Ed Justice Barrett

[quadraginta]

You are confused. I’m in favor of gay marriage. But not recognizing it still isn’t punishment, even if the consequences are negative. That would be like saying the state punishes everyone who doesn’t get married, and that’s just an absurd twisting of language.

You're right, but only because of a large infusion of straw.

If, more accurately, you believe it is absurd that the state could punish someone by not allowing them to be married then I think you should spend more time considering the issue.

And that is the issue being discussed.

Taxes, inheritance, adoption, next-of-kin rights, etc., all of these and more are privileges conferred by the institution of marriage. Apparently the state attaches some significant value to the status.

How could denying someone the right to share such a status simply because they are not hetero be anything but a punishment? As you yourself concede, the consequences are negative.

 

[Louden Wilde]

It amazes me that there are things like this, where an overwhelming majority of people have one point of view and yet there are political parties for which the contrary view is a cornerstone of their manifesto and yet they are regularly returned to government.

In the US the majority of people are pro-choice, pro (more) gun-control, pro socialised medicine, pro higher taxes (on the wealthy), pro immigration and so on and yet the GOP get elected with the diametrically opposing policies.

The GOP has a motivated/scared/angry base and are good at exploiting the non-democratic parts of US law/structure - district gerrymandering, the courts, the senate (which is increasingly becoming non-representative of the population), restrictive voting laws and (of course) the electoral college. A favorite talking point is "The US is a republic, not a democracy" Bottom line is that they know time and demographics are not in their favor - which is why a power grab now seems like a real possibility....

 

[Ziggurat]

How could denying someone the right to share such a status simply because they are not hetero be anything but a punishment? As you yourself concede, the consequences are negative.

Because that's not what punishment means. It doesn't mean anything that has negative consequences.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Because that's not what punishment means. It doesn't mean anything that has negative consequences.

How do you feel about Jim Crow laws, then? Acceptable because they aren't punishment? Or is there a different principle by which they can be judged?

 

[JoeMorgue]

How do you feel about Jim Crow laws, then? Acceptable because they aren't punishment? Or is there a different principle by which they can be judged?

I asked him the same question a few pages back. Oddly I didn't get an answer. (I got a response, but I most certainly didn't get an answer) Maybe he'll deem you worthy of one.

 

[Ziggurat]

How do you feel about Jim Crow laws, then? Acceptable because they aren't punishment? Or is there a different principle by which they can be judged?

That's really weak. No, something doesn't have to be punishment to be unconstitutional, let alone bad policy.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's really weak. No, something doesn't have to be punishment to be unconstitutional, let alone bad policy.

I agree. Does this mean that you are not in favor of a hypothetical court ruling that would invalidate same-sex marriage, and that the prior exchanges were simply quibbling over the terminology being misused?

 

[Ziggurat]

I agree. Does this mean that you are not in favor of a hypothetical court ruling that would invalidate same-sex marriage,

I already said I was in favor of gay marriage, so take a guess.

and that the prior exchanges were simply quibbling over the terminology being misused?

No, it was more than that. Recall how this started. It wasn't really about gay marriage, it was about a hypothetical where Roe v. Wade is overturned. And in that hypothetical, some people posited that states would outlaw going to other states to get an abortion. I have taken the position that this would be unconstitutional, and that all of the current Supreme Court justices would rule against it. The quibbling over terminology arose in the context of people trying to defend the position that states could do that. But no, they cannot.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I already said I was in favor of gay marriage, so take a guess.



No, it was more than that. Recall how this started. It wasn't really about gay marriage, it was about a hypothetical where Roe v. Wade is overturned. And in that hypothetical, some people posited that states would outlaw going to other states to get an abortion. I have taken the position that this would be unconstitutional, and that all of the current Supreme Court justices would rule against it. The quibbling over terminology arose in the context of people trying to defend the position that states could do that. But no, they cannot.

