WHAT THE F#$K HAS THE SUPREME COURT BEEN SMOKING LATELY?

This is just outrageous.

I was made aware of this nonsense recently.

From this article, at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06060/662679.stm:
“Court: abortion protests don't violate anti-racketeering laws
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court yesterday ended a 20-year old lawsuit against militant anti-abortion groups, ruling unanimously that their use of "physical violence" outside clinics did not violate the anti-racketeering laws.
The decision marked the third time this case had been decided by the Supreme Court, and this time, they made sure it would be the last.
The effect of the ruling will be limited, however, because a federal law enacted in 1994 makes it illegal to block the entrances to an abortion clinic.”

A little further down in the article:
“The lawsuit that ended yesterday began during an era of abortion-clinic bombings in the 1980s. At the same time, anti-abortion groups such as Operation Rescue employed "human blockades" to try to stop pregnant patients from entering clinics.
“Searching for a legal weapon to combat such tactics, the National Organization for Women sued Operation Rescue and its leaders for violating the federal anti-racketeering law. This law incorporates other federal measures, including the laws against robbery and extortion.
“The Supreme Court allowed this suit to go forward in 1994, and a jury in Chicago ruled that the protesters had used force and, on occasion, violence to prevent patients and staff from entering clinics. A judge assessed damages against Operation Rescue and issued a nationwide order forbidding its members from blocking clinics.
“Three years ago, the Supreme Court appeared to reverse course. It ruled that the protesters did not engage in "extortion" when they blocked clinics because they were not seeking to take over these businesses.”

I ain’t no judge, not a lawyer, but if you look at the ACTUAL definition of Extortion:
http://www.answers.com/extortion

Elements of Offense

“Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. Extortion may be carried out by a threat to tell the victim's spouse that the victim is having an illicit sexual affair with another.
Other types of threats sufficient to constitute extortion include those to harm the victim's business and those to either testify against the victim or withhold testimony necessary to his or her defense or claim in an administrative proceeding or a lawsuit. Many statutes also provide that any threat to harm another person in his or her career or reputation is extortion.
Under the common law and many statutes, intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion. Statutes may contain words such as "willful" or "purposeful" in order to indicate the intent element. When this is so, someone who mistakenly believes he or she is entitled to the money or property cannot be guilty of extortion. Some statutes, however, provide that any unauthorized taking of money by an officer constitutes extortion. Under these statutes, a person may be held strictly liable for the act, and intent need not be proven to establish the crime.”

So someone please explain to me why the law was passed in the first place. Why? Because these frenzied, foam-flecked political prophets are violent assholes.

Oh, gotta love this one: “Helen Cindrich, who belongs to the same anti-abortion group, said the ruling means that people won't be afraid of protesting. She once was arrested for protesting outside an abortion physician's home and was sued, as was her husband because she drove his car to the protest.”
Somehow, details are, well, rather sparse in regards to this incident. I rather doubt she was innocent and wide-eyed, a movement martyr. Protesting outside the physician’s home?
Poor fucking baby. Harassing the doctor at his home?
Here’s what we should do:
Volunteer to escort women in and out of the clinics. I figure a good-sized fellow with a Louisville slugger angled onto the shoulder should disabuse most of these mad dogs.

Because obviously, talking doesn’t work. And the Powers That Be are clearly out of their minds.

Or perhaps we should gather en masse outside their homes, and see if they appreciate that.

I’d have a lot more respect for these loons if they actually created a sub-movement titled “Stop abortion! Adopt a Baby!”

I mean, really. They’re so dead set on stopping abortion, making choices for other people that affect their lives in no small manner, judging them on the present act without so much as a by-your-leave or an examination of the circumstances forcing them to undergo this procedure, that they block clinics (see second bolded paragraph, in the definition of ‘extortion’, above), and chuck bombs into the damn place, killing innocent people (which is so contrary to their philosophy, it’s hypocritical), well, it gets right up my nose, it does.

Sure, the extortion clause was a bit of a stretch, kind of a weak premise. So’s spitting on the sidewalk, fer crying out loud.

So we will wait and see. I could very well be wrong. Perhaps those methods are in disfavor two decades later.

So here’s to fingers crossed, and no bombs in the political crossfire.

And that, dear readers, is my nickel’s worth. Spend it wisely, and well.