Based upon the Justices own opinions in that case? Yes.
I suppose they could change their minds.
Brutal! Impact on vote changes, not so much
I do think Thomas would support states with legalized abortion passing laws forbidding other statesâ citizens from obtaining an abortion in their state. But that doesnât seem likely to come up, given those statesâ likely general posture and concern for the issue.
By virtue of a personâs citizenship in a particular State, he was guaranteed whatever rights and liberties that Stateâs constitution and laws made available. Article IV, §2 vested citizens of each State with an additional right: the assurance that they would be afforded the âprivileges and immunitiesâ of citizenship in any of the several States in the Union to which they might travel.
What were the âPrivileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several Statesâ? That question was answered perhaps most famously by Justice Bushrod Washington sitting as Circuit Justice in Corfield v. Coryell , 6 F. Cas. 546, 551â552 (No. 3,230) (CC ED Pa. 1825). In that case, a Pennsylvania citizen claimed that a New Jersey law prohibiting nonresidents from harvesting oysters from the Stateâs waters violated Article IV, §2 because it deprived him, as an out-of-state citizen, of a right New Jersey availed to its own citizens. Id. , at 550. Justice Washington rejected that argument, refusing to âaccede to the propositionâ that Article IV, §2 entitled âcitizens of the several states . . . to participate in all the rights which belong exclusively to the citizens of any other particular state.â Id. , at 552 (emphasis added). In his view, Article IV, §2 did not guarantee equal access to all public benefits a State might choose to make available to its citizens. See id., at 552. Instead, it applied only to those rights âwhich are, in their nature, fundamental ; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments.â Id. , at 551 (emphasis added). Other courts generally agreed with this principle. See, e.g. , Abbott v. Bayley , 23 Mass. 89, 92â93 (1827) (noting that the âprivileges and immunitiesâ of citizens in the several States protected by Article IV, §2 are âqualified and not absoluteâ because they do not grant a traveling citizen the right of âsuffrage or of eligibility to officeâ in the State to which he travels).
LOL you donât think that Republicans will push hard for a nationwide abortion ban the next time they get a trifecta?
If anyone doesnât think there isnât the very real possibility of a nationwide ban on abortion 3 years from now, I donât know what to tell you.
2 Likes
The âyea but they wonât go that farâ crowd should really shut their mouths now
16 Likes
âBrutal impactâ is on poor women, not any Republican anywhere.
These journalists need to put this shit in context. 60% being against something means nothing when 35% have all the power.
1 Like
Those arenât even bad numbers, gop probably high fiving on those numbers
1 Like
Can you imagine believing this shit in 2022?
Youâre aware there is a nationwide ban on marijuana, right? I donât want to tell you if you think this will have any material effect on the states that want abortion to remain legal. They will simply pass laws that contradict the federal law and health/crime (if termed by feds that way) is clearly something even Thomas thinks should be left to the states.
ETA: the post chain you quoted indicated âabortion would be stamped out in every stateâ. Thatâs trivially false even in the most dystopian of outlooks. Federal law doesnât really mean much here. Hence, Kabuki.
Even in your fantasy land, what do you think happens when trump or whatever other deranged R controls the federal government in 2025? Theyâre going to feed some blue states to their base. Itâs going to be all about revenge and punishment.
Really enjoying the brand new poster who just happens to be contrarian on every single topic.
11 Likes
Kids are all right.
https://twitter.com/pplscitycouncil/status/1540906505829879810?s=21&t=I_Dp7l9TGBLHVEIkGpZjkA
6 Likes
People who are against abortion donât actually think it should be left up to the states because they think itâs murder. âLeave it up to the statesâ is just the stupid justification right wing reactionaries use so that normal people wonât be alarmed that what they actually support is imposing their crazy, paranoid world view on everyone. Only suckers believed right wing reactionaries think âstateâs rightsâ is some principled belief.
11 Likes
Also a bunch of people perceive brutal impacts on women as being positive feature of the policy/law.
I donât have a problem with you, but if youâre going to come in here and start claiming that the GOP/Judiciary wonât do things because reasons, youâre going to get A LOT of pushback on those hypotheses.
1 Like
Supposedly Schumer is going to run again and then retire during the next term so a handpicked successor (some relative/nephew maybe? Canât remember details) can be appointed to the seat.
Yea for abortion itâs states rights up until no actually we canât allow murder anywhere guys, I mean for fucks sake I think it was mentioned in the ruling that this is because it pertains to possibility for life or some bullshit
Itâs really just one dude but otherwise agree.