It would be very simple to punish those in Alabama who would assist a woman in Alabama who is seeking an out of state abortion. It would be very simple to make it illegal for doctors, pharmacist, social workers, or counselors in Alabama to discuss out of state treatment with an Alabama patient.

They may not outlaw going for an out of state abortion, but they may throw many hurdles in the way of poor women seeking medical care. Rich women who really need an abortion are completely different, of course.

 

[Bob001]

I already said I was in favor of gay marriage, so take a guess.



No, it was more than that. Recall how this started. It wasn't really about gay marriage, it was about a hypothetical where Roe v. Wade is overturned. And in that hypothetical, some people posited that states would outlaw going to other states to get an abortion. I have taken the position that this would be unconstitutional, and that all of the current Supreme Court justices would rule against it.
....

On what basis would you claim that? It's indisputable that some justices will "interpret" the laws to achieve political ends. Why do you think an anti-abortion justice couldn't find a way to support punishing someone who obtains an abortion? If a state's laws define every fetus as a "child," and you leave the state with a "child" and come home without one, you think that couldn't be made a crime? They could certainly make it a crime to facilitate someone else getting an out-of-state abortion, which would mean not providing advice, transportation, money or other help. The right-wng justices are already trying to shut down full ballot counts. You think they wouldn't go much farther over abortion?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"This can't happen, LOL you're being dramatic, because a court stacked with religious, conservative justices will interrupt the laws the same way it's always been interpreted despite the fact that interpreted the laws in a new way is exactly why they were put on the bench" isn't wowing me as an argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

It would be very simple to punish those in Alabama who would assist a woman in Alabama who is seeking an out of state abortion. It would be very simple to make it illegal for doctors, pharmacist, social workers, or counselors in Alabama to discuss out of state treatment with an Alabama patient.

No, it wouldn't be simple at all. For starters, that runs afoul of the first amendment pretty obviously.

Again, the parallels are already clear. Gambling, marijuana use, and prostitution are all illegal in parts of the US but legal in other parts. No state or locality can, or has even tried, to make it illegal to travel to those parts to engage in those activities. No state or locality can, or has even tried, to make it illegal for people to help others travel to those places in order to engage in those activities.

This isn't a thing. Stop trying to make it happen.

They may not outlaw going for an out of state abortion

Then you have conceded the argument. That wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[Ziggurat]

"This can't happen, LOL you're being dramatic, because a court stacked with religious, conservative justices will interrupt the laws the same way despite the fact that interrupting the laws in a new way is exactly why they were put on the bench" isn't wowing me as an argument.

I don't need to wow you. I only need to be right. And, well, I am.

And judges don't tend to care why someone nominated them. They have their own outlooks on the law and the constitution. There is nothing in Barret's work, or the work of any judge on the Supreme Court, that even hints that any of them would ever consider letting states outlaw travel to other states in order to partake in lawful activity within those other states. That isn't a thing. It's never going to be a thing.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No, it wouldn't be simple at all. For starters, that runs afoul of the first amendment pretty obviously.

You would think and yet there are laws that limit what doctors can say to their patients in some states about abortion.

Again, the parallels are already clear. Gambling, marijuana use, and prostitution are all illegal in parts of the US but legal in other parts. No state or locality can, or has even tried, to make it illegal to travel to those parts to engage in those activities. No state or locality can, or has even tried, to make it illegal for people to help others travel to those places in order to engage in those activities.

Because no one cares. Literally, no one cares about other things the way they care about abortion. And if you take them at their word, they are right to care: they believe it to be murder. Murder is worse than gambling, marijuana use, and prostitution. Preventing this type of murder is a calling that they will dump untold millions of dollars into. They will do everything to test the fringes of what can be done. That is what they have done for 20 years and they will continue for the next 20 years.

This isn't a thing. Stop trying to make it happen.

Then you have conceded the argument. That wasn't so hard, was it?

No, but nice edit of my post to remove why. That was so fetch.

