Buffer Zones (abortion clinics) and Anthony Scalia's opening arguments

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Oldgamer

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
The buffer zones (protesters 35 feet away from clinics) laws were created when so many anti-abortionists resorted to violence against the women going to the clinics, spitting on them, starting fires at the clinics, murdering the doctors and nurses who worked there, and just outright blocking the entry ways, and I find it astounding that Anthony Scalia said in one of his arguments that he thinks that all these protesters want to do is just have "open dialogue, and discussion" with the women. Wow, is all I got to say. The man is truly off his rocker. I was just hearing this on the news, and was trying to dig up what he said, and only came up with this. The grandmother depicted in this article may be sweet and nonviolent, but that doesn't mean others are too.
-------------------------------------

Link to NPR News Article

Quote: "The dissenters, however, were furious. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a rare and blistering oral dissent when the opinion was announced. "Does the deck seem stacked?" he thundered. "You bet."

He went on to say that "our longstanding commitment to uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate is miraculously replaced by the power of the state to protect an unheard of right to be let alone on the public streets."

-----------------

Soooo does that mean the Walmart and McDonalds protestors can be right by the businesses entry ways too, to just have open dialogue with people who go into the stores??? LOL
 
B

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,969
30,847
136
Oldgamer said:
Soooo does that mean the Walmart and McDonalds protestors can be right by the businesses entry ways too, to just have open dialogue with people who go into the stores??? LOL
Click to expand...

Its only okay when saving the babies. It will be interesting to see how the court handles this.
 
I

Incorruptible

Lifer
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
If they get violent then they should be arrested but everyone has free speech and there shouldn't be a buffer zone.
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,866
31,364
146
Oldgamer said:
The buffer zones (protesters 35 feet away from clinics) laws were created when so many anti-abortionists resorted to violence against the women going to the clinics, spitting on them, starting fires at the clinics, murdering the doctors and nurses who worked there, and just outright blocking the entry ways, and I find it astounding that Anthony Scalia said in one of his arguments that he thinks that all these protesters want to do is just have "open dialogue, and discussion" with the women. Wow, is all I got to say. The man is truly off his rocker. I was just hearing this on the news, and was trying to dig up what he said, and only came up with this. The grandmother depicted in this article may be sweet and nonviolent, but that doesn't mean others are too.
-------------------------------------

Link to NPR News Article

Quote: "The dissenters, however, were furious. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a rare and blistering oral dissent when the opinion was announced. "Does the deck seem stacked?" he thundered. "You bet."

He went on to say that "our longstanding commitment to uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate is miraculously replaced by the power of the state to protect an unheard of right to be let alone on the public streets."

-----------------

Soooo does that mean the Walmart and McDonalds protestors can be right by the businesses entry ways too, to just have open dialogue with people who go into the stores??? LOL
Click to expand...


The funny thing about the grandmother in the story was that at the end, it was revealed that she stands some 10-12 feet inside the buffer, beyond the tape.

The reporter asks her why she does that--she is clearly allowed to do it and does it every day that she is out there--and she just says "Well, I just go, you know, where the holy spirit takes me!"

It's just odd, a plaintiff arguing that she is prevented her freedoms because of X, even though she has never been restricted by X in practice.
:D
 
MrPickins

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,125
792
126
Incorruptible said:
If they get violent then they should be arrested but everyone has free speech and there shouldn't be a buffer zone.
Click to expand...

How about Westboro kooks?

Should they be allowed to user their right to free speech to disrupt a soldier's funeral?
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,866
31,364
146
Incorruptible said:
If they get violent then they should be arrested but everyone has free speech and there shouldn't be a buffer zone.
Click to expand...

The Supreme court has a buffer zone that extends well beyond this one put up at clinics.

Polling stations have buffer zones.

Are there buffer zones in the socialist hellscape of Canada where you live?
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Scalia is just being his disingenuous self. That's the current thrust of right wing efforts atm- being dishonest. If they had their way, abortions might still be legal, but women wouldn't be able to get one. Catch 22.

