Cont: Texas bans abortion. Part 2

I wouldn't be surprised that when other States adopt the Texas Ban, they will include a rule of "mutal assistance" to bring the Evil Family Planners justice.
 
smartcooky said:
Here some of the things you haven't thought of...
Click to expand...
One thing I have thought of is that international drug dealers have been extradited into a US state in the past to face charges even if their activities were conducted outside of the US (the charge is typically related to importation). It is only necessary for the activity to also be illegal in the extraditing country.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I wouldn't be surprised that when other States adopt the Texas Ban, they will include a rule of "mutal assistance" to bring the Evil Family Planners justice.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will get that far. Merton's Law applies - even the pro-conservative SCOTUS has to realise that allowing a vigilante justice setup like this will backfire on them badly.

What would be to stop a Democrat state legislature from making it illegal to own firearms, and using the public to sue gun shops out of existence? What would prevent a Democrat state legislature from outlawing gasoline and diesel cars and and using the public to sue car dealers for selling them?
 
smartcooky said:
I don't think it will get that far. Merton's Law applies - even the pro-conservative SCOTUS has to realise that allowing a vigilante justice setup like this will backfire on them badly.
Click to expand...

Politically, at least. That's the main assurance against Roe v Wade getting completely overturned before it's already died a death of a thousand cuts, actually - the distinctly partisan judges that are acting on behalf of the larger interests of their party, rather than the country or political propaganda.

smartcooky said:
What would be to stop a Democrat state legislature from making it illegal to own firearms, and using the public to sue gun shops out of existence? What would prevent a Democrat state legislature from outlawing gasoline and diesel cars and and using the public to sue car dealers for selling them?
Click to expand...

What would stop Democrats from doing that? Democrats, generally.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
One thing I have thought of is that international drug dealers have been extradited into a US state in the past to face charges even if their activities were conducted outside of the US (the charge is typically related to importation). It is only necessary for the activity to also be illegal in the extraditing country.
Click to expand...

False equivalency -

1. Drug laws apply across multiple countries by international agreement.

Warning PDF 621KB
https://www.unodc.org/documents/hlr/19-V1905795_E_ebook.pdf

No such agreement exists for suing abortion providers.

2. Only the Federal government can apply for suspects to be extradited from another country. US States have no standing in this.

3. People can only be extradited for criminal offences, not civil offences. You can't extradite a person for a Lawsuit
 
smartcooky said:
False equivalency -

1. Drug laws apply across multiple countries by international agreement.

Warning PDF 621KB
https://www.unodc.org/documents/hlr/19-V1905795_E_ebook.pdf

No such agreement exists for suing abortion providers.

2. Only the Federal government can apply for suspects to be extradited from another country. US States have no standing in this.

3. People can only be extradited for criminal offences, not civil offences. You can't extradite a person for a Lawsuit
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
smartcooky said:
No such agreement exists for suing abortion providers.
Click to expand...
.... yet (if you are correct).

It was beyond your imagination that a state could skirt Roe vs Wade but Texas found a way. And that was just from the dumb politicians in the GOP. Imagine what politicians with brains could accomplish.
 
psionl0 said:
.... yet (if you are correct).

It was beyond your imagination that a state could skirt Roe vs Wade but Texas found a way. And that was just from the dumb politicians in the GOP. Imagine what politicians with brains could accomplish.
Click to expand...

No you are making two mistakes

1. Confusing a Country with a State (as in a US state)

2. Taking what I said out of context... I will repeat
"1. Drug laws apply across multiple countries by international agreement.

Warning PDF 621KB
https://www.unodc.org/documents/hlr/...95_E_ebook.pdf

No such agreement exists for suing abortion providers."​
You know damned well I was talking about an international agreement!

You keep doing this... cherry picking phrases from other people's posts, removing the context in which they were made, and re-purposing those phrases to fit your narrative. It is dishonest, and you do this so often that I can only conclude that it is intentional.
 
smartcooky said:
No you are making two mistakes

1. Confusing a Country with a State (as in a US state)
Click to expand...
So there is no mechanism for extraditing people from one state to another?

smartcooky said:
2. Taking what I said out of context...
Click to expand...
I don't have to respond to every personal opinion that you post.

Nothing you posted changes the fact that nobody knows what the aftermath of the Texan law will be. It could be struck down or it could be extended in ways that nobody has forecasted yet. The courts will have a large bearing on the law's future.
 
psionl0 said:
So there is no mechanism for extraditing people from one state to another?
Click to expand...

Lying again! You are intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

There is no mechanism for a State of the USA to extradite people from a Country.

Just as no State in your country has that power, and no Province in New Zealand has that power, so no State of the USA has that power either.

psionl0 said:
I don't have to respond to every personal opinion that you post.
Click to expand...

There is a word for what you did - cherry picking a part of what I said, out of context in order to lie about what I meant... that word is "dishonest", so yes, if you do not have the intestinal fortitude to debate honestly by commenting on what I say IN CONTEXT, then I would just as soon you don't comment at all.

psionl0 said:
Nothing you posted changes the fact that nobody knows what the aftermath of the Texan law will be. It could be struck down or it could be extended in ways that nobody has forecasted yet. The courts will have a large bearing on the law's future.
Click to expand...

Nothing I posted is remotely related to what you just claimed.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I bet money they didn't phrase it the way you did.
Click to expand...
Not does Warpie address the fact that the same religious nuts who are trying to stop safe and legal terminations are those trying to prevent access to contraception and sex education.
 
smartcooky said:
I don't think it will get that far. Merton's Law applies - even the pro-conservative SCOTUS has to realise that allowing a vigilante justice setup like this will backfire on them badly.

What would be to stop a Democrat state legislature from making it illegal to own firearms, and using the public to sue gun shops out of existence?
Click to expand...

The only thing that would stop the SCOTUS from stopping this is that, even in a Democratic state, lower courts would not even give it a chance to get that far.

smartcooky said:
What would prevent a Democrat state legislature from outlawing gasoline and diesel cars and and using the public to sue car dealers for selling them?
Click to expand...

Maybe SCOTUS. See above. Also, for the foreseeable future Democrats are about as likely to outlaw internal combustion engines in a state as they are likely to outlaw cows (that is, it's not going to happen).
 
JoeMorgue said:
The Justice Department has formally asked the Supreme Court to overturn the law.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/18/politics/supreme-court-abortion-appeal/index.html
Click to expand...

In addition to asking the justices to halt the law now, the government also wants the court to agree to hear oral arguments this term and decide for itself whether the law passes constitutional muster. If the justices were to agree to that request, it would raise the stakes in the dispute and bring final resolution to the case by the end of June.
Click to expand...

This seems like a pretty extraordinary request?
 
*Confused* It's literally asking the court to do it's most basic functional job.
 
smartcooky said:
Lying again! You are intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

There is no mechanism for a State of the USA to extradite people from a Country.

Just as no State in your country has that power, and no Province in New Zealand has that power, so no State of the USA has that power either.
Click to expand...

The United States would have to request extradition on behalf of any state seeking citizens or non-citizens abroad. This is done through the State Department. This would be problematic at a bare minimum. Much depends on cooperation of the State Department as well as the extradition treaty with the foreign state. One would have to live in another country that would have similar laws.
 
acbytesla said:
The United States would have to request extradition on behalf of any state seeking citizens or non-citizens abroad. This is done through the State Department. This would be problematic at a bare minimum. Much depends on cooperation of the State Department as well as the extradition treaty with the foreign state. One would have to live in another country that would have similar laws.
Click to expand...
That's about how it works.

A couple of things are that in most treaties, the US doesn't have to provide a prima facie case when seeking extradition. It only needs to list the charges that the accused will be tried on and these charges also need to be crimes in the extraditing country. The accused can't be tried on other charges once extradition has been executed.

Although the courts in the extraditing country usually rubber stamp the process, they have been known to disallow some of the charges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom