Five down, one to go. Let’s get to it.
Pro-life activist Andy Schlafly’s entire support for his assertion that Colorado supreme court justice Allison Eid “probably would NOT be pro-life on the Supreme Court” is his assertion that she is
unusually silent on abortion; she tersely dissented from a denial of cert. before the Colorado Sup. Ct. in a challenge to an injunction against abortion protesters, initially on only the limited grounds of the length of the injunction and then later only on free speech grounds.
I confess that I can’t make sense of Schlafly’s complaint, and at this point I’m not inclined to imagine that there might be any there there. I will note that the rulings at issue came in the case of Saint John’s Church in the Wilderness v. Scott, in which a church brought a nuisance action against protesters who demonstrated against abortion and homosexuality in a manner that interfered with church services.
You might think that a pro-life activist would give Eid credit for trying to get her court to review the rulings of the state court of appeals and for dissenting publicly—twice—from its failure to do so. But, no, we’re evidently supposed to imagine that Eid’s dissent should have been more verbose and should have been on some other grounds (grounds that Schlafly won’t clue us in on).
I have no idea what Schlafly’s hyperlink to a U.S. Supreme Court certiorari petition that Eugene Volokh filed is meant to signify.
I will have some closing thoughts on Schlafly’s attacks in what I expect to be my final post in this series.