Inside the majestic building housing the Supreme Court of the United States (truly a gorgeous building), the Justices yesterday ruled that the 35-foot buffer zone around an abortion clinic “violated protestors’ freedom of speech”. Outside that same building, the exclusion zone for protestors is 250 feet.
LOOKING FOR LIFE BEYOND CABLE NEWS AND FINDING THAT RESISTANCE IS FUTILE
You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both.
- Louis BrandeisTension is who you think you should be. Relaxation is who you are.
- Chinese ProverbRecent Comments
Whatever Works 
Do as I say…..NOT as I Do…?
LikeLike
Yup. 😆
LikeLike
Are these the same folks who recently decided a business owned by devout Christians did not have to provide health insurance to their employees since it would allow said employees to use it for birth control that the religious owners considered “just like abortion”? I can’t wait for a Christian Scientist family-owned business to decide they now don’t have to pay their employees health insurance at all because of their belief that medical intervention is unneccessary. This should be fun . . .
LikeLike
Hey RVee’s: while their ruling this week wasn’t quite that broad, it still sets up a precedent for future rulings that could indeed go just that far.
Capital punishment offends my moral standards. Guess I’ll have to petition the court to give me some tax releif with that one. I don’t want to pay for it anymore.
LikeLike
@Moe
Well you seem to have the wrong minded notion that women are people and warrant respect and safety in society.
LikeLike
Yeah, I need to snap out of that Arb.
LikeLike
Also, vasectomies? Interfering with the almighty’s plan that every dirty filthy joining of the genders is supposed to be for procreation?
LikeLike
@Moe
Well you see, Viagra, Penis Pumps, and Vasectomies are all male reproductive health and therefore okay.
For the women though…there just are not enough pumps or money to go around to fix all your lady problems. We shouldn’t put an onerous burden on the tax payer for proven medical services that make society a better place.
Frak-that. What is best is to adhere to what’s written in dusty tombs by scared ignorant people – *That* – friends is where the action is.
LikeLike
It’s really all about the ladies Arb. Always has been. . .we’re just too uppity.
LikeLike
I’m certainly hoping that the next time the IMF or the G8–or any of those elite business groups–have a meeting, that there will absolutely no buffer zone of any kind allowed. After all, some of us might want to have a quiet conversation with their representatives–just trying to appeal to their conscience, dontcha know.
LikeLike
Not to mention the latest craze: ‘protest zones’ around political party conventions brat – usually a few blocks away, enforced with fences and police. Now THAT’S some infringement on free speech.
LikeLike
As far as I’m concerned, “no buffer zone” should mean “no buffer zone”. For anybody. Otherwise, you’re only discriminating against women who need to get an abortion….
LikeLike
Self evident. To women anyway.
LikeLike
Got to protect the men. 250 rule probably went into effect pre woman justices.
LikeLike
Awww…You miswrote your post, Moe. It should have said that the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law allowing abortion clinics to have a buffer zone keeping protesters at least 35 feet from entrances and walkways.
Yep. Kagan, Sotomayer, and even the radical, pro-abortion Ginsburg ruled against the buffer zone.
LikeLike
I didn’t miswrite it jonolan. I know it was unanimous – in fact, the Roberts Court has issued unanimous decisions 66% of the time, which is one of the goals he set when he became Chief. Just because my sisters ruled with the rest, doesn’t change the fact that its almost beyond ironic.
What’s interesting though on these decisions is the dissents – often the concurrence – on both sides – is begrudging and clearly stated.
LikeLike
The Supremes seem to be having a problem with an undeniable truth, i.e. that there has to be a limit to free speech. To take the extreme example, jonolan’s right to object to my opinion on anything would, in my opinion anyway, be excessive when his nose is one inch from my nose. Especially if he partakes regularly of garlic.
One might speculate whether the Shy Nine might rule for different radii in some different case wherein the protesters were variously armed? Suppose most of them were packing heat, as might well be in, say, Oklahoma? Or, how about if they were carrying stones? Tomatoes? Pitchforks?
LikeLike
Jim – I’m pretty sure jonolan partakes of garlic (he’s a locovore I believe). I’m also pretty sure that if your noses were only an inch apart, garlic breath might not be the most pressing (sorry for the pun) issue. 😆
LikeLike
ROFLMAO That was a surprising entendre! But Jim’s not my type.
You’re right on the garlic though – it’s a vegetable in my household. A bit more than locavorish though since we grow our rocambole garlic.
LikeLike
I don’t grow it but use it a lot – a whole bulb, not chopped for every skillet dish.
LikeLike
Actually, Jim, the SCOTUS took exception to both the fact that the buffer zone was specifically public sidewalks and that MA hadn’t even tried more specific enforcement of earlier statutes. Also note that there are perfectly effective an legal buffer zone law that MA could have stuck with.
As for your hyperbole, when we finally decide to rid the nation of the abortion mills, your precious, little buffer zones – and the other laws – aren’t going to stand in our way. I would have thought that Tiller’s execution would have taught you that.
LikeLike
jonolan – is Capital punishment the taking a precious life (because all life is precious I hear)? Or do we only protect ‘innocent’ life?
LikeLike
That’s a personal decision. For myself, I protect innocent life.
But, that being said, I have some but not much more kindness towards people who are for capital punishment but against abortion who call themselves Pro-Life than you do.
LikeLike
Re capital punishment – for me it’s not about morals or even ‘life’. Unlike with abortion – I object to the STATE taking a life. Period.
LikeLike
Well then, Tiller shouldn’t bother you since it wasn’t the STATE; it was a private citizen.
LikeLike
In which case it was murder. Only a State can execute.
LikeLike
…of the people, for the people, BY the people. Ring a bell. And BTW it shouldn’t have been murder but the judge illegally threw out the law to ensure Roeder’s – Tiller’s executioner – conviction.
LikeLike
You’re quoting the Declaration of Independence which – while eloquent and definitional – does not define either murder or execution. That’s in law.
But perhaps you believe the Declaration to have supremacy over laws which are delegated to the States by the Constitution?
LikeLike
Actually, the Gettysburg Address, Moe.
As for the law – we, the People are the final arbiters of what is law, despite what the politicians want to claim.
Of course, to be heartlessly fair, I’ve always believed in the “The boy needed killing” defense and will never side against any American who chooses to kill “human vermin” w/o the Court’s consent.
BTW – Under KS law, what Roeder did was, in fact, probably legal or, at the very least, arguably so. Homicide is considered justified in KS in the case of perception that “pre-born children’s lives were in imminent danger.” Such law, however, was thrown out by the judge at his trial who refused to allow it into his court.
LikeLike
Ouch. Lincoln indeed.
As for the law, we the people are the ones who write them – and agree, that once in law, we will abide so we don’t end up in an anarchist society. And we can change laws too . . . that’s the way. We don’t get to do our own interpreting in the meantime, we ceded that power to the Courts.
LikeLike
This is not a conservative court. This is a radical court and the ramifications are truly terrifying.
LikeLike
Which is why Elyse, I dearly wish – this sounds really crass, sorry – the good Justice Ginsberg would step down before we lose the Senate. Just in case.
LikeLike