pageok
pageok
pageok
NARAL Pulls Anti-Roberts Ad,

the AP reports.

Justice Fuller:
If this means that NARAL won't have to pay for some of the ad time they had purchased, pulling the ad is sheer genius.
8.12.2005 12:29am
Zed Pobre (mail) (www):
But Schumer said he would ask Roberts about the constitutionality of abortion clinic protesting at his confirmation hearing.

I'd say the ad did some good, then.
8.12.2005 2:26am
John Jenkins (mail):
Zed, how do you figure that? Schumer might (or might not) have asked the question later, but the answer is clearly "yes." Abortion clinic <i>protesting</i> is clearly protected free speech. Until they commit tortious or criminal acts, the protestors are free to protest. It's a seemingly pointless question, no matter why he's asking it.
8.12.2005 8:40am
cfw (mail):
What is this 1871 Klu Klux Klan law that is not applicable? Is it 42 USC section 1983? If so, I have a hard time seeing the R position as less than extreme even though it was a) for a client and not for himself and b) blessed by a USSCT majority (but then undercut by Congress and Clinton). Pretty unseemly to file a friend of the court brief for violent protesters, person convicted of having bomb parts. Not one of R's finest moments. But no one is perfect. R also has a decent "harmless error" defense.
8.12.2005 10:19am
reader:
"What is this 1871 Klu Klux Klan law that is not applicable? Is it 42 USC section 1983?"

No. It gives power to the executive branch to prosecute unrest and suspend habeas. Hence why the abortion protestors did not want it to apply to them.
8.12.2005 10:49am
John Jenkins (mail):
It's 42 USC § 1985(3), not § 1983. For it to have applied, the respondents would have had to prove that "abortion qualifies alongside race discrimination as an 'otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus [underlying] the conspirators' action'." They failed to do so, according to the Court, because the protestors were blocking anyone from entering, and not discriminating on any class-basis.

The reason the respondents wanted it to apply is because that would have given them an award of attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988. The state law claims did not provide for attorney's fees.

Section 1985 has to do with civil conspiracies to violate civil rights.
8.12.2005 11:12am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
NARAL is acting more reasonably than I gave them credit for. How surprising. Let's hope it lasts.
8.12.2005 11:23am
Al Maviva (mail):
Um, by NARAL's original logic, isn't pulling the ad an act that supports the bombing of abortion clinics?
8.12.2005 12:05pm
aslanfan (mail):
It's very unfortunate people "misconstrued" the ad as saying that Roberts "excuses" clinic bombings. I wonder why anyone would construe it that way.

I think these are the same lovely people who distributed pamphlets saying "If Souter is confirmed, women will die." They'll be back.
8.12.2005 12:21pm
Mike Lorrey (mail) (www):
It was clear when a NARAL spokeswoman was on Ellen Ingrahams radio show defending the ad, and her equivocations about NARAL policy in absurdum. Its funny how they don't mind when Roberts defends gay special rights, but freak when he defends the First Amendment of anyone.
8.12.2005 1:00pm
ReaderY:
Terrorism is perhaps the 21st century equivalent of communism in the 1950s, carrying with it the emotional connotations of treason and, well, terror. Tainting people with such an association is fairly common in our country. Labor in the 1950s, and the Martin Luther King Jr. folks in the 1960s, were regularly accused of communist tendancies and sympathies by segregationists and others.

One universal result of these sorts of tactics is that the party using them lost favor. One remembers the Norman Rockwell painting of the quiet black child with the schoolbooks and the eggs and the epithets on the wall. If Roberts can remind the American public of that child, a shift in the American public's perception of what is mainstream could occur, just is it did in the 1950s and 1960s when similar tactics were used.
8.12.2005 1:16pm