re: #95 Islamo-Masonic Conspirator

If the results of this ruling are horrible, this reflects only on your Constitution, not on the SCOTUS. When both the wingnuts and the liberals on the SCOTUS are unanimous, this is a good sign that something is (or is not) really constitutional.

QTF. Moreover, the person who who brought this suit, Eleanor McCullen, doesn’t operate with the anger and pressure tactics of many “right-to-lifers”. She operates by politely and in moderate tone trying to offer literature and advice to women entering Planned Parenthood clinics. She does not push at people if rejected.

Chief Justice Roberts drew a line between the quiet advocacy of an Eleanor McCullen and some evangelical rager screaming “IF YOU GO IN THERE YOU’LL BURN IN HELL AS A BABY-KILLING SLUT!!1. SCOTUS essentially said that the state may not take actions as strong as those taken against that rager with those who are calmer and less threatening.

I derived some of this analysis from an article on NRO. It is here. To not annoy the group I did not quote from it directly. But it was interesting in its agreeing with Chief Justice Roberts over Justice Scalia in the need to draw distinctions between advocacy and abuse.