McCullen v Coakley - SCOTUS Done Screwed Up

[Greenday]

So, the SCOTUS was on a roll (In my opinion anyway) until today. The case of McCullen v Coakley was a case about whether or not Massachusetts' law preventing anyone from protesting within 30 feet of an abortion clinic violated protesters' First Amendment rights. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court said that buffers like this are a violation of the First Amendment.

And to that, I said "You fucked up." and I believe the SCOTUS disgraced themselves today. I firmly believe in the right to protest and the right to free speech. I do NOT believe in the right to try to physically and verbally intimidate people. I believe any protester who gets close enough to do such a thing deserves to be knocked the hell out. I know there are laws that prevent protesters from actually touching people going in or forcing anything on them, but if you are close enough to actually intimidate someone, you are too close.

As with all law stuff, I asked my fiance who is in law school of her opinion. She's not shocked at all considering how conservative the Court is. To be honest, backwards rulings like this makes me surprised women and minorities have rights at all.

[HYHYBT]

I don't quite understand it, but from what I saw, the ruling was not that you can't have buffers.

[Greenday]

I don't quite understand it, but from what I saw, the ruling was not that you can't have buffers.

I'm pretty sure the entire case was based on the buffer.

[HYHYBT]

Found what I'd read. The subheading contains the part that, looking again, doesn't make a whole lot of sense: "The Supreme Court struck down a 35-foot buffer zone law but upheld the right to impose such protections, as long as they don’t infringe upon public spaces."


http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ompromise.html

[s_stabeler]

I THINK what the SCOTUS is saying is that the buffer zones cannot prevent the use of public land- in other words, protesters can be forced to stay off an abortion clinic's property, but can, if they are so inclined, camp out in the street.

[Kheldarson]

I THINK what the SCOTUS is saying is that the buffer zones cannot prevent the use of public land- in other words, protesters can be forced to stay off an abortion clinic's property, but can, if they are so inclined, camp out in the street.

Pretty much. It's basically "oh you want to protest? Not in our parking lot!"

[Greenday]

It also means they can protest on the sidewalk right in front of the clinic and pretty much continue to harass people all they want. Abortion protesters don't seem to be peaceful. They tend to be up in your face, harass the shit out of you. These buffers prevented that and saved the police a lot of work.

[s_stabeler]

It also means they can protest on the sidewalk right in front of the clinic and pretty much continue to harass people all they want. Abortion protesters don't seem to be peaceful. They tend to be up in your face, harass the shit out of you. These buffers prevented that and saved the police a lot of work.

yes, but the problem is, "saved the police a lot of work" is quite a weak argument when it comes to breaching Constitutional protections- need i point out that the same argument can be used to justify throwing someone in prison without trial- save a LOT of police time, that, not needing anything like proof!

Now, I agree abortion protesters can be obnoxious. The problem is, buffer zones prevent ALL protesters.What you need to do is find a way to allow protesters, while preventing them harassing people.

[Greenday]

What you need to do is find a way to allow protesters, while preventing them harassing people.

Hm, what sounds good to me would be to say that protesters have to stay a certain distance from the entrance and people trying to get in. It allows the protesters to do their thing without molesting everyone else.

[Kheldarson]

Hm, what sounds good to me would be to say that protesters have to stay a certain distance from the entrance and people trying to get in. It allows the protesters to do their thing without molesting everyone else.

The article HYHYBT linked mentioned that other states have enacted such laws: protesters have to stay so far away from hospital entrances and from patients, doctors, etc. if they didn't have permission to approach.

The Court ruled that it was legal as it didn't specifically limit the public spaces, but instead focused on the safety of those going in and out.

Ergo, there's a way around it, but Massachusett's law obviously didn't cut it.

[Dreamstalker]

I don't quite understand it, but from what I saw, the ruling was not that you can't have buffers.

That's what I was told (the case was about the size), but my understanding is that it was just about the buffers in general. That could be the local news spin though.

Some of the buffer zones I've seen extend into the street...that's probably what's meant by 'infringing on public property' (rights of way). The sidewalk in front can be included in the zone (as it is technically the clinic's property), but not extend past the curb.

[EricKei]

This may vary by area, but, where I've lived, "public property" has always included either the street plus everything between it and the "street edge" of the sidewalk, or including the sidewalk itself. Usually the latter.

[Greenday]

Exactly. Here, the sidewalk is owned by the town, not any individual.

Also, another epic failure by the SCOTUS today. An absolute disgrace to this country.

[Kristev]

Based on their recent rulings, perhaps we should demand the impeachment of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, and replace them all with women.

[Greenday]

Based on their recent rulings, perhaps we should demand the impeachment of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, and replace them all with women.

The first part is a decent idea.

Second part...no.