Expected result except perhaps for no opinion, such as from Ginsburg, from the liberal wing. She appeared to accept the limits of Roberts opinion which focused not on it being content based (Alito separately suggested it might be), but not narrowly tailored enough. I think it is a fair opinion though a voice from the
other side might have helped. HL for Monday.
Update: See comment. I will leave it there. Maybe, "mostly fair."
6 comments:
You can call this opinion fair if you wish. It is your blog but you shouldn't expect your readers to agree. I thought the opinion incredibly dishonest. To distinguish petitioners as sincere persons seeking one to one counseling opportunities from protesters routinely restricted in the same way, including at the court's own building, is patently absurd. Where in the world were the women on the court who should have seen through the specious argument of the majority and who should have had some sensitivity to the problems of the women the statute sought to protect? 5-4 wouldn't have surprised me. Unanimous persuades me that this court isn't worth much, even potentially.
Certain views won't be shared.
Anyway, I don't think the 'counselors' (protests not particularly at issue, since person to person interaction is the key in these cases -- protests can stay some distance away) here are on par with those outside the court's own building exactly. How far do we take that? Is it is wrong that we are somewhat more concerned about the safety of justices? POTUS?
The women, including Ginsburg, probably saw that the opinion didn't denounce the law as content based and provided various ways to protect clinics in ways that three (Alito a bit of an outlier as seen in the funeral protest case separately commented) would not. Kagan apparently from orals thought the law overbroad. Others might have seen it as prudential to join a more restrained opinion that left standing the Hill case.
The opinion provided alternative approaches. There is some "sensitivity" though I'm not going to say it wasn't TOTALLY fair or non-biased. The writer is an anti-choice individual and it shows. But, on balance, it struck it down on limited grounds, leaving open various protections, including FACE, I assume. I think on balance that is fair.
As suggested above, I think the person-to-person interaction here IS different than protests specifically. It is the difference from a gay rights protester holding signs down the way from a church and handing out, person to person, often to people who rather not be in contact with such 'sinners,' material and saying stuff to people in the process.
I don't know how we are supposed to cabin this. Strikers, e.g., have historically been limited in their rights in part because they DO "restrict" people in certain ways. If you want to enter a store being boycotted, watch out. Obviously, many people -- not all -- have bad faith here. But, how do we determine that? Assume everyone is bad and block all?
I don't think that works -- in public places, even if you don't want it, you are liable to have people walk up to you, including when you go to places like clinics, stores, environmentally unfriendly places etc. laden with divisive issues that greatly divide us, and talk to you.
The breadth of the law here made it an outlier. Apparently, other places, including some liberal leaning ones, do not feel this compelled. The facts on the ground make the total barrier questionable on least restrictive means grounds. So, we disagree on how dishonest this all is. Your ire should be at the women justices, including Justice Ginsburg, who made a career of protecting the rights of women.
I did mention the women, and not just in passing. The dangers of violence from clinic protesters, or counselors, or whatever buzzword they wish to use, has been amply demonstrated in recent history. Of course we have to be worried about violence with respect to the justices and POTUS but they are not the exclusive potential targets. As to the breadth of the law, 35 feet isn't much. I recall during oral arguments, the justices, Scalia in particular, demonstrated that they were wildly off in their estimates of the reality of that distance. I wish one of the advocates had had available a tape measure to bring a little reality to that hearing. Your reference to strikers and "watch out" is apt and often supports injunctions restricting the closeness of the picket lines. Again, characterizing the petitioners as persons seeking personal and sincere communication with patients is the work of charlatans.
So, consider my ire redirected toward a court for which I have no respect whatsoever and the female justices from whom I had hoped for an antidote to the poison of the reactionary majority.
The opinion provides various ways to address the problem and I realize it's a hard case. If it went the other way, I also could find it fair.
35 feet basically prevents personal interaction in various situations. If people, e.g., coming out of boycotted store or other places had to keep 35 feet away, it would change the dynamic notably. If necessary, so be it, but I get from various replies to this case that more is wanted.
The people here in various cases are "sincere" and do want to seek "personal" communication. This doesn't seem to be the debate in various cases. So, we get comments that they are hateful. Yes. They think mass murder is going on. Not surprising. Comments about women not wanting to deal with these people, especially given their already fragile emotional state etc.. No debate there really -- but in public places, you have to deal with that sort of thing.
And, the argument goes both ways -- if it "ain't much," it will be of limited benefit. I get the replies but think other ways can be used and since the opinion left them open, I think the opinion works.
I wonder why more limited means aren't sufficient at the Supreme Court building.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!