?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
28 June 2014 @ 10:09 am
Buffer  
The abortion issue has been on everyone’s mind lately. On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous finding that the 35-foot buffer zones around Massachusetts abortion clinics violated protesters’ freedom of speech. We do not have time to discuss this in detail, except to point out that this decision came from people who work in a building where the protesters aren’t allowed within 250 feet of the front door--Gail Collins
Tags:
 
 
 
browngirl on June 28th, 2014 04:48 pm (UTC)
Word.
Kalimac: puzzlekalimac on June 28th, 2014 05:32 pm (UTC)
And, if I recall correctly, the people who use the building don't even go in the front door.

The big irony of the decision is that the buffer zone was deemed no longer needed because interactions had become mostly peaceful since it was established. That would be because of the buffer zone.

Similar reasoning was used to dismantle the Voting Rights Act on the grounds that the states covered by it had been behaving themselves lately. That would have been because of the Voting Rights Act, as proven by what they immediately did as soon as they were now permitted to.
houseboatonstyxhouseboatonstyx on June 28th, 2014 07:04 pm (UTC)
Unanimous? Even Klages and Ginsberg, or am I way behind the times?
El Coyote Gordo: dreadsupergee on June 28th, 2014 07:48 pm (UTC)
Apparently. They must have seen at as free speech.
Avram Grumer: Post-It Portraitagrumer on June 28th, 2014 08:40 pm (UTC)
There are some complicated issues going on; read what a lawyer (and political activist) friend of mine had to say about it. Also look at the actual text of the decision, especially Scalia’s furious concurrence:
By engaging in constitutional dictum here (and reaching the wrong result), the majority can preserve the ability of jurisdictions across the country to restrict antiabortion speech without fear of rigorous constitutional review. With a dart here and a pleat there, such regulations are sure to satisfy the tailoring standards applied in Part IV of the majority’s opinion.