a "Free Speech Zone." If the people who want to harass women and workers at clinics can get all in their faces I don't see why the rest of us can't get all in the faces of people we'd like to have our free speech rights to "talk" to.

And this is what comes from that.

to pay for additional police presence.

... why only until noon? Maybe if the religious zealots start showing up in excess after 12PM, the police will extend the hours?

And it will not necessarily all be on 1 side.