 

[Bob001]

You would think and yet there are laws that limit what doctors can say to their patients in some states about abortion.
....

They have also been required to say certain things, sometimes medically inaccurate, to patients that are calculated to discourage abortion.

.....
They will do everything to test the fringes of what can be done. That is what they have done for 20 years and they will continue for the next 20 years.
....

Not 20 years. Pretty much every day since January 1973, almost 48 years.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That isn't a thing. It's never going to be a thing.

Until is and you'll just deny ever saying that and you won't care because your side has already won.

"The right isn't trying to make the Courts, SCOTUS in particular, more hostile to abortions" is so ludicrous a statement the fact that you don't experience pain when you utter is proof there's no God.

 

[Bob001]

.....
And if you take them at their word, they are right to care: they believe it to be murder.
.....

Let me ask (I don't know the answer): Are there state laws that prohibit transporting someone across state lines for the purpose of killing them? Even if the "murder" is committed elsewhere, I would think kidnapping and some forms of assault might be applied, especially when the "criminal" returns to her home state (no extradition issues).

 

[Ziggurat]

Until is and you'll just deny ever saying that and you won't care because your side has already won.

And if it never is, what will you say? Will you acknowledge that you were wrong?

No. You'll try to claim that it didn't come to pass because you successfully resisted it.

But it's really just like whistling to keep tigers away, even though there are no tigers. But that's just proof to you that it worked.

"The right isn't trying to make the Courts, SCOTUS in particular, more hostile to abortions" is so ludicrous a statement the fact that you don't experience pain when you utter is proof there's no God.

Except I never said that. We aren't talking about the right trying to make the courts more hostile to abortion than they are now. I take that as a given. A lot of the right wants Roe v. Wade overturned. I doubt it will happen within the next few decades, if ever, but I don't discount the possibility.

But that's not what we're discussing. What we're discussing goes far beyond just overturning Roe v. Wade. The most that the right can even hope for is overturning Roe v. Wade, which throws it back to the states. And some states will outlaw it, and some won't. But at that point, states won't regulate what citizens can do in other states. That won't be a thing. Nobody wants that, nobody is in favor of that.

There are plenty of people on the right who can recognize exactly how dangerous such a precedent would be to them. Dr. Keith said nobody has tried to do that because nobody cared enough. And that may be true, in part. But nobody has tried it also because it's obviously unconstitutional and wouldn't survive a challenge. If you change that, though, then all bets are off. People who don't care about stuff like prostitution or gun control enough to try doomed laws now might well try it if it's not doomed.

There is no constituency for allowing cross-border state regulation. None. Not on the right, and not on the left, and not in the center. It won't happen, regardless of what happens to Roe v. Wade.

 

[Ziggurat]

Let me ask (I don't know the answer): Are there state laws that prohibit transporting someone across state lines for the purpose of killing them? Even if the "murder" is committed elsewhere, I would think kidnapping and some forms of assault might be applied, especially when the "criminal" returns to her home state (no extradition issues).

I know of no such laws. The laws that I do know of which prohibit criminal activity in connection with crossing state lines are federal laws.

 

[Lurch]

No, it wouldn't be simple at all. For starters, that runs afoul of the first amendment pretty obviously.

Again, the parallels are already clear. Gambling, marijuana use, and prostitution are all illegal in parts of the US but legal in other parts. No state or locality can, or has even tried, to make it illegal to travel to those parts to engage in those activities. No state or locality can, or has even tried, to make it illegal for people to help others travel to those places in order to engage in those activities.

This isn't a thing. Stop trying to make it happen.



Then you have conceded the argument. That wasn't so hard, was it?

But gambling, drugs and prostitutes don't involve MURDER, you see.

A demographic that sees an aborted fetus as a full on human murdered, and who would countenance the bombing of abortion clinics and even assassination of abortion providers could hardly be expected to balk at coming up with creative ways to punish those involved in out-of-state abortions.