Not necessarily. The underlying foundation to the Conservative’s fight to repeal Roe V. Wade doesn’t have anything to do with state border lines, does it? No. Not really. It seems to me that it has everything to do with ownership.
If you are pregnant in, say, Tennessee and drive to, say, Illinois to terminate said pregnancy then you return to Tennessee with one less living being in the car.
A state that wants to guarantee that nobody will cross state lines to get an abortion will be a state that legislates ownership over the body of a pregnant woman. She returns without the baby? She’s guilty of murder.
Lest we all think that’s an outlandish leap, think very carefully about some of the bigger and splashier cases in the media in the last few years.
Scott Peterson is not guilty of one count of murder. He’s guilty of two. And so on. If the umbrella coverage that Roe V. Wade offers women is removed, then states are free to exercise considerable judgement over what they do or do not feel is life.
If nobody in the judicial system is worried about controlling a woman’s right to chose whether or not she is pregnant, why there would be zero fuss over RU 486. However, we can see from this timeline cited that this is clearly not the case.
Now, I’m just an old country chicken, but I think the prohibition is to inserting an entire copyrighted article. We all include excerpts all the time, and thats copascetic. I suppose, technically, you could include the whole text of an article save for a word or two at the end, but then you’d be in violation of the “Don’t Be Cute!” rule.
Can you identify a single case where one state has prosecuted someone for commiting murder in another state? Because that is the issue that you are not addressing. Peterson killed his wife and her fetus in California, and that is where he was prosecuted. To make your analogy work, we’d have to assume that he lived in Oregon, took the pregnant wife to California, and returned alone. Now Oregon can prosecute him for murder?
So what? You deduced that Scalia would restric freedom of speech from the impress you got that he was "proud’? Look, if you’ve got specific quotes to back up your claims, let see 'em. I never doubted that articles existed, I only doubted only your cartoon version of Scalia’s jduicial opinions. So far you have given us not one single fact to back up your claims.
Yeah, OK, John, but there’s more to it than that, there’s a human dimension to the issue of Scalia, an aesthetic dimension: Justice Scalia is the ugliest white man on Earth. And if Mike Tyson suddenly dies, well, that’s that, isn’t it? He looks like a constipated horny toad, like Yoda with a shitty attitude. When he was a child, Helen Keller sicced her dog on him. (You could look it up!)
Of course I cannot. This Debate is about what will happen when Ms. O’Connor steps down- and now because time marches forward, what will happen when Mr. Rhenquist steps down as well and two vacancies are filled by our President.
The analogy cannot work now because Roe V. Wade has not yet been repealed- and states have not enacted laws making it a crime to abort a baby in another state just because they have outlawed abortions in their own state.
Before I get jumped for making suppositions that cannot be backed up by cite, consider this:
It’s 1994. We’re all happily posting in here. ( Let’s assume the SDMB existed in present form then ). I say in this thread, " You guys just wait, the day is coming when sexual offenders who prey on children will have to let the states keep track of them by registering their whereabouts and allowing their addresses to be known by local law enforcement folks. That means that EVERYBODY in town will know where the rapist lives. Not only that, but I bet someday, a state will enact a law demanding that if a convicted sex offender lives in their state, they have to permit a small tracking device to be embedded under their skin or locked around their ankle to track their whereabouts for the rest of their lives.
In 1994, I might be called on bullshit. Might I familiarize some of you with the group of so-called Megan’s Laws? And, furthermore, might I remind readers of the recent legislative efforts in the State of Florida?
Florida’s Sex Offender GPS Tracking Law. In fact, Florida AND Oklahoma has passed these laws. New York, New Jersey ( where Megan’s Law originated ) and Pennsylvania are also considering similar laws.
And here, for those who want to read the foundation cite, is Megan’s Law, in it’s entirety, courtesy of the State of New Jersey.
So. A fairly amazing set of laws, no? 10 years ago it’d have been almost unbelievable to consider such. And now, a few states have made it the law of the land and more are soberly considering them.
In the context of these past cites, it is not at all unreasonable to say that while no state has made it a crime to abort a child across state lines and then return to your home state without your living fetus within you because of an active choice you made when out of state, that doesn’t mean it is not beyond the realm of believable to think it will happen once Roe V. Wade is dismantled.
My position is that it is not only not beyond the realm of believable, but to be entirely expected. A patchwork of deeply conservative states will immediately ban all abortions and then enact laws very similar to the ones I describe here.
That’s really as far as I needed to read. So in addition to changing its reading of the 14th Amendment, you predict that a change in justices will result in changes in basic assumptions of criminal law, state sovereignty, and the right to travel. And in support of this rather ambitious claim you’ve got . . . nuthin. :rolleyes: ::slowly backs away::
Since this thread is pretty wide ranging, I started a new one with some questions I had about the proper role of ideology in opposing judicial nominations. I invite everyone to respond.
Results should be what we expect from the legislature. If we expect the judiciary to return results over process, then we are ceding far too much power to them.
Their job is to interpret the law. That’s a process. The legislature’s job is to create the law. That’s a result.
People, on both sides of the aisle, tend to value results over process.