• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Justice Barrett

Ziggurat said:
....
And judges don't tend to care why someone nominated them. They have their own outlooks on the law and the constitution.
....
Click to expand...


More fantasy. They may not care how they became judges, but they were nominated because of their views, which they then enforce in their decisions.
An analysis by The Washington Post found that nearly three out of four opinions issued in federal voting-related cases by judges picked by the president were in favor of maintaining limits. That is a sharp contrast with judges nominated by President Barack Obama, whose decisions backed such limits 17 percent of the time.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/31/trump-judges-voting-rights/?arc404=true
 
theprestige said:
Where:

X = "criminalizing crossing state lines to get an abortion"

Nobody is saying they want and support X.

Plus, you've already been given evidence that state legislatures aren't actually interested in doing X. Not just Ziggurat's theoretical rebuttals. Actual evidence that the theory is correct.
Click to expand...

X in this case is ban on abortion itself. "Criminalizing crossing state lines to get an abortion" can be one facet of this issue, let's define it as X1.

I am quite sure supporter of X (abortion ban) would like to do something about "crossing state lines to get an abortion".
Therefore realizing X1 would be desirable, even if it is unfeasible (at least here and now - supporter of X would want to deal with this problem in future).

Taking all of these things together, assurances from that supporter of X about impossibility of X1 comes off as insincere. At best, it would be "(unfortunately) we can't (yet) do anything about it, (you goddamn baby killers)".
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
More fantasy. They may not care how they became judges, but they were nominated because of their views, which they then enforce in their decisions.
Click to expand...

That doesn't contradict what I said. Yes, they are picked for the views they have. But again, NONE of the justices views states as able to criminalize crossing borders to engage in activity in another state if that activity is legal in that other state. Nobody on the court has that view. That's just paranoid fantasy.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Not for you, or me, or sensible people. But there are a surprisingly large number of people in this country for whom the abortion issue is so important it eclipses everything else.
Click to expand...

Not enough to form a winning constituency on this.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not enough to form a winning constituency on this.
Click to expand...

Enough to bolster the Republican Party with evangelicals for the last forty years, though. What on earth do you think those people are doing there, if not for abortion? If the Republican Party went officially and loudly pro-choice they'd lose a very large chunk of their most loyal adherents instantly.
 
Bob001 said:
But some states have already attempted to make it illegal to carry a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion.
Click to expand...

Source? Because I don't believe you.

There have been multiple attempts at the federal level to make it illegal to bring minors across state lines to get abortions without parental consent. But that's quite different from what you said, both because it's the feds, not states, which can regulate crossing state lines, and because it's not a general prohibition but only a parental consent requirement.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Enough to bolster the Republican Party with evangelicals for the last forty years, though.
Click to expand...

You are confused. We aren't talking about a constituency to overturn Roe v. Wade. We're talking about a constituency to allow states to criminalize conduct engaged in outside their jurisdiction, in places where that conduct is legal. There is no constituency for that, including among evangelicals.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Not for you, or me, or sensible people. But there are a surprisingly large number of people in this country for whom the abortion issue is so important it eclipses everything else.
Click to expand...
I bet there are people at either end of the spectrum, though - that there are people for whom reproductive freedom is the issue that eclipses everything else.
 
Ziggurat said:
You are confused. We aren't talking about a constituency to overturn Roe v. Wade. We're talking about a constituency to allow states to criminalize conduct engaged in outside their jurisdiction, in places where that conduct is legal. There is no constituency for that, including among evangelicals.
Click to expand...

Are you certain of that? Some of them froth at the mouth at the concept of legal abortion. I wouldn't assume they'd draw a line at causing legal insanity just to stop it. True Belief doesn't always leave room for other priorities, like constitutionality, reason, and sense.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Are you certain of that?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am.

Some of them froth at the mouth at the concept of legal abortion.
Click to expand...

Not enough to make an influential political force.

I wouldn't assume they'd draw a line at causing legal insanity just to stop it. True Belief doesn't always leave room for other priorities, like constitutionality, reason, and sense.
Click to expand...

Look what happened in the wake of the abortion clinic bombings. There was a real pull back, a sense that that went too far. Yes, there are some fanatics. But most people, even most abortion opponents, are not fanatics.

Allowing states to criminalize conduct happening in other states is fanatical. Nobody wants that. Nobody is asking for that. There is no constituency for doing that. The only people even discussing it are people who need to dream up worst case scenarios to justify their panic.
 
