SCotUS majority will repudiate Roe v Wade, leaked draft reveals

[mandrill]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1521481078376181760

 

[Leimonis]

Second of all, states will pass laws allowing them to impose criminal penalties on people who go to other states for legal abortions (these are already drafted)

That would be atrocious. Also questionable both theoretically (the “crime” is committed outside of jurisdiction of the state) and practically- how do you get evidence of what happened in another state?

 

[mandrill]

First of all, criminalizing abortion in individual states will already be monstrous.
Second of all, states will pass laws allowing them to impose criminal penalties on people who go to other states for legal abortions (these are already drafted)
Third of all, the first time the GOP has a trifecta, they will try to pass a nationwide abortion ban.

This is not "sending it back to the States".
That's not the plan.

Isn't there a jurisdictional issue? You cannot criminalize something that takes place in someone else's jurisdiction. We can't criminalize shit that happens in Michigan for instance.

You would - arguably - have to criminalize the act of communicating in the prosecuting state for the purpose of arranging an abortion.

 

[mandrill]

Mandrill understood the point I was making. I'll explain it to you. Under US law, rights are only universally applicable across the country if the US Constitution enshrines the right, or the matter has been legislated under a recognized federal head of jurisdication.

Mandrill recognizes that point. He simply argues that there is a right founded in Constitution, according to "modern" interpretation. My point in response is that SCOTUS is about to update that "modern" interpretation.

Canada is different because criminal law falls under federal jurisdiction.

No Valcazar understood. He was just asking if you believed that rights to same sex marriage or desegregation or Miranda rights or right to counsel were also misconceived. They are all judge made law from the mid Twentieth Century or later.

 

[Leimonis]

Isn't there a jurisdictional issue? You cannot criminalize something that takes place in someone else's jurisdiction. We can't criminalize shit that happens in Michigan for instance.

You would - arguably - have to criminalize the act of communicating in the prosecuting state for the purpose of arranging an abortion.

overseas child abuse is criminalized though both in USA and in Canada. So it’s quite possible to get around the jurisdictional issue if they really wanted to.

US Sex Laws in Thailand: The Protect Acts Meaning and Application

thailawforum.com

 

[Dutch Oven]

First of all, criminalizing abortion in individual states will already be monstrous.

The voters in states who disagree with you do not care about your opinion. Also, people are free to move to a state which has laws they feel best align with their values. This is already an ongoing process. That's why so many have recently moved from California to Texas.

Second of all, states will pass laws allowing them to impose criminal penalties on people who go to other states for legal abortions (these are already drafted)
Third of all, the first time the GOP has a trifecta, they will try to pass a nationwide abortion ban.

This is not "sending it back to the States".
That's not the plan.

States cannot regulate the conduct of their citizens in other states. States will understandably seek to enforce their laws within their own borders. That's no more horrible in concept than enforcement of any laws already on the books. Of course, there are constitutional protections regarding due process that apply to the criminal laws of every state, including prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" (8th amendment). It remains to be seen what the criminal sanctions for violating abortion laws will be.

The GOP may try to run candidates promising to ban abortion in states which permit it, but it isn't likely to be a winning platform for such candidates, unless the support to end abortion is a lot stronger in such states than I think it is. If it is strong enough for such candidates to be elected, why shouldn't candidates run based on what the voters want?

 

[mandrill]

First of all, criminalizing abortion in individual states will already be monstrous.
Second of all, states will pass laws allowing them to impose criminal penalties on people who go to other states for legal abortions (these are already drafted)
Third of all, the first time the GOP has a trifecta, they will try to pass a nationwide abortion ban.

This is not "sending it back to the States".
That's not the plan.

Why would the federal govt have jurisdiction over health care?

 

[Dutch Oven]

No Valcazar understood. He was just asking if you believed that rights to same sex marriage or desegregation or Miranda rights or right to counsel were also misconceived. They are all judge made law from the mid Twentieth Century or later.

I think many judge-made rights are misconceived. I think the concept of liberal interpretation of the constituion is misconceived. However, to get into a discussion of all the rulings/principles I disagree with would derail this thread.

 

[mandrill]

The voters in states who disagree with you do not care about your opinion. Also, people are free to move to a state which has laws they feel best align with their values. This is already an ongoing process. That's why so many have recently moved from California to Texas.



States cannot regulate the conduct of their citizens in other states. States will understandably seek to enforce its laws within their own borders. That's no more horrible in concept than enforcement of any laws already on the books. Of course, there are constitutional protections regarding due process that apply to the criminal laws of every state, including prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" (8th amendment). It remains to be seen what the criminal sanctions for violating abortion laws will be.

The GOP may try to run candidates promising to ban abortion in states which permit it, but it isn't likely to be a winning platform for such candidates, unless the support to end abortion is a lot stronger in such states than I think it is. If it is strong enough for such candidates to be elected, why shouldn't candidates run based on what the voters want?

For the same reason you have a constitution to begin with. Some rights should not be fucked with, even if the political support is strong for such fuckery.