Allowing protesters to block access to clinics would very much promote that. Which is what Scalia is saying, just not in so many words.
 
thraashman

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
The day that Scalia leaves the court will be the single greatest day in the history of the USSC.
 
monovillage

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
The buffer zones (protesters 35 feet away from clinics) laws were created when so many anti-abortionists resorted to violence against the women going to the clinics, spitting on them, starting fires at the clinics, murdering the doctors and nurses who worked there.................
Click to expand...

Is an outright lie, oldgamer.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,013
55,460
136
Scalia on Wickard v. Filburn when it came to jailing pot smoking hippies: (2005)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1454#concurrence1

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942), presented such a case. Because the unregulated production of wheat for personal consumption diminished demand in the regulated wheat market, the Court said, it carried with it the potential to disrupt Congress's price regulation by driving down prices in the market. Id., at 127-129. This potential disruption of Congress's interstate regulation, and not only the effect that personal consumption of wheat had on interstate commerce, justified Congress's regulation of that conduct.
Click to expand...

Scalia on Wickard v. Filburn when it involved giving health care to poor people: (2012)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/in-scalias-new-book-hints-of-health-ruling.html?_r=0

In that 1942 decision, Justice Scalia writes, the Supreme Court “expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason” by ruling that “a farmer’s cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause.”
Click to expand...

His reasoning? 'Wisdom comes late'. Yeah, I bet. For Scalia, Congress' powers are at their greatest when attacking the poor, minorities, hippies, or gay people. They are at their lowest when attempting to help the poor, minorities, hippies, or gay people. The guy is a scumbag.
 
Brainonska511

Brainonska511

Lifer
Dec 10, 2005
28,890
14,152
136
eskimospy said:
His reasoning? 'Wisdom comes late'. Yeah, I bet. For Scalia, Congress' powers are at their greatest when attacking the poor, minorities, hippies, or gay people. They are at their lowest when attempting to help the poor, minorities, hippies, or gay people. The guy is a scumbag.
Click to expand...

You've got the two great cases of last year:
twofacedscalia.jpg
 
I

Incorruptible

Lifer
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
MrPickins said:
How about Westboro kooks?

Should they be allowed to user their right to free speech to disrupt a soldier's funeral?
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between them and these protestors. I and most normal people have criticized and called out the WBC. You can't even compare the two.
 
MomentsofSanity

MomentsofSanity

Lifer
Jan 25, 2011
17,093
9,576
146
Incorruptible said:
There is a big difference between them and these protestors. I and most normal people have criticized and called out the WBC. You can't even compare the two.
Click to expand...

Please explain why they can't be compared. Both are expressing their first amendment rights in the exact same fashion. How is that not comparable?
 
D

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
If you look at this issue objectively are abortion clinic buffer zones any different (for better or worse) than "Free Speech" zones at political conventions and/or rallies? If you are in favor of one in one setting then essentially you condone the other in another setting because in both instances claims of past "violence" can be made to support the enactment of such restrictions on the 1st amendment.
 
Last edited:
I

Incorruptible

Lifer
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
MomentsofSanity said:
Please explain why they can't be compared. Both are expressing their first amendment rights in the exact same fashion. How is that not comparable?
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised you come follow me again. They're not expressing them in the exact same fashion. Are you seriously this stupid? I don't see the pro life protestors chanting for the deaths of American soldiers. And the WBC are allowed to go to the funerals while the pro-life protestors have a buffer.

Nice to see you support the WBC since you're the same guy who thinks it's alright to burn a poppy.
 
Oldgamer

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
DucatiMonster696 said:
If you look at this issue objectively are abortion clinic buffer zones any different (for better or worse) than "Free Speech" zones at political conventions and/or rallies? If you are in favor of one in one setting then essentially you condone the other in another setting because in both instances claims of past "violence" can be made to support the enactment of such restrictions on the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

This is exactly right. I used the analogy of the Walmart, McDonald protestors who were being told they were impeding a business and had to be like a block or two away. The same logic can be applied here, where these clinics businesses are being disrupted. But lets not kid ourselves that things won't get violent if allowed to encroach on the property since people on both sides of the issue are extremely passionate in their beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom