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.