Ziggurat said:
Allowing states to criminalize conduct happening in other states is fanatical. Nobody wants that. Nobody is asking for that. There is no constituency for doing that. The only people even discussing it are people who need to dream up worst case scenarios to justify their panic.
Click to expand...

I agree, but not because "nobody wants that"-- what abortion opponents want is a flat federal all-compassing abortion ban, preferably written into the Constitution itself. That would override any state or inter-state nonsense about what's allowed and isn't. Why try for complicated ninja moves involving fifty separate cuts when they could just chop off the head all at once?
 
TragicMonkey said:
I agree, but not because "nobody wants that"-- what abortion opponents want is a flat federal all-compassing abortion ban, preferably written into the Constitution itself. That would override any state or inter-state nonsense about what's allowed and isn't. Why try for complicated ninja moves involving fifty separate cuts when they could just chop off the head all at once?
Click to expand...

Which is why the SCOTUS seat filling is worth the very real potential drubbing the GOP faces this election. SCOTUS is the shibboleth, if you will. Because its voice is the last, that's awesome and awful power.

Folk like Zig will entangle and distract with arguments about things that could be too revaling to try and pull off right NOW, presenting this as indicative of some permanent unfeasibility. All while the rabid base clamors for a total solution we all can see as being in the works, with eventual realization coming ever nearer.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I agree, but not because "nobody wants that"-- what abortion opponents want is a flat federal all-compassing abortion ban, preferably written into the Constitution itself. That would override any state or inter-state nonsense about what's allowed and isn't. Why try for complicated ninja moves involving fifty separate cuts when they could just chop off the head all at once?
Click to expand...

Sure, a lot of abortion opponents would like a federal ban. But that’s not happening either. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, there may not be any constitutional hurdles (unlike interstate laws), but it’s still not popular enough to get something like that through Congress. And yes, public opinion on this sort of thing matters, a lot.
 
Lurch said:
Which is why the SCOTUS seat filling is worth the very real potential drubbing the GOP faces this election. SCOTUS is the shibboleth, if you will. Because its voice is the last, that's awesome and awful power.

Folk like Zig will entangle and distract with arguments about things that could be too revaling to try and pull off right NOW, presenting this as indicative of some permanent unfeasibility. All while the rabid base clamors for a total solution we all can see as being in the works, with eventual realization coming ever nearer.
Click to expand...

Politics is downstream from culture. Abortion rights aren’t losing the cultural war. They won’t lose the political war either.
 
Currently, the big issue regarding abortion and state lines is a proposal to establish a Federal law that makes it a crime to transport a minor from a state that requires parental approval for an abortion to a state that does not require approval for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Such laws have been proposed in Congress a number of times. Such a law would likely be considered legal using the same principal that supports the Mann Act which makes it illegal to transport a girl or woman across state lines for the purpose of prostitution or "debauchery" or other "immoral purposes".

If the Supreme Court rules that State's can criminalize abortion, it would maybe be possible to pass a Federal law making it illegal to travel across state lines to get an abortion. But probably not. To my knowledge, the Mann Act has never be used to convict someone of transporting someone to somewhere like certain places in Nevada where prostitution is legal.

A State only has jurisdiction over crimes that occurred in the State or where the result of the crime occurred in the State (and some other more obscure circumstances).

However, a State could establish that a fetus is a "person" and that abortion is "murder" and pass a law making it a crime to transport a "person" for the purpose of "murder" of that "person". That would, in effect, make it a crime to travel outside the State to obtain an abortion.

I think it unlikely that such a law would pass and it is maybe questionable whether the Supreme Court would allow it, but it is certainly possible.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
If the Supreme Court rules that State's can criminalize abortion, it would maybe be possible to pass a Federal law making it illegal to travel across state lines to get an abortion. But probably not. To my knowledge, the Mann Act has never be used to convict someone of transporting someone to somewhere like certain places in Nevada where prostitution is legal.
Click to expand...

That isn't equivalent, because even in Nevada, prostitution is still illegal for minors. There is no jurisdiction in the US where that isn't the case.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Are you certain of that? Some of them froth at the mouth at the concept of legal abortion. I wouldn't assume they'd draw a line at causing legal insanity just to stop it. True Belief doesn't always leave room for other priorities, like constitutionality, reason, and sense.
Click to expand...

How many states have attempted to criminalize crossing state lines for easier access to abortifacient drugs?

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-availability-and-use-of-medication-abortion/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom