Here is why I find this whole thing so disingenuous.
This is a site that not all that long ago was, quite justifiably, up in arms about the fact that SCOTUS wasn’t prepared to allow a state to have a law following a federal law to provide protection to women entering abortion clinics — from peaceful protestors. SCOTUS did get that wrong, and I’m still ticked off.
This time the politics are different, but that shouldn’t change the law being applied.
The woman in this story was enough of a problem that this Order of Protection was issued against her by a judge. At the time, her group was protesting weekly outside the workplace of Colonel Earl A Evans. This had resulted in blocking the entry gates at least three times — that’s not legal. As a protester, you can’t block access to a facility.
You may or may not approve of what the Col. does, but a judge did send down an order, and Ms Flores didn’t have it removed before showing up on the property again.
Think for a moment about precedent.
A judge cannot simply ignore a standing Order of Protection, because if one does, that means the door has been opened for every other Order of Protection to be questioned if someone chooses to ignore it. So while this Order may be for someone you feel doesn’t deserve it, by upholding this Order, the judge and jury protect every other person relying on this legal safety net.
You guys may want to argue this is all about free speech, but what really is going on here is the need to equally apply the law — and they did.
