<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Court to hear RICO abortion case</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/</link>
	<description>The Supreme Court of the United States blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Becky Hansen</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/comment-page-1/#comment-7679</link>
		<dc:creator>Becky Hansen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/#comment-7679</guid>
		<description>This is a question, not a comment.  Did USSC accept cert in Kelley v. Crosby, 04-1196?

TG responds:  No, cert was denied.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a question, not a comment.  Did USSC accept cert in Kelley v. Crosby, 04-1196?</p>
<p>TG responds:  No, cert was denied.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous Clerk</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/comment-page-1/#comment-7678</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous Clerk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:57:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/#comment-7678</guid>
		<description>TG has not commented on the fact that in Tuesday&#039;s order list the Court also GVR&#039;ed the case of Abu Ali Abdur&#039;Rahman, in light of Gonzalez v. Crosby. G&amp;H wrote an amicus brief on Abdur&#039;Rahman&#039;s behalf. The Sixth Circuit had ruled en banc in Abdur&#039;Rahman&#039;s favor but his claim is similar to Gonzalez&#039;s... It will be interesting to see what happens on remand.

Also, readers with an interest in House (&quot;acutal innocence&quot; case granted Tues, as noted by Lyle above) may wish to read Adam Liptak&#039;s October NYT article on this case, reproduced at: http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-82366.html
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TG has not commented on the fact that in Tuesday&#8217;s order list the Court also GVR&#8217;ed the case of Abu Ali Abdur&#8217;Rahman, in light of Gonzalez v. Crosby. G&#038;H wrote an amicus brief on Abdur&#8217;Rahman&#8217;s behalf. The Sixth Circuit had ruled en banc in Abdur&#8217;Rahman&#8217;s favor but his claim is similar to Gonzalez&#8217;s&#8230; It will be interesting to see what happens on remand.</p>
<p>Also, readers with an interest in House (&#8221;acutal innocence&#8221; case granted Tues, as noted by Lyle above) may wish to read Adam Liptak&#8217;s October NYT article on this case, reproduced at: <a href="http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-82366.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-82366.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ProLifeBlogs</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/comment-page-1/#comment-7683</link>
		<dc:creator>ProLifeBlogs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:52:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/#comment-7683</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Supreme Court to Hear Abortion Protest Case&lt;/strong&gt;

Before leaving for its Summer recess, the Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would take up, for the third time, a 19-year marathon court case pro-life activists, including Joseph Scheidler, and the National Organization for Women. The case was fir...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Supreme Court to Hear Abortion Protest Case</strong></p>
<p>Before leaving for its Summer recess, the Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would take up, for the third time, a 19-year marathon court case pro-life activists, including Joseph Scheidler, and the National Organization for Women. The case was fir&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ProLifeBlogs</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/comment-page-1/#comment-7682</link>
		<dc:creator>ProLifeBlogs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/#comment-7682</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Supreme Court to Hear Abortion Protest Case&lt;/strong&gt;

Before leaving for its Summer recess, the Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would take up, for the third time, a 19-year marathon court case pro-life activists, including Joseph Scheidler, and the National Organization for Women. The case was fir...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Supreme Court to Hear Abortion Protest Case</strong></p>
<p>Before leaving for its Summer recess, the Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would take up, for the third time, a 19-year marathon court case pro-life activists, including Joseph Scheidler, and the National Organization for Women. The case was fir&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SCOTUSblog - Discussion</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/comment-page-1/#comment-7681</link>
		<dc:creator>SCOTUSblog - Discussion</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:52:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/#comment-7681</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;What are the Prospects for Future Erections of the Ten Commandments?&lt;/strong&gt;

Several of us on this sub-blog have speculated that the &quot;practical&quot; message of yesterday&#039;s decisions -- and of Justice Breyer&#039;s controlling van Orden concurrence, in particular -- is that although some pre-existing, longstanding displays of the Ten Com...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>What are the Prospects for Future Erections of the Ten Commandments?</strong></p>
<p>Several of us on this sub-blog have speculated that the &#8220;practical&#8221; message of yesterday&#8217;s decisions &#8212; and of Justice Breyer&#8217;s controlling van Orden concurrence, in particular &#8212; is that although some pre-existing, longstanding displays of the Ten Com&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fumare</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/comment-page-1/#comment-7680</link>
		<dc:creator>Fumare</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:10:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-to-hear-rico-abortion-case/#comment-7680</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Scheidler III and the Rule of Four...&lt;/strong&gt;

What remains (in addition to question 3) is the criminal law question of whether the Hobbs Act will be expanded to include blanket prohibitions of any &quot;acts or threats of physical violence,&quot; regardless of whether those acts are related in any way to ...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Scheidler III and the Rule of Four&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>What remains (in addition to question 3) is the criminal law question of whether the Hobbs Act will be expanded to include blanket prohibitions of any &#8220;acts or threats of physical violence,&#8221; regardless of whether those acts are related in any way to &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.336 seconds -->
