• 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.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Don said:
I doubt it.

The same same people/states who are pushing to make abortion illegal are also dead set against sex education or any kind of information about birth control beyond preaching abstinence.
Click to expand...

Yes, and then there is this ^.
 
Bob001 said:
I don't think you could assume that. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing a law regarding abortion.
Click to expand...

Every federal law needs a constitutional justification. The text of this bill contains same.

(25) Congress has the authority to enact this Act to protect abortion services pursuant to—

(A) its powers under the commerce clause of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States;

(B) its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to enforce the provisions of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and

(C) its powers under the necessary and proper clause of section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...

B and C rest on the premise that there is a constitutional right to abortion and the law is about even application nationwide.

As to (A), it is a pretty common federalist society gripe, if not the federalist gripe that the commerce clause has been interpreted way to broadly to include stuff that really isn't commerce. This would be a neat bank shot case to both rule against abortion and make some fuzzy new law about the commerce clause that will let them spend the next few decades selectively using it to strike down whatever bothers them.
 
Meadmaker said:
Thanks for the link.

In my mind, if a law wasn't clearly broken, the law wasn't broken. If there's no evidence of a crime, there should be no investigation looking for one. It seems, based on what the article said, that if the person who leaked the document had legal access to the document, then it isn't a crime.

That whole "thing of value" clause has been misused horribly in recent years trying to prosecute people for things that aren't crimes. I don't think there's been a whole lot of success, though.
Click to expand...

What happens is that the FBI interviews the person who linked this, and if the person talks to them and denies linking it, well, good luck with that no matter if there wasn't ultimately a crime.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Yes, apparently.

At a minimum, I think the US is trying to make females into second-class citizens.
Click to expand...

I know I'm shocked that the party who has made it their main focus to limit the rights of certain people have now succeeded in limiting the rights of those people.

Shocked, really.
 
JoeMorgue said:
That is hilariously naive in 2022.

"We want it, we're doing it, stop us if you can" is the only justification the Right cares about.
Click to expand...

As a matter of realism, sure.

However, as to the nuts and bolts of law it is an objective fact. That this doctrine would be selectively used by those on the right doesn't change that.
 
Suddenly said:
What happens is that the FBI interviews the person who linked this, and if the person talks to them and denies linking it, well, good luck with that no matter if there wasn't ultimately a crime.
Click to expand...

Good point. I think the phrase is "process crime". Big problem.

That really underscores why there shouldn't be any investigation unless there's clear evidence of a crime.
 
Meadmaker said:
Good point. I think the phrase is "process crime". Big problem.

That really underscores why there shouldn't be any investigation unless there's clear evidence of a crime.
Click to expand...

You'd think a SCOTUS clerk (as presumed by some) of all people would know to not talk to the cops.

People shouldn't lie to the cops. The easiest way to not lie is to not talk at all.
 
Suddenly said:
What happens is that the FBI interviews the person who linked this, and if the person talks to them and denies linking it, well, good luck with that no matter if there wasn't ultimately a crime.
Click to expand...

I assume that's with respect to leaking it? Also, I assume you are referring to prosecution for lying to a federal officer?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
You'd think a SCOTUS clerk (as presumed by some) of all people would know to not talk to the cops.

People shouldn't lie to the cops. The easiest way to not lie is to not talk at all.
Click to expand...

Would the FBI have jurisdiction here? What's the actual crime? This isn't a national security issue or insider trading or even commercial secrets. The SC has its own police dept. I suspect they will be asking the questions, and, sure, a law clerk has the sense not to lie to LE. But if he/she said "Yeah, I did it, so what?," what can they do beyond firing him?

I wonder if whoever leaked it might soon call a press conference to take responsibility. In some quarters he'd be deemed a hero.
 
cosmicaug said:
I assume that's with respect to leaking it? Also, I assume you are referring to prosecution for lying to a federal officer?
Click to expand...

Well, yes. This may surprise some people but an awful lot of what the FBI does is prosecute crimes that wouldn't have occurred but for actions of the FBI.
 
Meadmaker said:
Good point. I think the phrase is "process crime". Big problem.
....
Click to expand...

"Process crime" is one of those meaningless terms that the Repubs used to try to defend their corruption. An act is a crime or it's not.

The question is whether there's any law on the books that prohibits leaking SC drafts. The SC can still investigate for the purpose of firing the leaker, just as any employer could investigate a violation of its rules. But that's not the same as investigating with the intention of prosecuting.
 
Bob001 said:
Would the FBI have jurisdiction here? What's the actual crime? This isn't a national security issue or insider trading or even commercial secrets. The SC has its own police dept. I suspect they will be asking the questions, and, sure, a law clerk has the sense not to lie to LE. But if he/she said "Yeah, I did it, so what?," what can they do beyond firing him?

I wonder if whoever leaked it might soon call a press conference to take responsibility. In some quarters he'd be deemed a hero.
Click to expand...

The FBI could be investigating to make sure a crime didn't occur. It isn't totally implausible that there was some sort of bribery of a clerk to obtain documents or some element of this that could fit within a criminal statute. Federal criminal law is frighteningly broad and vague.
 
Bob001 said:
That's quite a claim. Evidence?
Click to expand...

Every conviction of someone lying to the feds with no convictions w/r/t the original crime falls into this. Martha Stewart is a famous one.

That the FBI has a practice of infiltrating "extremist" groups made up mostly of inert morons and egging them in the direction of overt illegal acts is one of those things hard to nail down, but the whole thing about kidnapping the Michigan governor seems to have elements of that.
 
The Don said:
I doubt it.

The same same people/states who are pushing to make abortion illegal are also dead set against sex education or any kind of information about birth control beyond preaching abstinence.
Click to expand...


Remember the wisdom of prominent Republican donor Foster Friess in 2012: "Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom