3 ms·

Before people overreact to things, realize that it's completely illegal for a state to make a law that says "you can't go to another state for abortions". The s

Before people overreact to things, realize that it's completely illegal for a state to make a law that says "you can't go to another state for abortions". The supreme court has signaled as such that they wouldn't support any such ruling and would strike it down as illegal. That violates interstate commerce clause which is exclusively the domain of the federal government. States can't war with each other.

sterlind 4y ago
Kavanaugh suggested that in his concurring opinion, but that's one justice, and it was a 6-3 decision, and he could change his mind. the Court could well find that bans on out-of-state abortions are necessary to properly enforce state abortion bans, or uphold a ban on facilitating travel since that occurs inside a state's borders, or that the commerce clause needs to be reigned in anyway, and gee, what an opportune moment to revisit that bit of precedent too. given how the Court just ruled in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, doing nothing but (incorrectly) picking and choosing precedent that supported the outcome they wanted, I'd put approximately zero stock in this Court to be internally consistent whatsoever. except for Gorsuch.
- mlindner 4y ago
  It wasn't a 6-3 decision. It was a 5-4 decision for overruling Roe v Wade. Roberts wanted a more narrow ruling and was against overruling Roe v Wade. Roberts wrote a Concurrence in judgement, not a full concurrence, and did not joint the majority opinion.
vlovich123 4y ago
And yet as far as I know Texas’ law hasn’t been overturned which accomplishes this in effect. For now I remain highly skeptical. These same justices claimed they would respect precedent during their confirmation hearings.
- mlindner 4y ago
  Because the courts take time. The ruling is hardly a week old. It's going to take years for things to settle.

3 ms·

Before people overreact to things, realize that it's completely illegal for a state to make a law that says "you can't go to another state for abortions". The s

by mlindner 4y ago

sterlind 4y ago
Kavanaugh suggested that in his concurring opinion, but that's one justice, and it was a 6-3 decision, and he could change his mind. the Court could well find that bans on out-of-state abortions are necessary to properly enforce state abortion bans, or uphold a ban on facilitating travel since that occurs inside a state's borders, or that the commerce clause needs to be reigned in anyway, and gee, what an opportune moment to revisit that bit of precedent too. given how the Court just ruled in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, doing nothing but (incorrectly) picking and choosing precedent that supported the outcome they wanted, I'd put approximately zero stock in this Court to be internally consistent whatsoever. except for Gorsuch.
- mlindner 4y ago
  It wasn't a 6-3 decision. It was a 5-4 decision for overruling Roe v Wade. Roberts wanted a more narrow ruling and was against overruling Roe v Wade. Roberts wrote a Concurrence in judgement, not a full concurrence, and did not joint the majority opinion.
vlovich123 4y ago
And yet as far as I know Texas’ law hasn’t been overturned which accomplishes this in effect. For now I remain highly skeptical. These same justices claimed they would respect precedent during their confirmation hearings.
- mlindner 4y ago
  Because the courts take time. The ruling is hardly a week old. It's going to take years for things to settle.