The Wenatchee World

Weather:

Weather

The latest extended forecast from The Weather Channel

Remove this weather forecast

Today

Hi42° Areas Fog

Tonight

Lo33° Areas Fog

Monday

Hi46° Areas Fog

Monday Night

Lo30° Areas Fog

Tuesday

Hi44° Areas Fog

Tuesday Night

Lo33° Patchy Fog

Wednesday

Hi41° Patchy Fog

Wednesday Night

Lo34° Patchy Fog

Thursday

Hi43° Patchy Fog

Thursday Night

Lo33° Patchy Fog

Curse of judicial minimalism

Send to Kindle
Print This

Even when Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, the justices can be fiercely divided about fundamental matters, as was demonstrated by two 9-0 rulings last week. One overturned a Massachusetts law restricting speech near abortion clinics. The other invalidated recess appointments that President Obama made when the Senate said it was not in recess. In the first, four justices who concurred in the result rejected the majority’s reasoning because it minimized the law’s constitutional offense. In the second, four justices who concurred with the court’s judgment that Obama had exceeded his powers argued that the majority’s reasoning validated the Senate’s long complicity in practices that augment presidential power by diminishing the Senate’s power to advise and consent to presidential nominations.

A provision of Massachusetts’ law stipulated 35-foot zones around abortion clinics, from which spaces people wanting to engage in sidewalk counseling — urging women to forgo abortions — would be excluded. Another provision of that law makes it a criminal offense if someone “knowingly obstructs, detains, hinders, impedes or blocks” persons approaching abortion clinics raises no First Amendment problems. The challenged law, however, proscribes persuasion in a public place, speech which unwilling listeners can walk away from.

View my optionsorSign in