haha, well, I agree, I did in fact mention congress. I don't know what else to say, you are interpreting my argument (that I am apparently complaining that Obama is talking to Congress) incorrectly. The mention of Obama talking to Congress was not me complaining that he was consulting congress nor was it my point. My point was that Obama was considering taking action in Iraq because the shit's gone downhill there. The congress point was used as proof to address cartman's suggestion that 'Obama was saying he doesn't want to do shit'.

Maybe a better posting from you would have been to comment, "You complain when he doesn't take action in Iraq, you complain when he does. What exactly is your preferred outcome in that regard anyways???"

That would have made more sense to me, since it would have been addressing my actual point. :)

I actually disagree with this, Obama certainly shares alot of blame for this mess right now. He didn't start the ball rolling but he was on watch. US troops left in late 2011 which means Obama was in office for approx. 2+ years.

I don't condone the assassination of foreign leaders and putting in our own junta (well, maybe except for North Korea) but I'm not above dirty tricks campaigns against Maliki.

They also should have seen, anticipated, mitigated the threat of ISIS to Iraq during the Syrian civil war.

I think Obama was either too hands-off'ish or distracted.

Assuming that Iraq is much more closely aligned with Iran than ever will be with us, is it bad to let Iran support Iraq? They'll gain to benefit but will also bear the risks including being mired in Iraq, ISIS maybe adding I(ran) at the end, antagonizing the other Arab states which may then find incentive to align more with the US etc.

Our play then is to keep the Iraq Kurds in our camp ... not sure but assume the Sunni's hate us also.

Economic fallout by increased gas prices but with the shale option, the decreased gas usage, the emergence of electric cars etc. it probably won't be as bad as in the 2000's.

Iran sends troops into Iraq to aid fight against Isis militants | World news | theguardian.com

Mostly agree, Edward, but I would caution us from picking and choosing camps inside of Iraq (Like the Iraqi Kurds) because for every friendship in that region, their is a strong and opposite enemy. For the Iraqi Kurds, it's the Turks. For the Iraqi Sunni's, it's the Shia. For the Iraqi Shia's, it's the Saudi Arabian peninsula.

Bottom line, the USA (under Bush) made a promise to support the government of Iraq proper, Obama quit that support and relinquished the fledgling nation (that we created) to regional powers and internal forces (some friendly, most not). Give them their shot to sort it out. I'm pretty positive they will fuck it up, but as long as they don't fuck with my gas prices again (they will) then I could care less about the region and who owns and rules what.

Bottom Line: Let them fight.

ISIS is no threat to Iran proper. The estimates of troop strength for ISIS are around 10,000 men. The problem is no one in Iraq has been willing to fight them. Now that Shia men are flocking to the army ISIS almost certainly has no chance at taking Baghdad. Whether the Shia army pushes Isis back is the real question.

No threat militarily for sure. But think of the havoc they can cause with terrorism. ISIS middle eastern men being able to blend into Iran, it'll be sweet irony for Iran to experience suicide bombers ...

I think this will be one result of Iran's support of Iraq unless the ISIS is totally crushed.

Can someone explain whats happening with USS Bush going to Iraq?

My brother in law is on that ship and mother in law is going all kinds of crazy.

I'm betting we'll be launching airstrikes soon against ISIS

One of the wives spoke with their husband this morning and he basically told her that he was going in for bombings tonight.

I wonder (in a Wag-The-Dog sort of way) how much impact events in Iraq will have on the outcome of the runoff election in Afghanistan?

Well, if a sailor said it, it must be true.

Interesting article on Turkey seemingly supporting an independent Kurdistan

Turkey Would Support Iraqi Kurds' Bid For Self-Rule, Spokesman Says In Historic Remark

I think most Turks would agree that the boundaries of Iraq (in particular) was handled rather poorly by the old colonial powers. So to that extent, the average Turk is sympathetic. I'd be surprised if they truly were interested in a sovereign Kurdish state, though. The Turks ultimately like the ability to chase insurgents into the lawless northern regions of Iraq since Iraq never gave a shit who roamed around up there.

Four western Iraqi towns fall to ISIS militants - CNN.com

Iraqi insurgents capture fourth town since Friday | Fox News

BBC News - Iraq crisis: Islamists force 500,000 to flee Mosul

And the hawks of endless war continue their drumbeat (referring to the media, not you Dutch).

Not saying the issue isn''t real, but maybe we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place in some bullshit war with a pretext that was so flimsy it didn't stand up at the time so that GWB & the neocons in his administration could finish what Bush Sr. started.

Yeah, invading Iraq was such a dumb mistake that even Glenn Beck admitted he was wrong in supporting it.

But at least Haliburton got their profits.

I've mentioned this on here before, the Chief of Staff of the Turkish Army once wisely stated, "This isn't about War and Peace. This is about war and a much larger war."

I finally and begrudgingly agree that war now is not the answer. We should wait until we can get even the dove's on board. And what kind of war might that be? I think the Turks know what that means. Bottom line though, we'll win either way, so why worry about it. :)

I saw this morning that the Kurds sold oil independent of the Iraqi government. Not only that, but they shipped it through a Turkish pipeline and sold it to Israel. That's an extremely interesting sale of a tanker's worth of oil.

Nice quote trying to roll this into the "war on terror" but it ignores my fundamental point that we never should have gone to war there in the first place, and frankly, even I, who has a history degree and a strong concentration in poli-sci (so don't intimate that I don't understand the the ramifications of what I'm about to say) think that it's past time we stop fucking around in the Middle East and let them deal with their own problems.

Does that suck for all the innocent people there - yes absolutely. I have to balance my desire to get the fuck out of there and not see more Americans die for oil with the reality that that means that some innocent women & children there will die, and when i think that about that I don't sleep as easily at night.

You do realize that the reason the Islamists see us as the "Great Satan" is because we have a military presence in the Middle East, right? And that historical presence led to involvement in a proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and etc. etc. You can say that Islam is a religion of conquest, etc. and they'd be "coming for us" anyways, but the reality is we'd be in a stronger position if we weren't militarily present there as targets and the focus for anger.

All because what? Oil and Israel?

There's other sources of oil. And maybe, just maybe, if we let them deal with their own issues and they didn't hate us we could stay on good terms with whatever resulted and keep oil prices down. Not to mention that there's other sources of energy - and developing those would be an economic boon to US, instead of a cabal of absolute rulers in the middle of a fucking desert.

And Israel? It's well past fucking time that they grow up as a nation and stop relying on the implicit backing of US muscle to backstop their refusal to compromise and seek a solution to their relations with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world.

It's pretty sad that would have more US soldiers die in this bullshit, backwater turd of a country where we didn't really ever have a reason to be aside from the ego of a small group of neocons (fueled by the military-industrial complex) while I am the one arguing for less US soldiers putting their lives on the line.

Newsflash - there's nothing "glorious" and commendable about US soldiers needlessly putting their lives on the line. "Support the troops" /= "march them off to die for stupid fucking reasons."

Saw that too. Maybe instead of backing al-Malaki to the hilt we ought to think about whether an independent Kurdish state could reach some sort of agreement with Israel and provide another strong pole to help secure that whole area.

Dude, lay off the 'shrooms.

It's rather difficult to behave exactly as people who have never known a real threat a half-world away would think proper if you have several countries with a combined population 30 times larger than yours completely dedicated to your eradication.

I don't understand all of their defense tactics, but it's hard to defend a country the size of Massachusetts without constant attention to defense. I would like to see a little restraint on the settlements, too, but much of that is in areas they have to control if they are to defend their borders. It's impossible to compromise if your enemies feel the only possible compromise is your death. That's not opinion, that's just what these countries say they want.

We may feel it's OK to abandon the area entirely. Iraq's Christians now face forced conversion or death in the ISIS movement. Are we comfortable allowing ISIS to take control? After all, we got rid of a pretty terrible dictator, failed completely at "nation-building" or whatever the hell Bush dreamed he could accomplish from the safety of the West Wing. This is what happens when we create a power vacuum.

Without US assistance or threat or implied support, Israel will continue to defend itself. Perhaps less successfully, perhaps, in desperation or in response, using its considerable nuclear arsenal. That might well get everyone into WWIII.

Should we turn back time to 1948 and tell the people in the Mandate that, while they have just as much historic claim to this tiny area as anyone, it's better to put Israel somewhere else in the world? Yeah, I think so. Part of Alaska was offered at one point. It's hard in the post-colonial world to find anywhere, really. But that would have caused the fewest problems.

Now we're several wars and a few million more people and 66 years past 1948. Time machines don't exist. I think we have to recognize Israel as a legitimate country with a right to defend itself. Which means a right to control some redistricting after winning, against all odds, the attempt to destroy Israel in 1967.

As for Obama and Iraq, I don't know. One tactic could be a determination to declare war on "radical Islam", wherever it is. But what is "radical Islam?" We have a billion people in the world in Islamic countries that don't seem to be radical at all. Turkey's pretty friendly and safe. Indonesia's one of the largest countries in the world, and it's stable and we have no interest in bothering them at all. India (not a high percentage of Muslims, but they add up) and Bangladesh add another 200 or so million Muslims. Then we have a couple dozen people in Minnesota, of all places, running off to join the bloodbath. WTF? It's not an easy problem. It's religious in origin, but it's not about the religion.

