[czstar]

We will soon be a country where an act is legal in one city and a death penalty offense in another. This is an absurdity and such a state of affairs is not conducive to having a properly functioning society. It is not hyperbole to say that the Supreme Court’s direction portends chaos.

Consider this scenario. A woman in Texas goes to New Mexico and gets an abortion. The doctor that performs the abortion later decides to fly to Tennessee. The first leg of the trip involves a layover in Houston. Can the doctor get arrested for murder in Houston? Will people have to be careful where they travel now?

What the Court did was take away a right that women have had for over 50 years. What they did is to say that states are free to take away a right. This is an astounding action by the Court. The access to a healthcare procedure will now be at the whim of state or federal legislatures? When talking about the legal ramifications of the Courts decision it is hard to speak hyperbolically. One member of the Court openly said the right to have consensual sex, the right to birth control, and the right to marry freely should be overturned.

[OrangeMonkey]

This is a divisive issue for many so I think we should be kind in our replies.

In that vein, I disagree with a few points you stated.

We, in the US, are a nation of states. It has always been the case that laws differ from state to state. Consider a legal gun owner in one state that does business in another - if he keeps his weapon on him in a restricted state, he will be jailed and possibly face prison. This fact - that we are a collection of states - was an important consideration to the forming of the united states as a whole. I would argue that the increasing federalization of laws is likely the opposite of historic norms in the united states.

I know this does not help if you feel strongly about this - and many do. In this ruling, which has impacted so many, the court did not take away a right. The court stated that it had taken away the power of the people and created a law where none existed.

If we, the people, dislike this then we petition our government to change the laws. . . and we start in our state. Today - literally today - I can call up my state reps office and schedule a lunch or a chat with her. I have, in the past, done just that.

If the current laws bother you, and I think they do, then you should absolutely do the same. Look - its one of the great parts of America.

I hope you have a good day man.

[joshka]

> In this ruling, which has impacted so many, the court did not take away a right. The court stated that it had taken away the power of the people and created a law where none existed.

This ignores the fact that the previous status quo was that not that the court had taken away the power, but that the court had recognized that a inalienable right existed based on the 14th amendment, and as such was not something that the states had power to legislate. This is not the creation of a law, but an interpretation of it. See Roe at p33 [1]

Given that we as a society have for 50 years believed that we had such an INALIENABLE right, that a court of any regard can take such a right away is pure nonsense.

I guess the easiest question to ask of you is do you "OrangeMonkey" believe in an inalienable right to privacy, whether it's enumerated explicitly or not in the constitution. Because this all falls on that singular point regardless of the outcome on Roe / Dobbs. As a male, Dobbs doesn't directly affect me in its impact of whether I can have an abortion. But it affects my understanding of what the state can or cannot do with respect to my private actions. See Roe at para 77 [2] and especially para 117 [3].:

   In the words of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Great concepts like . . . 'liberty' . . . were purposely left to gather meaning from experience. For they relate to the whole domain of social and economic fact, and the statesmen who founded this Nation knew too well that only a stagnant society remains unchanged.

One of Dobbs effects is that the 14th amendment is narrowly constructed to only mean as much as "liberty" could possibly mean when it was passed. There is much ado about the concept of "ordered liberty", which although it explores did not exist in the framer's construction. Dobbs claims that the court does not have the ability to interpret the idea of liberty with respect to the context of society (that is overwhelmingly pro-choice). When interpretation is the entire rationale for the courts existence, this point is particularly ridiculous.

[1]: Roe v Wade. para 33. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#p33

[2]: Roe v Wade. para 77. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#p77

[3]: Roe v Wade. para 114. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#p117

[czstar]

Thank you for your response.

Euclidean geometry is a vast subject with many theorems. Those theorems are logical consequences of the 5 axioms of Euclidean geometry. Just 5 statements are the basis for a large number of logical consequences. Imagine then how many logical consequences are possible from the many statements of the U.S. Constitution.

There is no explicit right to an abortion stated in the U.S. Constitution but courts 50 years ago said that this healthcare procedure can’t be completely outlawed. They enshrined it as a right. It has been a right for 50 years. Now it is not. I talked with a conservative justice on a state Supreme Court many years ago. He told me that the legal basis for Roe had slowly been established by precedents over the years. He did not say whether or not he agreed with those precedents. I’m just pointing out that the expansion of the rights of women to an abortion was not without a well reasoned path. Sort like how after enough theorems one can see that then sum of the degrees of a triangle is 180 degrees.

