Um, I think you mean "hoards of pro-choicers" or something similar in your third paragraph, no?

Thanks! fixed.

Thanks Obama, for appointing awesome supreme court justices!

Hey, you've got some weird-assed laws there. I don't agree with a lot of them (see, e.g., WSLCB), but nobody's forcing anybody to live there.

I wish the pirates had killed the pro-lifers instead of people I knew.

Good! Can we go beat them up now?

Must you (and Will in Seattle) display bigotry and intolerance even while cheering a wise Supreme Court decision?

@7 Boofuckinhoo!

(hordes, not hoards)

Correction to the correction: "hordes", not "hoards".

On topic: This is a brilliant victory. Yes, sir or madam, there is a reason for large donation disclosure, and donating to a campaign of hate and suffering doesn't warrant you special protection. Be a big person, and say loudly and proudly: "I think people suffering should have to die in horrible agony, rather than be able to choose for themselves!"

I can understand why the pro-lifers are afraid. After all, they wrote the book on stalking, harassing, threatening, intimidating, and even murdering their opponents.

Maybe they should all have a picture of Dr. George Tiller mailed to their homes with a note reading "Now you know how he felt."

How about you do some actual reporting? The court refused to take up an appeal, without comment. They did NOT side with the state's position.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court…

CERTIORARI DENIED
10-686 HUMAN LIFE OF WASHINGTON, INC. V. BRUMSICKLE, BILL, ET AL.

This means a few things. First, the court could hear the issue again given a ripe case, and slap the 9th Circuit down (which they tend to like to do). Second, outside of the 9th Circuit, this issue could still go the other way. Takeaway: Keep fighting to ensure groups like Human Life of Washington don't try this crap again and elsewhere.

Why do I have the sinking feeling that the same pro-repression folks will just continue to shape-shift and dodge disclosure laws? Or maybe just get a corporation owned by some Old Money Family to bankroll the whole operation?

@13. They will. That's why it is so important for Cienna to report on what actually happened. Even with the edits, the article is still incorrect: they didn't uphold anything.

The Court simply refused to consider the issue, as they have the discretion to do.

The 9th Circuit opinion is now controlling in the 9th Circuit, but the Supreme Court has not endorsed, upheld, or even commented on whether it is correct. It's better than nothing, but it leaves to door open for this stuff to take place elsewhere, and for the pro-lifers to try and weasel around the ruling here, hopefully draw a panel that will be open to distinguishing whatever they view as the issue, and reaching a "different" result.

Speaking of seeing names, when can we see who signed Referendum 71?

How many court cases do we have to win for all the initiatives to come clean including 71? Isn't this the 3rd or 4th?

@14 is correct; the Supremes have not "upheld" anything. If the Supreme Court is following custom, and there's nothing to suggest that they're not in this case, all that the Court's (in)action means is that no four justices wanted to choose this case as one of the 80-100 (out of about 10,000 petitions) they'd hear this time around. It is not a commentary on the merits.

"...they ran numerous radio ads against it." Actually, we didn't run any ads against it. And we did have a PAC that donated to the coalition against Initiative 1000 and we reported our donors to the state. That should make you curious about what the issue really was although, I doubt you really care.

Blind ideology coupled with sloppy "reporting" makes "The Stranger" very strange indeed.