It's easy to conclude that we should be isolationist. If we can't solve every problem, we shouldn't try. Sometimes I agree with that. Sometimes I think we should recognize our friends - even the unpopular ones like Israel - and side with them. But maybe there's just too much hate in the world, and peace is impossible.

We're lucky to live in a country that hasn't known a real threat in more than half a century... scratch that... almost 13 years.

I agree with you, but it is what is now...we broke it, and sadly, we're kind of responsible for it now. How do we handle it? I have no idea.

While I tend to back Israel more, I do think the Israel-Palestine is a situation where both sides don't seem to want to give an inch in regards to Jerusalem (in my view, it should be taken back as a U.N. city) and until that's solved, you're not going to see any movement.

Bush Sr. was smart. He got one of the largest coalitions involved in world history to join us, achieved his objectives, neutered Saddam and then got the fuck out with minimal casualties. Post Gulf War the Iraqi military was a shell of itself, but with just enough power to keep the peace because Saddam was the only guy who could actually keep the country together. He may have been a total douchebag, but he was the only douchebag standing in the way of more radical douchebags and/or total anarchy. "The devil you know..." and in this case the devil we knew couldn't hurt anyone else.

It all was very well done and something you'd expect from someone who was once the head of the CIA and had a firm grasp on the situation. For some reason, the neocons and Bush Jr. never understood why it was best to leave a de-nutted Saddam in place and now we're seeing the results of their lack of foresight.

That's great and all and I can appreciate that, but you know what - THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM.

They're grown up now...they can deal with their own shitty situation. The "special relationship" with Israel is the biggest shit-sandwich foreign-policy wise that this country has gotten itself into maybe since like...its founding.

Fuck holding their hand and backing them to the hilt as they go all hard-line. Either we should wash our hands of them and let them go it on their own or we should exert a much stronger hand on what they're doing so that their mouths aren't writing checks that they expect our military to back up.

England "broke it" back during and shortly after WWII...

Yeah, I don't think I want to play this game. Either we make friends where we can or we don't. But if we don't, we may lose the opportunity for peace.

I'd say we've made dozens of recent policy decisions far worse than backing a friendly country, but why bother?

Is that supposed to be an insult about engaging in a discussion with me regarding this because you feel that I'm unreasonable or whatever?

Israel is not a "force for peace" in the Middle East. They're not even trying for peace - they're actively pursuing policies that make things worse, that's my point.

Either they need to be an actual force for peace or what's the benefit to us of backing them given the rest of my thoughts??

I have no problem letting England take care of the messes they've created. Not like their soccer team is doing anything. :)

Saddam kept central Iraq together through straight up thuggery. The lawless north housed Al Qaeda, autonomous Kurdish groups that killed and bnmed inside Turkey, Iranian radical camps, and at least a couple Turkish divisions including armor(!) chasing Kurdish militants. And the part we all forget is the ammount of US military personnel required to "police" Iraq perpetually to stop Saddam from killing the indigenous Kurds in the North and the Shia in the south....and then there is Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that was his true ambition. All after an 8 year war in Iran where he killed a million people.

To claimthat he ran the country swimmingly is simple partisan revisionism. Bush was faced with a choice...evict that asshole and try and do something positive with the result or quit Iraq. To assume things would have ended well had we quit then is simply unrealistic.

But I do agree that they need to sort it out themselves now. I certainly dont want Obama to even pretend to know how to handle this militarily. Just let them fight.

No, it's just that your language when describing "special relationships" and "shit-sandwiches" and "fuck holding their hand" and that stuff about their mouths... it just makes me feel queasy, I guess. Just an internet forum, not worth having those feelings.

My point about Israel is that it's there. They have just as much right to be there as anyone. They were there in ancient times. They were kicked around by the Romans. They were there in the 1800s. It became the center of the Zionist movement in the 1890s, when the Russians did their version of Hitler. Population grew there through the 1920s, 1930s and the British Mandate, and it became the logical place for Israel in 1948.

But so many people - hundreds of millions compared to their eight million - are willing to do anything to kill them all. So, they sometimes do things that we don't understand, not having to worry that we'll die tomorrow. They can't even ask for peace when their enemies refuse to even acknowledge that a Jewish state can exist in peace under any circumstances.

So I give them a little latitude in their defense. They think there should be a wall on the border? OK. Try it. Probably won't work. We have no border security whatsoever. And all that happens is some aches and pains with people crossing the border. If Israel doesn't have Border Security, a lot of people will die quickly. I mean, it's obvious that at some point in our lifetimes, probably sooner than later, those eight million people are going to die. Too many people want that to happen for it not to happen. I don't agree with everything they do, but they're under a pressure that we simply can't relate to, and negotiations have gone badly. I get why they respond the way they do. But, still, it is a democracy friendly to the US, and I think it's worth trying to help.

It's not irritation directed at you with those feelings/words - it's irritation at the avoidable situations that our unquestioning, unwavering support for Israel has put this country in since its founding. Not to mention the fact that if you have the temerity to question the relationship you get shouted down as some sort of Nazi-sympathizer or pro-terrorist nutjob 95% of the time.

Look...I get it...I could even see some sort of like...grace period for supporting them because we felt bad about the Holocaust and they deserved a chance to establish a state. But that time IMO is long past and they're a constructive actor working for regional stability.

They shouldn't get to write blank checks of aggressive behavior backed up by our military. That's messed up. If they feel strongly enough about this stuff then let them take these positions without an implicit or explicit guarantee of our protection.

You might get less complaint about that from the Israeli's than you think.

But when they nuke the sorry bastards that surround them then I don't want to hear a damned word from anybody that insisted we stop any assurance of their protection.

If anything, I dare say our involvement has done as much in recent years to insure the protection of the terrorist states that surround Israel as they've done to "protect" Israel.

That's an interesting POV, and not necessarily one that I disagree with.

Thats interesting - I didn't know Alaska had been suggested, I've always thought there were a few other logical alternatives:

* Utah - with its high Mormon population i'd have thought they'd have rejoiced at being the 'New Jerusalem'; it'd probably have fitted in fairly reasonably with their interpretation of things and won them a fair few new converts (this could stand for any area with a large Christian population really, the Mormons just happened to come to mind as if I remember right they were looking for a 'new Jerusalem'?).
* Any large country/state with a largely inhospitable region (Australia, various US states etc.). Basically I'd have thought they'd have seen it as a chance for huge immigration investment and a way to terraform an area for the better, if you consider whats been spent on the Israeli military over the years then consider that having been spent on something creating a positive influence for mankind.

(all incredibly moot I know - just always amazed me how they managed to pick practically the worst possible solution ...)

Ya, I always got the sense that part of the support wasn't just propping Israel up against certain destruction, but instead to help prevent war breaking out in the region - a war that very likely would end with Israel still standing but millions dead.

In the 1890s, when Russia made life impossible for its huge population of Jewish people, families had two choices. This was the birth of Zionism. Those who liked the idea of a Jewish state chose to join Jews in ancient Israel (much of what we call Palestine and Israel today) and try and form a Zionist state. Those who were less religious and wanted to continue living in the diaspora wound up all over the place, but a huge percentage went through Ellis Island and founded New Jersey (that's supposed to be a joke, by the way - the founding New Jersey part at least).

During the buildup to WWII, when the Germans started trying to rid Europe of Jews (and gay people, and people with birth defects, and Roma, and any of a dozen other traits that didn't fit their view of eugenics), escape became difficult. People would try and flee any way they could. Under the British Mandate, a certain number of Jews could flee to what is now Israel and Samaria and Judea (Samaria and Judea are known today as the West Bank).

So when it came time to reconstruct after WWII, many felt there was a need for a formal Jewish state. Without considering all the details, Israel was formed in 1948 and immediately war was declared. Largely with help from France, Israel survived the first war. Over the years, Israel has become better at defending itself. In 1967, they surprised everyone by surviving when destruction seemed inevitable. Mostly by a first strike on the Egyptian air force, taking the Sinai, and eliminating Egypt's taste for a takeover. They made peace with Jordan, which, combined with the relative peace with Egypt, made them a little more secure.

Today, of course, this would be handled differently. We were still in the transition from colonialism to nationalism in 1948, and the powers in the world didn't consider the will and the feelings of non-powers. And remember that the people who chose Israel in the 1890s were those who were more religious and believed in the Zionist movement. So they wanted Jerusalem as a capital, for historic and emotional reasons. It was both an easy decision and a stupid decision.

Again, I think we're stuck with it today. It's more thoroughly a post-colonial world, and simply moving eight million people out of danger is impractical. And Israel is very built up today. However they got there, they had good reasons and the right to settle. Of our states, Virginia is the closest in population to Israel - and much larger. Would it be possible to "move" Virginia if we had to? Maybe. But it would be quite painful, even in a friendly world. The people of Israel do not face a friendly world.

Excellent alternative history book about it: The Yiddish Policemen's Union

How do you actively pursue peace with people who feel that not only do you not belong on the land, but that you should be exterminated?

A step at a time, maybe start with the West Bank?

I'm not saying there still aren't issues but I think the Palestinians there are going a relatively good job.

If Israel gives back the West Bank, what do you think happens:

1) Palestinians (especially Hamas) gives up their desire to wipe out Israel

2) Palestinians demand more territory for "peace".


I'm thinkin the latter.

Israel needs peace for it's own survival. Demographics show that it can't remain a Jewish democracy with it's current policies. It will either stop being Jewish or stop being a democracy and become an apartheid state. When that happens, whatever tenuous international support it has will be very hard pressed to continue to support Israel, and Israel can't exist without international support.

Taking away a major reason for discontent wouldn't take away a huge issue for the violent forces? And people wonder why peace doesn't happen - most people don't vote for the violent option unless they are really, really pissed off.

It's not going to happen overnight with the wave of a magic wand, but it's got to start somewhere, with some sort of gesture. And Israel so far has stubbornly refused to make basically any even remotely significant gesture.

It centers on Jerusalem. Both sides want it as their capital and feel it's there for keeping (despite the original plans for being a U.N. city).



Are you talking birth rates within Israel (Israeli Jews vs. Arab Israelis)?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...state_solution

Why would you make a significant gesture to people who have made it abundantly clear that they want to destroy you? People with a backwards culture, strong penchant for violence, and a history of human rights abuses. Maybe when they emerge from the Stone Age Israel can talk gestures.

And I'm not some huge pro-Israel cheerleader. But the whitewashing and whiteknighting of the Palestinians over the last decade is crazy.

The whole area should be made into a UN-controlled theme park with exceptionally limited entries each year (like maybe 100,000 people/year) and the Israelis and Palestinians both moved to Canada and Australia, respectively.

:D

Beautiful. Glad to see I'm not the only one who remembers the PLO and their "contributions" to society.

You have to segregate West Bank and Gaza. Fatah and Hamas have two different approaches.

United Nations News Centre - Iraq violence: UN confirms more than 2,000 killed, injured since early June

If these Iraqi security forces aren't able to fight bak, these terrorists are ready to take their beheading party into the streets of Baghdad next. Crazy times in Iraq.

SCOTUS rules, 9-0, that Obama's recess appointments have been invalid. Good initial review here: All nine justices reject recess appointments in Noel Canning case - The Washington Post

You may recall that the recess appointments in question while the Senate was in a "pro forma" session (so, in session, but no one was around), which was done specifically to block recess appointments.

On one hand, some observers are saying that the Obama Administration shot themselves in the foot here by taking a very aggressive approach to the rule. On the other hand, Justice Scalia, writing for himself, Thomas, Alito & Roberts, apparently indicates they would have gone further.

What this means, functionally, is that the Senate should be able to block any and all appointments, indefinitely, going forward, subject to whatever parliamentary rules they enact (such as the recent "nuclear option" of requiring only a simple majority to force cloture for judicial appointments).

While I don't have any insight onto the case, the appointments thing is a mess and I'm not sure what the answer is. You can't just not have people in key positions because one group doesn't want to approve anyone.

SI

Yeah - I felt like the administration overreached here personally and there was no way they'd win this, but on the other hand it's like sterlingice said - you can't just not have people in government positions because one group refuses to approve people. The executive branch needs to be given the opportunity to carry out its duties.

What if the president declared via executive order that the Capitol was to be closed or something so that the Senate couldn't come into session, thus preventing them from doing their job. It's a bit of a ridiculous comparison, but I mean...it's the same function end result. Wouldn't we all think that was ridiculous/dangerous?

The Senate has to eliminate filibusters on appointments. You can't have a system where 41% of one house of the legislature can deny all the executive appointments. I like having the filibuster for rare usage, but if it's going to be routinely abused it has to go.

I still don't understand why so many federal positions need to be confirmed by the Senate.

Yay! More gridlock!

And the reality isn't 41%. Given the current rules, it's just really one Senator who can cause the thing to fail.

Not a fan of the court striking down Massachusetts' 35-foot buffer zone around abortion/Planned Parenthood clinics:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Massachusetts Law Curbing Abortion Protesters - NBC News

The law was challenged by opponents who said they wanted to talk to women entering the clinics about alternatives to abortion.

“Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks — sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Are you allow to file harassment charges? Seems like there are a lot of lines being crossed here-right to privacy, right to peace. Am I wrong?

Where freedom of speech becomes freedom to harass.

I'd like to live in John Roberts' world.

Edit: Roberts' quote above very much doesn't square with the court's ruling on Wood v. Moss: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/wood-v-moss/

Not a fan. Not surprised from this court either though.

Infuriating. To rule one way on "Free Speech Zones" which are presidential buffer zones, and then to rule another way on abortion clinic buffer zones is utter hypocrisy.

Yes, there's a real threat to the President if people get too close. But then again, there's a real threat (with real examples) to people attending abortion clinics. Why the double standard?

Weird decision. Can they be followed into the building? Into the waiting room? Into the room itself?

This is what I want to know. The whole premise of the lady that brought this case is she wanted to talk to the women all the way to the door.

If I've skimmed the decision correctly, it still allows for the restriction of speech on private property, noting, for instance, that some clinics have parking on-site and in those cases protesters have attempted to block those entrances, and that this "problem" can and should be solved by local ordinances.

People on both sides of the aisle will appreciate this - a browser plugin (safari, chrome, firefox) that links up with publicly available DBs to tell you who's giving campaign contributions to politicians when you mouse over their names.

Install Greenhouse | Expose Political Corruption

Hmmm...let's combine this with the Stand Your Ground law in FL. I'll escort a woman needing an abortion to the clinic, the assholes will crowd around me and her and then I'll shoot a couple of them dead because I felt threatened and stood my ground.

Problem solved!

Get some people to act as open carry escorts.

I know that whenever I go to the doctor, I bring some heavies with me

SI

I'm trying to dig up the article of her that I read in the NY Times last night.

From SCOTUSblog on the "abortion clinic buffer zone" ruling:


1. Nicely fair-and-balanced, Justice Roberts. This is Fox News-level support of assertions.

2. Even if true, he's accepting at face value that those actions are in no way harassment, which seems unlikely, especially if we're looking at all instances of those actions.


The article also notes that it appears to observers that there's enough here to later strike down so-called "bubble zones", which are, in MA at least, a requirement that you stay 8 feet away from anyone entering a clinic. Those predated the "buffer zones", which were created because the police found the former difficult to enforce.

We should repurpose that soccer spray to enforce the 8 feet.

You guys do realize that the striking down of MA's 35 foot buffer line was a 9-0 ruling right? Treating it as some strange conservative ruling just won't fly here.


The conservatives on the court wanted to go further and strike down the Hill precedent for an 8 ft zone of protection. The opinion didn't touch that.

Basically the ruling says that there is a compelling governmental interest in preventing harassment, but the 35 foot border wasn't narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose (it's curtailing the First Amendment - it has to pass strict scrutiny).

Also, how does one support the freedom to suppress speech on sidewalks and still claim we have "freedom of speech"

Yes, I realize that. No, I'm not trying to intimate that it's some strange conservative ruling. Yes, I'm taking exception to much of the language in Roberts' opinion.


You could ask the same thing about the "freedom of speech" zones to which protestors are relocated (esp. under Bush) so as to not be near the President. Which they upheld. In May.

What flere said :p

Where do we draw the line between speech and harassment?

These aren't people (like Westboro, for instance) who are passively holding up signs and saying things. These are people who are singling out other citizens, getting as close to them as possible (including sometimes obstructing them) and saying hurtful, misleading, vitriolic, etc... things to them.

Where's that line, Imran? After all we do curtail some speech, either when it is considered hate speech or defamatory (even if the latter is not frequent).


I do not have a problem with people standing outside a clinic holding up signs and even saying (at a distance): "don't kill your baby". That's speech.

I do have a problem with someone sidling up to someone entering a clinic and asking "have you considered other options?" Why?

1. It's none of their business.
2. They're taking advantage of someone in a compromised state.
3. Laws everywhere require that that person be told of other options.
4. The person doing the asking is ABSOLUTELY not an uninterested party (as Roberts' opinion would have you believe). They are seeking to lure someone into doing something they expressly don't want to do (by fact of their entrance into the clinic in the first place).
5. And frankly, they're being a public nuisance, potentially causing a public disturbance, and some of their follow-up comments (especially if rebuffed) could well border on slander and/or defamation.

dola - OK, maybe Westboro's a bit more active than I described them, but you get the point (hopefully).

True, but such things would be illegal under New York's more narrowly tailored abortion center harassment statute, which the Court held up as an example of how this can be dealt with constitutionally. Of course, where exactly "harassment" starts is a huge grey area, but that's true of every state stalking/harassment statute.

Not that I don't appreciate governments' preference just to eliminate all speech in an area where the speech is so likely to be harassing, but, there is a difference. There's all kinds of restrictions on speech outside abortion clinics that are still constitutional after this case.

Hrm, OK. Maybe I'll take a look at New York's statute.

Richard Posner:

SCOTUS end of term: Remembering Town of Greece, and more on cellphones, buffer zones.

How about the money spent by the municipalities to have police there to deal with the increased "free speech" of the protesters. Who's paying for that?

Oh wait - we all are.

The Supreme Court has so fetishized the Constitution and the 18th century, it's ridiculous.

The Constitution should be an evolving document - or better yet, should be rewritten after a set # of years to reflect the realities of a new era/new generations.

The media reports keep saying this law is targeted towards "protestors", but under subsection b of the Mass. statute you could be arrested for having lunch on a bench on a public sidewalk if you're within 35 feet of an entrance to reproductive health facility, or if you stop in that area to have a conversation with someone. (And McCullen herself wasn't really a "protester".) The crime is merely walking on the sidewalk with the knowledge that its a reproductive health facility - It excludes only patrons, employees, emergency responders, and those are using the area "solely for the purpose of reaching a destination other than such facility." I don't think the police would arrest anyone unless they're actually harassing somebody, so why not only proscribe harassment? And why not exempt the public sidewalks from the buffer zone, or ideally, put these entrances more than 35 feet from public sidewalks?

The design of these places is a practical consideration as well. I know sometimes reproductive health clinics have offices within bigger buildings that have many businesses and organizations. Is it a crime to walk on the public sidewalks around those buildings too unless you can show you're "solely" using them to reach some other specific destination? (I guess that depends on how the courts interpret the word "entrance" - if it's the "entrance" to the clinic itself, or the building containing the clinic.)

The United States Supreme Court has upheld at least 2 abortion buffer zones in the last 10-15 years, and i know lower federal courts have upheld more than that. It's not impossible to pass legislation furthering what every court has agreed is a legitimate government interest.

There are already laws dealing with harassment. That's what the UNANIMOUS court indicated would be more narrowly tailored to the government's compelling interest. As molson said, there are other ways of dealing with this other than this blanket ban - and once again, the court's four liberals joined with the decision in FULL. The only concurrence was from the conservatives who wanted all buffers eliminated.

We can't just cast aside free speech simply because we disagree with it. That's the entire point of freedom of speech.

Indeed. I just don't understand the people who want to get outraged over this. Unless they just take joy from being outraged. Possible.

Does anyone know of why these places are so often on an island out away from everywhere else, making it super-obvious that you're there for some kind of reproductive health service?

I'm aware of one reproductive health clinic in Seattle, like the one like I discussed above, that's in an office in a big building with lots of other things. People and protesters are free to do their thing in the public areas around the building, and they can try to hand you leaflets, but none of them can really know what you're there for. (And of course as it is, there's reasons to go to reproductive health clinics besides abortions.)

I guess there's financial considerations, and not everyplace has buildings that big. But I think a lot of these clinics can do a lot more to promote a safer and easier and more anonymous experience. That's one alternative way to protect your clients besides trying to get the government to ban speech. I wonder how much they'd rather just have these court battles because they spur donations.

There's even a federal law that prohibits "the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services"....and I think states can even go a little further than that as still be constitutional, like Colorado and New York have.

It's kind of funny that the same law, and the same language also covers access to religious institutions. I assumed without even looking that that must have been from the Clinton era. It's very similar to the Violent Crime Act of the same year that contained BOTH an assault weapons ban, and funding for 100,000 new police officers and some harsher criminal sentencing laws. Back in the era when there was a president and (enough) legislators who understood compromise means more than just being willing to settle for half of what you want.

Civil Rights Division Freedom of Access to Reproductive Health Clinics and Places of Religious Worship

No, she's something far more insidious. She's taking advantage of someone in an already difficult state and attempting to get them to do something they have already decided not to do.

It's harassment and coercion.


Yeah, we'll see.


OK, we'll see. I hope my suspicions are proven unfounded.


Why perpetuate this myth?






Again, is it "freedom of speech" to explicitly single out one person (at a time) for unwelcome and virulent harassment? Watch any video shot by escorts helping people into a clinic and tell me what the protesters are doing isn't harassment. This is what you want to protect?


I find the actions of these "protestors", specifically where they attempt to harass and browbeat women while they're already going through something very difficult to be repellent and morally repugnant. And I also don't think their actions constitute "free speech". That's why.


Because many property owners don't like leasing space to clinics due to the actions of the protesters. In addition, many municipalities pass ordinances specifically to make it difficult to site clinics in convenient spots.


I'm disappointed in you two. The naivete you are displaying on the reality of this subject (just like Roberts in his written opinion) is very disappointing.

And neither of you have yet to square this decision with the one in May allowing political "free speech zones" to insulate Presidents from protesters, nor, as Posner pointed out, the Court's own defense of personal privacy in Riley a day earlier.

What myth? Go ahead and call Ginsberg a conservative justice and prepare to be laughed at, or called a far left loon. Liberal and Conservative aren't static positions.

Oh, and btw, your second graph shows the four justices I'm speaking about to be LIBERAL (under 0.0)


Who said harassment is freedom of speech? There are laws on the books against harassment as has been pointed out to you. However, making your viewpoint known isn't harassment or do you believe that political protests are harassment?


Because they are completely different cases, which you are misinterpreting for your own aims? The secret service case (Wood v. Moss ) was about qualified immunity.

Secondly, the factor that wasn't addressed in the case, Presidential security, is by nature different - they aren't concerned about being yelled at - they are concerned about assassinations. Slightly different.

Generally, government activity protecting the president of the United States when he is driving through town is a hell of a lot more narrowly tailored than a statutory ban on access to a public sidewalk all year long.

