Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:38:21 -0500
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt459274@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:

>>From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET

> Because that Federal right is a right against the government.
> Scalia says, plausibly, that OpRes cannot be conspiring to
> deprive women of rights they hold against the government.

does the law support such an argument? why would the kind of right at
issue effect matters.  Perhaps the wording of the law, which I don't
have?

>
> O'Connor and others rest their argument on a different
> part of the law. OpRes, she says, is deliberately rendering
> local authorities incapable of protecting citizens. The KK law
> was explicitly designed to bring federal authorities into the
> scene when local authorities are overwhelmed. Scalia seems
> to have no argument to rebut O'Connor's point.

KKK.  wouldn't be the first time when Scalia did this.  New Republic
had a piece about him that was interesting a few weeks back.

>
>>    The issue of freedom of speech comes up here and such laws have
>>some potential to infringe upon it.  This is not the case here.
>>Operation Rescue can protest, shout "baby killer", show pictures of
>>fetuses and the like, but they can't block the way into the clinics.
>>The lawful methods make the experience a harder one than it already
>>is, but they are legit.  Unless Operation Rescue groups want liberals
>>to go out and do the same to their churches since they infringe on
>>rights of women (and often on homosexuals, unwed mothers, etc.), they
>>should stop these acts.  The bombing and stink bombs/vandalism is even
>>a worse infraction. They remind us of slavery, but John Brown's
>>attempt to lead a slave uprising was a wrong means for a good ends,
>>something anti-abortion rights groups should remember.  Free speech
>>doesn't justify the present actions, just as it doesn't allow us to
>>block the way for KKK members to their meeting place.
>
> All true, but none of it mentioned in Bray, because in Bray there
> was no argument that the KK law was unconstitutional.

not true.   That a purpose of the law was to stop the techniques used
by Operation Rescue was noted by Justice Stevens, while O'Connor noted
that they can "express their views in a variety of ways" but here they
used the wrong ways.  The above is needed to remind us why Bray was
put in place in the first place.

>
> Jamie, relieved to once again find someone who actually
>        understands what Justices are saying rather than
>        doing a wordsearch on the texts.

I missed this and much of the discussion on judical review, but let me
say thanks for the interesting material you sent me.  The subject is
too broad really for me to respond to, especially with other things
like this case on my mind, but how judges interpret the Constitution
(and we too) is a key area.

  -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU