FYP
Hereās Missouriās attempt:
Seems insane to me, but so does Alito.
Edit: thereās already supreme court precedent.
A more direct comparison can be made to a 15-year-old Missouri rule for minors, which created a civil cause of action against anyone who helped a Missouri minor obtain an abortion out of state without a parent or judgeās approval. The state Supreme Court struck down the rule in 2007, finding that āit is beyond Missouriās authority to regulate conduct that occurs wholly outside of Missouri,ā adding that āMissouri simply does not have the authority to make lawful out-of-state conduct actionable here, for its laws do not have extraterritorial effect,ā asserting that the law was only valid within the context of conduct occurring within Missouri.
Even so, precedent only goes so far in this case because the decision is only applicable in Missouri and does not guarantee how the high court could rule, should it weigh in on the topic.
The Missouri decision relied on a 1975 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bigelow v. Virginia, which concerned an advertisement in a Virginia newspaper for a New York abortion service, where the procedure had recently become legal. A Virginia statute prohibited any publication from encouraging women to get an abortion. But the high court found that the statute violated First Amendment rights and published statements that cast doubt on one stateās ability to regulate their residentsā behavior in another state, according to a recent article by RebouchĆ© and her co-authors David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University, and Greer Donley, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh.
The justices wrote that Virginia could neither āprevent its residents from traveling to New York to obtain those services,ā meaning abortion, or āprosecute them for going there.ā
āA State does not acquire power or supervision over the internal affairs of another State merely because the welfare and health of its own citizens may be affected when they travel to that State,ā the justices wrote.
Obligatory lol precedent, of course
2 Likes
The larger problem comes where she says āAnd, whatās the return? What is Biden/Congress ACTUALLY willing+able to do at 52/60 seats?ā
JFC, the vote was 6-3! Roberts voted with the fucking majority! Everyone is in on it!
1 Like
https://twitter.com/strawberritom/status/1540767592012337152?s=21&t=ppzfTbyND8PWRk9-hLXc3Q
Saw this last night too. She says 5 justices and leaves Roberts out. I literally think a survey of Democrats right now would show that the majority believe Roberts voted against this shit.
Roberts didnāt vote to overturn Roe or Casey.
(Iām doing what I do at home, and my wife hates it. I generally agree with the substance of what everyone is saying but focusing on nitpicky details that I think are wrong. Sorry.)
4 Likes
well, sort of, I donāt want to defend Roberts here, he voted to uphold the mississippi law but did not join them in overturning roe wholesale, saying that it violated judicial restraint (basically calling them judicial activists)
Well fuck Roberts too anyway
Thank you for the clarification though.
4 Likes
This is the current insane right wing talking point sweeping twitter ans being pushed by the bots.
Fwiw, the clear majoritt of the companies offerong abortion assistance also offer maternity, paternity leave and birthing assistance.
Is holding an open SC seat hostage during a dem presidency also āpart of the democratic proceess?ā
Thata been his game the whole time. God says he cant get divorced, just gonna have to nullify the marriage completely
1 Like
Exonerating Roberts here too as well I see.
If Roberts truly gave a fuck he could have easily joined the dissent. He CONCURRED IN THE DECISION. THAT MEANS IT WAS 6-3 WITH HIM IN THE MAJORITY. Go look at his record. Guy is as anti-abortion as anyone.
STOP FUCKING DEFENDING HIM AND MAKING EXCUSES.
6 Likes
TO ADD TO THIS:
EVEN JUST UPHOLDING THE MISSISSIPPI LAW WOULD HAVE BEEN THE MOST ANTI-ABORTION DECISION IN DECADES AND A FUCKING DISASTER. ROBERTS WANTED TO DO THAT!
4 Likes
The courts were never set up to be able to strike down laws as unconstitutional. Or at least that power sure as shit isnāt written anywhere in the Constitution.
1 Like
Well Iām sure Marshall, et al would tell you that it was implied and the logical conclusion of what was written.
You can lose your license to drive in all states for unresolved minor traffic violations in one of them. You can be prosecuted in the US for crimes committed in another country.
1 Like
Sometimes you have to take the L.
Licensure or lack thereof is a bit of a different issue from getting thrown in jail for something you did elsewhere that was legal where you did it.
Iām not familiar with this, but arenāt a lot of these related to conspiracies that, in part, operated in the US. In those cases, theyāre being prosecuted for the part that happened here. Are there other examples that you have in mind?
The only thing I would give Roberts credit for is resigning in the next two months.
Iām genuinely interested in this, not arguing. Arenāt these all cases that involve violations in the foreign jurisdiction? That wouldnāt be the case for obtaining a legal abortion in a different state.
2 Likes