On the one hand, yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court on buffer zones was calling for free speech to trump other rights, which is something that most of us agree is a core right. The problem is that the reason for the restrictions in the first place was the safety of those seeking abortions was, and remains, in doubt due to aggressive protesters and those who wish to do harm to both those seeking abortions and those who provide them.

The 35 foot restriction isn’t so severe a restriction on protesters, and the protesters could still yell to their heart’s content. Now, they can get right up into the face of those seeking abortions - which was always their goal hoping to intimidate women into not getting abortions and not allowing doctors to do their jobs in providing proper medical care to these women.

With some states allowing SYG and open carry and all kinds of unfettered firearms carry rules, it sets up the possibility that these protests will escalate into violence - and the need for the rules become even more clear than they were when the rules were initiated in Mass.

It’s an example of how the Court appears to disregard common sense or factual evidence that doesn’t jibe with the Court’s intended outcome. Heck, it would potentially open the door to suits against even the Court itself for limiting where/how the protesters can protest and interact with the Court, the appellants, and participants. The Court clearly understands that they need to set up the zones for themselves, but ignore those same reasons when it comes to protests that have already shown themselves to have engaged in violence in the past.

Then, there’s NLRB v. Canning, which is another example of how the Court tried to protect the right of the President to make recess appointments, but then essentially gave Congress a roadmap of how to prevent them from ever being done again (a similar outcome when the Court found part of the VRA was unconstitutional and then indicated that Congress should rewrite the section to make it valid, knowing full well that this Congress and this GOP would never let that happen).

The GOP keeps trying to claim that the President is abusing his power, engaging in an imperial presidency, but the facts show otherwise. Even in the area of recess appointments, he’s made far fewer than his predecessors.

According to the Congressional Research Service, President Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments, President George H. W. Bush made 77 recess appointments, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments.[11]

32 recess appointments. That’s not a typo. Some of that has to do with how Congress has tried to remain in session to block his action, but it’s also a reluctance on the President’s part to do so.

In the meantime, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of positions that are unfilled because they haven’t been confirmed by Congress. That, too, is because this Congress refuses to act on the President’s nominees, so they’ve completely brought the process to a standstill and thwart the administration of government. None of this appears to have had any bearing on the outcome in Canning.

Instead, the Court went with a reading that recess appointments are constitutional, but those made during a 3-day recess aren’t constitutional. That now means that Congress knows precisely what they can do to prevent a recess appointment, though some observers think that the Court also gave a loophole for the president to potentially exploit by finding a Senator willing to declare that a quorum isn’t satisfied for Senate business to occur - allowing the president to make the appointments on such a showing.

Mind you, none of this would be needed if this Congress, and the GOP in particular, were interested in an orderly administration of government business. They are not. That’s been abundantly clear since the moment this President was sworn in.