Letters to the Editor
-
more history
"Charles LEVENDOSKY
Oakland Tribune, Mar 9, 2003
ON Feb. 26, a nearly unanimous U.S. Supreme Court protected the right of protest for anti-abortion demonstrators -- and for everyone else, as well.
The 8-1 decision (Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.) will not be popular with those who find the tactics of Operation Rescue and others who actively oppose legal abortion threatening, destructive and coercive..."
"...Because we find that petitioners did not obtain or attempt to obtain property from respondents, we conclude that there was no basis upon which to find that they committed extortion under the Hobbs Act." Since there was no pattern of extortion, according to the high court, the severe penalties of RICO do not come into play. RICO requires a prior showing of and a conviction for a pattern of serious criminal activity.
RICO allows both criminal penalties and heavy civil liabilities. Both law enforcement and private citizens can bring action against those who engage in conduct covered by the act. One can receive a 20- year sentence for a single criminal violation of RICO. A private citizen can receive three times the actual damages suffered as well as attorneys' fees from a person who, in acting against the citizen, violated RICO.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a short concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, points out the dangers involved in using RICO. And this is really the heart of the matter. Ginsburg writes that a decision in favor of NOW would have ramifications far beyond the original intent of the RICO act.
In a footnote to the Ginsburg concurrence, she notes that at oral argument, the U.S. Solicitor General was asked: "Do you agree that your interpretation would have been applicable to the civil rights sit-ins?" He responded: "Under some circumstances, it could have if illegal force or threats were used to prevent a business from operating."
The use of RICO to punish protests with which we disagree would inevitably stifle all protests. NOW unwisely took an approach against anti-abortion activists that might have struck back like a snake. For example, women protesting against unfair labor practices or unequal pay -- if a few people in the protest were to engage in destructive acts -- could find themselves the target of a RICO prosecution.
THE Supreme Court was correct in reversing the lower federal courts' rulings. In its decision, the high court ensured the right of protest for everyone across the social-political spectrum -- for now." http://tinyurl.com/2bar94
Justice prevailed. But that was a very near thing- the alliance of the National Organization of Women and the Solictor General for the U.S. Justice Department took it all the way to the Supreme Court.
The ends don't justify the means.