I hate headlines like this!
Check out the headline on this AP article:
Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters
Is it just me, or is this incredibly misleading? It means the court is pro-life, right? If they handed down a decision that pro-lifers approve of, it means they're on "their side," right?
Well, not in this case. The court didn't pass any value judgment on the protestors either way. All they said was that the protestors were not engaged in racketeering or extortion. (Duh.)
The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the 7th Circuit had asked a trial judge to determine whether a nationwide injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence absent a connection with robbery or extortion.
Pretty much a no-brainer, I'd say, which probably explains why the decision was unanimous (the majority opinion was written by Stephen Bryer.) In other words, the tea leaves say absolutely nothing about the high court's bias on Roe v. Wade.
Anyway, that kind of shoddy journalism hacks me off. God knows there are enough misconceptions about SCOTUS's proper role in the whole abortion debate without the mainstream media making it worse.
Comments
Terrible (terribly misleading) headline, though a sound decision.
I WOULD however really like to see the RICO statutes used against domestic terrorist groups like ALF & ELF, which are engaged in violent, criminal enterprises.
Posted by: JMK | February 28, 2006 04:56 PM
I've never been a big fan of using laws intended for one thing as a means of getting your way in other areas. For instance, using Patriot Act laws to go after people who do not threaten national security.
However, I have to say this limiting of the RICO statutes does worry me. I was expecting to see them used with respect to the criminal enterprise known as the Republican Party. :-)
Posted by: DBK | February 28, 2006 11:05 PM
Generally, most laws SHOULD NOT be used for purposes unintended, that's why one of the very few misuses of the Patriot Act, when Tennessee authorities tried charging those in a Meth Lab for "creating WMDs," the by-product of many Meth labs are various poisonous gases.
Of course, Tom Osborne of Nebraska is working to get around that;
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ne03_osborne/121405PatriotMeth.html
as he and others out West consider Meth Labs to be a major threat to both large residential populations and the environment.
ALF & ELF for instance ARE "terrorist organizations," and as such, they do "threaten national security."
Of course, the caveat, "must be a threat to national security," DOES NOT, nor SHOULD NOT be found anywhere within the Patriot Act.
Here's something to consider, ALL of America's Founders would've been far to the Right of today's Conservative movement. The only people in America with as innate a distrust of government and the determination to limit it (OK, not so much its Military or Criminal Justice arms, as they are Constitutional) but the "taking" from some citizens for the "relief of," or aid to others, would be those in the current Militia Movement.
I dare say that's probably where you'd find a Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin or Tom Paine today.
Posted by: JMK | March 1, 2006 11:35 AM