I think you’re saying the quiet part out loud.
It is very normal to mention Hale. The US is a common law country and Hale is a significant figure in the history of common law. He’s also cited in a footnote in Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v Wade.
1 Like
I’m not going to go with any reading of abortion rights that is inconsistent with the idea of government having the right to mandate vaccines.
On the face of it, it seems like this wouldn’t apply because of this:
Filburn argued that since the excess wheat that he produced was intended solely for home consumption, his wheat production could not be regulated through the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected the argument and reasoned that if Filburn had not produced his own wheat, he would have bought wheat on the open market.
If there is no open market - that is, if Congress makes the sale of certain plants and drugs illegal - then this argument ceases to function.
But in any case, hyper-expansive Commerce Clause arguments, the above case included, are some of the most egregious instances of Supreme Court Calvinball. The function of the Supreme Court could be summarized as coming up with bullshit excuses for why federal power is permitted to override the states in the face of an anachronistic Constitution, a plain reading of which would make it impossible for Congress to run the country.
Or you just don’t really understand what you are talking about.
1 Like
I think the “right to privacy” is misnamed. It’s more of a right to live according to your own ideals so long as your not “injuring” anyone else. (What constitutes an injury is somewhat historically and “scientifically” contingent.) As I think 5-4 noted, this general idea has been smuggled into the “freedom of religion” for conservatives for living according to their conscience, though that can often mean forcing their beliefs on others.
I think something akin to this right is implicit in the idea of free society, which is perhaps reflected in the 9th Amendment.
1 Like
They have the death penalty in Louisiana, too. I’m not sure if it only applies to certain degrees of murder or what this would be classified as, but it seems possible.
I do agree that this part of the court’s function, necessarily rested on the 13th-15th Amendments, with varying degrees of plausibility. Consitutions are in general something of a mess. Britain does fine without one. Sometimes considered judgments are preferable to algorithms, sometimes not.
More details: they don’t want to give the children of undocumented immigrants a free education.
Reminiscent of responses to the fugitive slave act.
https://twitter.com/NPRinskeep/status/1522171145272836096?t=0gETxWaJuhN6yjNvaqKUZw&s=19
1 Like
Might be unconstitutional.
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2:
A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.
What I believe the CT law is saying is if someone from a state where abortion is illegal travels to CT for a legal abortion, the state she is from cannot require CT to extradite the provider to appear for charges in another state.
2 Likes
Under what legal system do they even approach something like algorithmic decision making? It seems like when you get down to it, there will always be a significant amount of arbitrariness to legal decisions. Like with bright-line scenarios, it just shifts the arbitrariness to the framing of the legal question and where the line is drawn. I’m open to having my mind changed on this, but I think people that are shocked by how arbitrary legal decisions are are just ignorant of what’s going on.
Legal decisions are inherently arbitrary, but with Roe there’s not any legal text being consulted to come up with the answer. It’s just stating that there are rights here that are in conflict, and we went away and read a bunch of opinions and here’s this first-trimester compromise we think is reasonable. As far as I’m concerned that is very very clearly the job of a legislature. Like can the Supreme Court say “now citizens have a reasonable expectation that they can keep the proceeds of their labor, on the other hand governments do need to finance their projects, so there’s a tension of rights here, we think a 30% flat tax rate is reasonable, it is so ordered”?
To put it another way, is there any way that any independent observer, looking at the legal history on the subject, could have even come close to predicting the outcome of Roe? It’s one thing to think the outcome of a case is surprising, but in the case of Roe it seems totally impossible to predict that the Court would come up with what they did. This to me is clear evidence that the Court has created public policy out of nothing.
Edit: I am aware btw that the standard was revisited in Casey, but that to me just reinforces the arbitrariness of the Court’s ruling. They’re seeking to look at the latest in scholarly thinking on when life begins and all that jazz and then impose that as law, which again, is the job of a legislature.
I think it’s more aimed at telemedicine prescription of abortion pills that might be delivered by mail than people traveling for abortions.
I don’t see how Connecticut can deny extradition if the other state has jurisdiction even if it involves acts done in Connecticut, but I can see how the other state wouldn’t have jurisdiction.
My mind turns to whether this creates some sort of loophole where you can get away with some sort of sexual activity with a 17 year old because the age of consent is 16 in Connecticut and 18 in Florida. (Hi, Matt Gaetz!)
Pretty much the only cases that make it to the Supreme Court are going to be cases for which the outcome is not completely obvious on its face. Finding that the Constitution includes an implied right to privacy is not at all a shocking or unpredictable conclusion to reach. its very logical from many reasonable perspectives when you consider the first, fourth, and ninth amendments. Then considering what a right to privacy means in the specific context of abortions things get much less certain, but balancing the privacy interests of the woman against the interests of the state in protecting prospective life seems pretty reasonable to me.
2 Likes
Seems right as evidenced by the immediate, coordinated messaging.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1522050851573047298?s=21&t=My1BeKgoIx7t5dIP9pPvsQ
Jeet’s been knocking gathering thoughts
https://twitter.com/asymmetricinfo/status/1522020084847460354
https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1522053264593858561
cliffs: evangelicals have adopted the Catholic idea that the soul enters at fertilization, and the resulting fetal personhood
1 Like