There have been historical variations in laws between states. Slavery is the quintessential example of this and it led to the Civil War. If there is too much variation on the legal protections between the states this can lead to chaos. The Court should be in the business to equalizing rights across the nation and not diminishing them. The Court is in the process of trying to equalize the rights to guns across the nation. While I oppose the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment most people have it should be equalized across the nation. This is particularly true since travel is so much easier now than in the past.

We will soon live in a country where an act is legal in one city and a death penalty offense in another. The last time that happened we ended up in a civil war. I don’t believe we will end up with a civil war over abortion but I can see liberal states telling Texas to go ahead an secede when Texas declares their right to do so (as they have done at various times over the past 40 years).

The Court’s action is extremely divisive and I don’t think state legislatures should have to right to limit medical procedures. Let’s assume we both agree that at conception the embryo is a human being with all the accompanying rights. I don’t think state legislatures should able to force a person to risk their life to save that embryo. Should legislatures have to the right to force me to donate blood to someone or donate a kidney to save someone? I think not. Legislatures should not have the right to force women to risk their lives to save an unborn child.

We disagree strongly on this issue. We disagree on the role of the Court. There are major power imbalances with regard to the power distribution among the states. These structural problems are coming to the fore due to results like overturning abortion. Such is my view.

I hope you have a good day too. I will read any response you make but won’t respond further. I doubt you will convince me my position is wrong and I doubt I’ll convince you but it is fruitful to read other peoples’ opinions.

[salawat]

Now you know first hand why Thomas Jefferson so feared the Judiciary/Supreme Court. This is exactly the type of destabilizing effect it can have. There is tremendous power vested in largely unaccountable, unelected Justices, such that they could be wielded as a tool by one party or another to instill one view or another over the populace with no recourse.

The Courts are the nuclear option in our System, and disturbingly, people have been looking more and more to them as the way to get things their way in the abscence of a non-assenting populace. I fear that our common law system may have too much to it to be reasonably refactored without some serious innovation in the space of jurisprudence, or to be accepted without giving widespread access to every last citation and point of historical fact that weighs into one particular decision or another by the Court.

The crows must come home to roost in the Justice System at some point. If we can't agree on the facts at the Federal level, we've got bigger issues, and we've got a tragic contention for having historically factual evidence honored for acts of the judiciary, and the need for a judiciary that can collate and parse those facts fast enough to make decisions within a reasonable timeframe without Yoloing it. Trying to do that though, increasingly feels to me like work more appropriately done by the legislature.

Perhaps there needs to be a sort of link between the legislative and judiciary as far as facilities for research? Both seem to be in dire need of the same thing.

[czstar]

I agree that the system is in need of reforms. I’m nit insightful enough to know what those reforms should be but I definitely agree that things are amiss.

[hereme888]

While I think your view of what will happen is exaggerated, I think the overall situation shows the reality of how much division there is between states and parties.

[jacamera]

> Will people have to be careful where they travel now?

It seems pretty clear to me that in your scenario Texas wouldn't have jurisdiction over anything that happens outside its border. I'm certainly not a lawyer though and would be interested to hear if there is any precedent that says otherwise.

[fortytwo79]

Isn't this already the case with marijuana? Legal in one state, if you travel with it to another state, but make a stop in an illegal state, you can go to jail?

I don't know much about laws on that topic, but it seems to be a similar case to me.

[OrangeMonkey]

I think its better stated as:

* If you buy something legal in one state

* and you then travel to another state (where its illegal) with that item

* then you have broken the law and can go to jail.

Its not the doing something in state-a and then traveling to state-b. Its the traveling to state-b with something illegal in state-b.

Does that make more sense?

[salawat]

Crossing state lines with marijuana elevates your offense to the Federal level, regardless of the legality situation in the source and destination states.

Federally, marijuana transport across state lines is still trafficking in illegal narcotics. That the States don't help enforce it doesn't change a thing.

Not a lawyer, just read books, mind.

[krapp]

>It seems pretty clear to me that in your scenario Texas wouldn't have jurisdiction over anything that happens outside its border.