Were that not so, you may as well piss away the USSC, the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and go back to "whatever the elected legislators do is fine with us". Lots of white folk in Alabama in the 1950's would agree with that. You could lock up mental patients forever, regardless of whether they were a threat to their community. You could ban guns. You could force the indigent to go to trial on capital offences without a lawyer. And you could segregate black schools and make sure they have no teaching materials. It's a Klansman's dream come true.

 

[mandrill]

I think many judge-made rights are misconceived. I think the concept of liberal interpretation of the constituion is misconceived. However, to get into a discussion of all the rulings/principles I disagree with would derail this thread.

I can only imagine. Shame you couldn't time travel back to Mississipi in the 1950's. Fine weather and low cost of living.

 

[Dutch Oven]

For the same reason you have a constitution to begin with. Some rights should not be fucked with, even if the political support is strong for such fuckery.

Were that not so, you may as well piss away the USSC, the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and go back to "whatever the elected legislators do is fine with us". Lots of white folk in Alabama in the 1950's would agree with that. You could lock up mental patients forever, regardless of whether they were a threat to their community. You could ban guns. You could force the indigent to go to trial on capital offences without a lawyer. And you could segregate black schools and make sure they have no teaching materials. It's a Klansman's dream come true.

I agree that a Constitution contains the principles that all legislators and government agents must abide by, regardless of individual preferences and views. However, in my view, that is the best argument to avoid creative liberal interpretation of the Constitution. Only the clearest of principles of a Constitution should be able to limit the power of legislators, because government by the people through democratic representation is the bedrock of a democracy. If society truly outgrows a Constitution, that's why there is an amending formula. The difficulty of satisfying that formula reflects that constitutional change should not happen on a whim, but should only ensue from the overwhelmingly widespead will of the people.

 

[Dutch Oven]

I can only imagine. Shame you couldn't time travel back to Mississipi in the 1950's. Fine weather and low cost of living.

That depends. Where were your ancestors in the 1950s?

 

[silentkisser]

If it fits your narrative you run it. If it doesn't fit your narrative you bury it. This is how the media works.

Only partisan media operates like that. The MSM would publish it either way. Fox News would have buried this.

 

[silentkisser]

This is way more important than Harvey W. That was just gossip column shit.

And some clerk is going to get suspended and disciplined over the leak - if they ever find out who. But that doesn't affect journalistic ethics.

I also don't think NBC ran with the story because they wanted to protect Weinstein. I think they only had allegations, and without someone willing to publicly state what he did to them, they were afraid of getting sued. The same thing sort of happened with Jian Ghomeshi. The Canadaland dude had a lot of stories, and the Star was helping him write it. But, they couldn't go ahead with the story until they had proof. And, Ghomeshi gave it to them in a facebook post talking out his taste for rough sex.

 

[ottawa_cuck]

And maybe also because his two appointments have led to the abortion law change which set fire to the left & makes them talk about him & gives his gop base a YUGE win.

I haven’t looked at the news, but I’ll bet you he’s got a huge smile today.

And the rest of what you wrote about Trump I agree with

If he's smiling right now, it's because he's planning to head over to McDonalds right about now.

 

[jcpro]

Source Of SCOTUS Leak Found To Be Swedish Supreme Court Janitor Hildur Clintonheim

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In an announcement leaked to the press, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts stated the person responsible for leaking the draft of the court's Roe v. Wade decision was found to be Swedish Supreme Court Janitor Hildur Clintonheim.

babylonbee.com

 

[dirtydaveiii]

1- yes but they are donkey party biased
2-im a guy. abortion is none of my biz
3-i don’t think i expressed any views about freedom trucks. i have expressed my views on the king flu

1 - fox propaganda is the largest site going are they donkey based ?
2 - your an angry eunuch I don't think that counts
3 - nobody cares

 

[dirtydaveiii]

Well, on the bright side of this.......

The Supreme Court just helped the Democrats win this coming November.

Up until yesterday, it looked like the Democrats were going to be annihilated in November's midterm elections. That just changed last night. Now the Democrats have a fighting chance. Maybe even a good chance in the upcoming midterms. Oh, you can bray away about red states and all that, but even red state women get abortions. Probably in greater numbers per capita than blue state women. In fact, even the most conservative women in the reddest of red states have had abortions. Don't ever kid yourselves. I think a great many conservative women are (quietly) in favour of abortion rights and they are not going to take kindly to this sort of thing. And those purple states? Well, they just turned a bluer shade of purple which is all it takes.

Oh the irony.

That's what I was thinking stupid timing. Oh well nobody said conservatives are smart

 

[dirtydaveiii]

Well, you would think any outlet would have published the Harvey Weinstein multiple rape accusations also...but NBC buried it as long as they could.

It's not journalistic malpractice to not report on information that was obtained the way it was, which was someone breaking the law and their judicial oath for political purposes. All this information would come out when the SCOTUS was ready to release their decision on the matter.

The Donald Trump rapes were never published on fox same as all of his other criminal acts

 

[dirtydaveiii]

Trump is smiling today

He is unable.to.smile his mouth is lockjawed into that weird o shape like when he blows putin