But that case wasn't even analyzing a statute, it was a qualified immunity case. So the determination was whether it should have been "clear" to the secret service officers that they were violating the First Amendment. If there's no clear legal precedent that they were, then they have immunity. There's not, so they did. The protester's case really hinged on whether they could show that the secret service moved them specifically because of their particular opinion, rather than for security, and they couldn't show that, because an analysis of what the secret service guys did checked out - they moved the people who had a potential line of fire to the president, and didn't move the ones that didn't.

How patronizing. I understand the "reality of the subject", in terms of what people getting abortions go through, and the intentions of some of the people seeking to push the limits, over and over again, of these buffer zones. They're turds and fuckwads. That's not the end of the analysis though.

Neo-Nazis were turds too, but letting them march through Skokie, Indiana was and is considered to be a great example of freedom of speech - and Skokie paid for cops to protect the neo-Nazis as well.

You could pass a constitutional statute banning exactly that conduct that you're describing from those videos.

Nice strawman.


As you just stated, these are relative positions, and when taken in a relative basis, the four justices indicated are nothing other than Moderate.


I find it difficult to believe that you still don't understand my point. The people standing there with posters are exercising speech. I'm fine with that. The people singling out clinic attendees for "counseling" are practicing harassment. That activity should not be protected.


Are you seriously asserting that the people being targeted by this harassment aren't in physical danger? Because easily-obtained video evidence where the so-called "counselors" threaten physical harm, once rebuffed, refutes this easily, as does actual cases of physical violence, including premeditated violence perpetrated against these clinics and their staff and customers.

In those marches, where specific individuals targeted for harassment?


Furthermore, I question the deterrent effect of anti-harassment statues, since such cases are likely to rest on a) a subjective determination of whether or not harassment was performed and b) the willingness of the victim (already emotionally compromised) to testify. The continued violence at abortion clinics across the country would seem to indicate otherwise as well.

You're talking kind of like one of those aggressive police officers everybody hates. You want to arrest those undesirables before they commit the crime, because their type is obviously violent and about to do something terrible.

It doesn't work that way. If someone expresses speech, and then commits a crime, you don't get to justify a ban on that type of speech on the ground of preventing that crime. That's JIMGA authoritarian stuff.

Harassment itself can be a crime of course, if the statute is constitutional and doesn't cover protected speech. And that's often a contested issue - harassment and stalking statutes are challenged all the time on First Amendment grounds. Because it's such a grey area, there's always an argument that can be made. But nowhere, in none of those cases, is regular, non-threatening conversation, like asking someone where they're going, offering assistance, etc., EVER going to constitute harassment, in any of those statutes. Now, if it's done over and over again, even after the victim asks them to stop, than sure, that type of speech might not be protected, and might be subject to bans in constitutional statutes. The MA ban went way beyond that though.

The Mass. statute made standing there with posters illegal.

Edit: Hell, the Mass. statute made standing there without posters illegal. And yet you support the statute. You're all over the place here.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Gener...Section120E1~2

Dola, so as far as I can tell, you actually do think the MA statute is too broad, but you don't like some of the language in the opinion about this lady talking to people. So you'd support a statute that bans people from talking to strangers if they're within an abortion buffer zone, or more narrowly, you'd want to ban people from talking to those entering reproductive health clinics specifically about abortion. Either of those would be more narrowly tailored than the MA statute, but That would also take things even further away from that Bush protestor case that you keep claiming is right on point here. Where has the government ever successfully banned people from literally just talking to someone on public property?

How is it a strawman to claim that you were saying the liberal justices aren't liberal - because that's exactly what you were trying to imply.


Only if your rankings basically indicate that there have been no "liberal" justices aside for Justices Brennan and Marshall since the mid 1970s, which is a bit of a foolish opinion.


Welcome to the wonderful world of anti-harassment law. No one is preventing Massachusetts from enacting narrowly tailored anti-harassment laws that do not curtail the free speech rights to protest.

It's tricky to try to measure the ideological leanings of appellate justices just based on how they vote in cases. Like this case, would these counts at "conservative" votes because they struck down an abortion zone speech regulation? Is it more "liberal" to affirm a government looking to suppress speech? Or does the underlying result not matter, and instead liberal/conservative depends totally on how willing a justice is to strike down a statute for any reason? I have a feeling they're just looking at the end results and trying to attach it to a conservative/liberal value, which means it's really just a product of the times. Voting to affirm a statue doesn't mean you agree with the policy of the statute, and voting to vacate it doesn't mean you disagree with what the statute does. That Westboro case that everyone here agreed with - was that a "conservative" decision because it protected anti-gay speech? Of course they'll appear more "liberal" in the Warren Court, with all those opinions that resulted in progressive outcomes. But I guarantee you on a policy level, the modern group, on average, is far more accepting of something like gay marriage, and even abortion, than they were back then. But we have no way to measure that.