Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Abortion Clinic "Buffer Zone" Law

[J.E.D]

disgusting ruling that is going to encourage dangerous loons.

There are still laws against harassment, and people can still ask the cops to remove a person who is acting dangerously. What this prevents is a standing law that makes it criminal for a person to calmly talk to another person within 35 feet of a clinic on public streets.

What is it with progressives and their love of prior restraint laws?

So, protect the rights of people who want to get in the face of women seeking abortion, but don't protect those women from having people in their face. Sounds like a fair tradeoff.

 

[jc456]

Liberals will now call this part of the "war on women"!!!!

BREAKING: Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Abortion Clinic "Buffer Zone" Law - Christine Rousselle

Jun 26, 2014

The Supreme Court today unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that required a 35-foot protest-free "buffer zone" around abortion clinics, saying that the statute violated the First Amendment rights of pro-life protestors. The ruling in McCullen v. Coakley also has implications for municipalities that have imposed their own "buffer zone" laws around abortion clinics.

that one seemed to piss the lefties off more then

obama getting slam dunked on his recess appointments

didnt know just how much the left hates free speech

Free speech hate is almost all of what drives the left.

They are especially hateful of Foxnews and their free speech. I bet Fox news is mention in almost every post.

Oh and Rush L and Sean H. tried to get them off of the air. it's hilarious.

 

[J.E.D]

There are still laws against harassment, and people can still ask the cops to remove a person who is acting dangerously.

Right. Because cops are always right there when you need them. Especially in a situation where some nutjob thinks they're doing God's work by attacking an innocent girl walking into a clinic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The prohibition was overtly expansive and certainly could have been handled better by the local police.

Floating buffers, negotiated by the clinic personnel and the police, are still acceptable.

No one is going to be able to stand within touching distance and yell.

But, yes, protestors should be able to be present and vocal.

 

[martybegan]

disgusting ruling that is going to encourage dangerous loons.

There are still laws against harassment, and people can still ask the cops to remove a person who is acting dangerously. What this prevents is a standing law that makes it criminal for a person to calmly talk to another person within 35 feet of a clinic on public streets.

What is it with progressives and their love of prior restraint laws?

So, protect the rights of people who want to get in the face of women seeking abortion, but don't protect those women from having people in their face. Sounds like a fair tradeoff.

These are not forceful protesters, but sidewalk counselors. Aggression is not a question here. The large groups of screaming protesters can still be kept at a distance, what is prevented is normal citizens being denied their right to address people, and to do it not dependent on government approval of the location.

You don't have a right to not be uncomfortable.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Nobody has mentioned the FACT that ALL THREE LEFTIST FEMALE Supreme Court Justices were part of this "unanimous" ruling.

To get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule UNANIMOUSLY on ANYTHING is the next thing to a MIRACLE.

This ruling restores a little bit of faith in the SCOTUS.

 

[rdean]

Liberals will now call this part of the "war on women"!!!!

BREAKING: Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Abortion Clinic "Buffer Zone" Law - Christine Rousselle

Jun 26, 2014

The Supreme Court today unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that required a 35-foot protest-free "buffer zone" around abortion clinics, saying that the statute violated the First Amendment rights of pro-life protestors. The ruling in McCullen v. Coakley also has implications for municipalities that have imposed their own "buffer zone" laws around abortion clinics.

Which is hilarious since the buffer zone around the Supreme Court is what? 100 feet? 200 feet? More?

And when was the last time the Supreme Court was bombed, set on fire, justices shot?

I guess it's "do as I say, not as I do".

 

[koshergrl]

The far left hates women this will just let them shove their hate right in their face.

If anything is about to be shoved in any faces, it's the ire and zeal of the anti-abortion rights crowd shoving their peculiar brand of hatred into the face of a frightened girl on her way to a clinic.

I've gone to abortion clinics with protesters outside x2.

Never dealt with any hatred whatever from the people outside.

The people inside..that's a different matter. I watched them perform an abortion on a girl who wasn't pregnant anymore. That was interesting.

 

[martybegan]

Liberals will now call this part of the "war on women"!!!!

BREAKING: Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Abortion Clinic "Buffer Zone" Law - Christine Rousselle

Jun 26, 2014

The Supreme Court today unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that required a 35-foot protest-free "buffer zone" around abortion clinics, saying that the statute violated the First Amendment rights of pro-life protestors. The ruling in McCullen v. Coakley also has implications for municipalities that have imposed their own "buffer zone" laws around abortion clinics.

Which is hilarious since the buffer zone around the Supreme Court is what? 100 feet? 200 feet? More?

