Supremes Nix RICO For Protesters

 

1. I like the explanation of the AFL-CIO; “agitate for better wages and working conditions”. Is that what the union thugs call it nowadays? Agitating? 

   Posted by Agamemnon       02/28/2006  at  08:10 PM  



2. Right On, OCM! I’m gratified that the AFL-Cio got it.  According to The Left, we at BMEWS are at a minimum, a Conspiracy.  A good litmus test might be “Would this law have prevented Dr. King & others from protesting racial segregation?”.

   I use this test frequently: Apply a potential law/rule/opinion to persons & groups that you 1. loathe 2. love—did you get the same result for both? Why not?

   Posted by Oink       02/28/2006  at  08:47 PM  



3. Very insightful Oink....I’ve always heard that ‘s are one of nature’s smartest animals, and you are proving that to be correct almost every time I read your posts.

   

   Posted by Agamemnon       02/28/2006  at  09:07 PM  



4. Thanks Ag, you read posts.  One way at ‘the truth’ is to take turns proposing ideas and everyone else try to knock it down. If they find one they can’t, maybe it’s worth something.  Kerr was good at correcting my factual errors.

   I’ve also heard, woe to the farmer who becomes incapacitated in the hog lot.

   Posted by Oink       02/28/2006  at  09:23 PM  



5. Interesting to think that the harrasment of the clinics and their patients is recognized as being criminal, but trying to apply RICO to a political/ethical protest that shades into terrorism is going a bit far.  It makes me think that the Gov’t was actually trying to lose this one. Regardless of my position on the issues of either abortion or organized labor, this was just not a proper application of the law.  Oink - kudos dude - you nailed it.

   Posted by Dr. Jeff       03/01/2006  at  08:32 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.