Read It
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
Yeah, I’d rather get outraged over out of context and maybe even completely false snippets posted on Twitter from whichever side I support.
I’d normally agree with you but this is one of those areas where most people untrained in appellate opinions and legal jargon have to rely on legal reporting vs reading it for themselves.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Still, most Americans will prefer to wait on the movie.
I, like 99.9%, never read Roe. But I did read The Brethren. If justices want us to read their crap they need to learn to write.
First 3 pages of the Alito opinion provides a summary - for the non-readers:
TL/DR version - each point is repeated and explained in greater detail in the body of the opinion, but this is a summary of Alito’s summary:
Abortion is controversial.
Prior to Roe, Constitution did not address or impact abortion. The states made the laws. 30 states prohibited all abortion. Others had lesser restrictions too.
Roe then used substantive due process to say the Constitution grants a right to abortion. Cited Constitutionally-irrelevant and incorrect information to set out trimester rules, based on fetal viability, about when a state could and could not make laws to protect fetal life/potential life.
Casey case came along. 4 judges said dump Roe. Two said keep it as is. 3 said legal basis of Roe is bad, but stare decisis means we uphold its ruling that a state cannot protect life or potential life before viability. Casey then said a state cant create an “undue burden” on the right to abortion.
This did not end the controversy. State law restrictions still differ and, as part of this case, 26 states have said “overturn Roe and let states decide.”
14th Amendment provides and protects some rights if they are fundamental to liberty and “deeply rooted” in history and tradition, such as sex, contraception, and marriage. But not abortion. To the contrary, abortion rights only started in the late 1900’s and - different and unlike than those - abortion ends another fetal life.
Roe and Casey are overturned and the issue is returned to “the peoples elected representatives.”
As Scalia said, “ The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.“
Abortion is still controversial.
TL/DR version - each point is repeated and explained in greater detail in the body of the opinion, but this is a summary of Alito’s summary:
Abortion is controversial.
Prior to Roe, Constitution did not address or impact abortion. The states made the laws. 30 states prohibited all abortion. Others had lesser restrictions too.
Roe then used substantive due process to say the Constitution grants a right to abortion. Cited Constitutionally-irrelevant and incorrect information to set out trimester rules, based on fetal viability, about when a state could and could not make laws to protect fetal life/potential life.
Casey case came along. 4 judges said dump Roe. Two said keep it as is. 3 said legal basis of Roe is bad, but stare decisis means we uphold its ruling that a state cannot protect life or potential life before viability. Casey then said a state cant create an “undue burden” on the right to abortion.
This did not end the controversy. State law restrictions still differ and, as part of this case, 26 states have said “overturn Roe and let states decide.”
14th Amendment provides and protects some rights if they are fundamental to liberty and “deeply rooted” in history and tradition, such as sex, contraception, and marriage. But not abortion. To the contrary, abortion rights only started in the late 1900’s and - different and unlike than those - abortion ends another fetal life.
Roe and Casey are overturned and the issue is returned to “the peoples elected representatives.”
As Scalia said, “ The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.“
Abortion is still controversial.
This ruling will not change that. I have seen a meme on Facebook of "if you are a woman who desperately wants to go on an out of state 'camping' trip, I am available to take you and promise never to discuss our 'camping'.
I think Texas has a law against that. I suspect other states will follow Texas. So here is a question, can a state make it illegal to visit another state to do something legal there? Can you be arrested for gambling in Vegas? Visiting a brothel in Reno? Even going out of a dry county to drink?
There is going to be a lot more dust thrown up before we have some sort of established norm, and that dust will be more controversy.
It's going to boil down to fetal personhood. If states pass laws protecting fetal personhood I can't imagine how a woman and her accomplices won't be prosecuted for whatever level of crime they make abortion in the outlawing state. Even if done out of state.
What.a.mess.
Not so sure about that. If murder is legal in KY and I commit murder in KY, I'm not sure IN can prosecute me for it, can they?
This is where the gambling example comes in. In Indiana you are technically breaking the law hosting a poker game (for money) or an NCAA pool. Gencon used to have a poker tournament with proceeds going to a charity, they got the cease and desist order.
So in Texas' view, Indiana could charge people stepping off a flight from Vegas. I wonder how the court will rule on Texas because upholding it is going to open massive problems.
No, not buying it. Indiana can't prosecute me for breaking Kentucky laws. Neither can they prosecute me for breaking Indiana laws in Kentucky.
Edit to add: extradiction very well could come into play though.
For the Court, especially this Court, to rule otherwise is impossible to imagine. To do so would mean they've gone totally rogue.