And when was the last time the Supreme Court was bombed, set on fire, justices shot?

I guess it's "do as I say, not as I do".

There is still a buffer zone around clinics for large groups of active protesters. That still stands. This was only about individuals and their right to state their case on public sidewalks/roadways.

 

[R.D.]

disgusting ruling that is going to encourage dangerous loons.

You are so twisted

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Liberals will now call this part of the "war on women"!!!!

BREAKING: Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Abortion Clinic "Buffer Zone" Law - Christine Rousselle

Jun 26, 2014

The Supreme Court today unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that required a 35-foot protest-free "buffer zone" around abortion clinics, saying that the statute violated the First Amendment rights of pro-life protestors. The ruling in McCullen v. Coakley also has implications for municipalities that have imposed their own "buffer zone" laws around abortion clinics.

Which is hilarious since the buffer zone around the Supreme Court is what? 100 feet? 200 feet? More?

And when was the last time the Supreme Court was bombed, set on fire, justices shot?

I guess it's "do as I say, not as I do".

Only the most radical leftists would try to draw some sort of insane parallel between a female ending the life of her unborn child, and the safety of the Justices that comprise the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is the same sort of immature thinking that the radical leftists use when they try to draw a parallel between aborting an unborn baby and ending the life of a convicted murderer.

 

[Bush92]

It's time we return some decency to this nation. Abortion is yet another vestige of the mess that was made to this nation in the 1960's and 1970's.

 

[Yurt]

While i support the idea of repealing these buffer zone laws, it is not the job of the courts to repeal laws. Repealing laws is a legislative function and the constitution says all legislative functions are vested in congress.

actually the law wasn't "repealed". it was found unconstitutional. and while i disagree with the decision, intensely, that is EXACTLY the job of the courts.

Declaring it unconstitutional is the same as repealing it you nitwit. And what makes you think it's the job of the supreme court.? The constitution doesn't say it is. It says the states have that power. THINK

no it is not. words have meaning....

 

[R.C. Christian]

It is rare that the SCROTUS passes down two or three good rulings in as many days.

 

[Peach]

disgusting ruling that is going to encourage dangerous loons.

The buffer zones impeded access to public walkways, and structures, that is why it was 9-0. The Court cited the fact LE lost no powers to arrest, or otherwise remove disruptive protesters. A 1st Amendment question, and thus, the Court upheld free speech.

 

[Noomi]

Liberals will now call this part of the "war on women"!!!!

BREAKING: Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Abortion Clinic "Buffer Zone" Law - Christine Rousselle

Jun 26, 2014

The Supreme Court today unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that required a 35-foot protest-free "buffer zone" around abortion clinics, saying that the statute violated the First Amendment rights of pro-life protestors. The ruling in McCullen v. Coakley also has implications for municipalities that have imposed their own "buffer zone" laws around abortion clinics.

Fuck the protesters rights. They have no right to badger those women like that.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Liberals will now call this part of the "war on women"!!!!

BREAKING: Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Abortion Clinic "Buffer Zone" Law - Christine Rousselle

Jun 26, 2014

The Supreme Court today unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that required a 35-foot protest-free "buffer zone" around abortion clinics, saying that the statute violated the First Amendment rights of pro-life protestors. The ruling in McCullen v. Coakley also has implications for municipalities that have imposed their own "buffer zone" laws around abortion clinics.

Fuck the protesters

thats what we do. We dont get much sport any more, since we employed our rights to a citizens arrest, under section 5 of the public order act in Great Britain

 

[JoeB131]

disgusting ruling that is going to encourage dangerous loons.

There are still laws against harassment, and people can still ask the cops to remove a person who is acting dangerously. What this prevents is a standing law that makes it criminal for a person to calmly talk to another person within 35 feet of a clinic on public streets.

What is it with progressives and their love of prior restraint laws?

I guess we just don't like seeing a woman who is already going through a tough time being confronted by religious assholes shoving pictures of medical waste in their faces.

Silly us.

Anti-Choice nutters are the biggest tools in the world.

 

[Noomi]

disgusting ruling that is going to encourage dangerous loons.

There are still laws against harassment, and people can still ask the cops to remove a person who is acting dangerously. What this prevents is a standing law that makes it criminal for a person to calmly talk to another person within 35 feet of a clinic on public streets.

What is it with progressives and their love of prior restraint laws?

I guess we just don't like seeing a woman who is already going through a tough time being confronted by religious assholes shoving pictures of medical waste in their faces.

Silly us.

Anti-Choice nutters are the biggest tools in the world.

And the most dangerous.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It is rare that the SCROTUS passes down two or three good rulings in as many days.

Xanax sales soar