States enforce laws across state lines all the time, doing so for abortion - now considered a crime - would be no different. Several states, including Texas, have or are attempting to pass laws making it illegal to cross state lines to obtain an abortion. South Carolina is banning websites which describe how to get an abortion. So this affects not only freedom of travel, but freedom of speech.

[OrangeMonkey]

I would assume, perhaps rightly perhaps wrongly, that in your example Texas does not have jurisdiction and would be a third party to that action. The state government could act against an individual for something they did in their state, or the federal government could conceivably act, but not other uninvolved states.

In both of your examples, the states are controlling the behavior of people in those states. Texas is controlling people in its state (and leaving). South Carolina would be banning things brought into its state (information). I think both of these examples, if they are as plainly stated as you mentioned, are illegal for different reasons (interstate commerce clause) but I wouldn't think this is an example of states policing actions that happened in other states.

[czstar]

Texas will claim jurisdiction since in its eyes a citizen was murdered. Whether or not it stands legal challenges I can not say. Would you be willing to risk arrest if you were a doctor in New Mexico and a Texas resident comes to you for an abortion? Even the threat of arrest has consequences on peoples’ actions.

[jacamera]

> Texas will claim jurisdiction since in its eyes a citizen was murdered.

But this just isn't how it works, right? "Claiming" jurisdiction I mean. Take your previous example but instead imagine the woman from Texas took a trip with her husband to New Mexico and paid a hitman to murder him during the trip. The suspected hitman would most certainly be arrested on a layover in Texas (or any other state) but that state wouldn't have jurisdiction to prosecute for a murder that happened in New Mexico. The suspect would instead be extradited to New Mexico to face charges there.

> Would you be willing to risk arrest if you were a doctor in New Mexico and a Texas resident comes to you for an abortion? Even the threat of arrest has consequences on peoples’ actions.

I certainly agree there and definitely cannot speak to the risk assessment that abortion providers might unfortunately be contending with but I can't imagine that this will remain a question for long. Federal courts definitely do not like legal ambiguities between states.

[steanne]

>> Texas will claim jurisdiction since in its eyes a citizen was murdered.

>But this just isn't how it works, right? "Claiming" jurisdiction I mean.

yes, that's exactly what might happen.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/15/1111383520/texas-abortion-law...

[moistly]

> The suspect would instead be extradited to New Mexico to face charges there.

Only because the two states have the same law regarding murder.

More comparable would be the prosecution of internationally-travelled kiddy-diddlers. Though the laws in the foreign country may have allowed such behaviour, itis illegal in the US and the prosecution will be in the US. The diddler is not extradited to the permissive country.

[salawat]

He could be charged with aiding and abetting, but venue would almost certainly have to elevate to the Federal courts, as they have jurisdiction over inter-state parties. This would boil down in each case to an interstate dispute.

Thereby, my most pessimum view would be if you run an abortion clinic, it may well behoove you to not take certain routes if you'd like to avoid being a test case for interstate judicial proceedings until the Federal legislature sorts things out, or a Constitutional Amendment is ratified by 2/3 of the States. It blows, but that's Government of, by, and for the People.

Absolutely nothing says the People's definition of reasonable is going to mesh with any one person's.

Not a lawyer, just read books, mind.

[jacamera]

This all makes sense. On the flip side I'd imagine that there are some abortion clinic operators who are already strategizing with legal foundations to deliberately bring an ideal test case as soon as possible in order to establish a favorable precedent.

[salawat]

The thing that kills me, is that our legal system has turned into a chilling effect factory, because laws will be on the books, but prosecutors will often cherry pick or drop cases to avoid having an explicit counter precedent established. Nevermind that precedent is roughly equivalent to a longer term executive order in nature.

At some point, our system has started to look more like a system mutated through jurisprudence, rather than through sane collective action via legislation, which seems to be held up by the political machinations of special interest groups/the two main political parties, and less accessible/approachable by most constituents apparently; which leaves these types of judiciary precedent golf games to be the seemingly more accessible form of legal landscape change.

We're looking more like a country ruled by judges than by anything resembling some sort of sense in terms of how we architected the Government.

I'm not even sure I could pinpoint where the specific hangup is, or suggest a reasonable change without several years to really absorb the structural aspects of the system, and painstakingly listing out the inputs/outputs.