Explain it to me like I'm five (Roe vs Wade overturned)

7,301 Views | 86 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by agracer
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Kvetch said:

With the vast expansion of the federal government using the commerce clause, you could probably justify a federal law with one case of a person crossing state lines for an abortion.

Or maybe this court would start reversing some of the garbage federal powers gained through that clause. Seems like a win-win to me.
Crossing state lines was addressed by Kavanaugh in his concurrence. There is a constitutional right to interstate travel already, so states trying to stop that would run afoul of this doctrine.
_mpaul
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Kvetch said:

With the vast expansion of the federal government using the commerce clause, you could probably justify a federal law with one case of a person crossing state lines for an abortion.

Or maybe this court would start reversing some of the garbage federal powers gained through that clause. Seems like a win-win to me.
Frankly, the ridiculous scope of the ICC is my biggest concern in the states' ability to limit the power of the federal government.
Kvetch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
twk said:

Kvetch said:

With the vast expansion of the federal government using the commerce clause, you could probably justify a federal law with one case of a person crossing state lines for an abortion.

Or maybe this court would start reversing some of the garbage federal powers gained through that clause. Seems like a win-win to me.
Crossing state lines was addressed by Kavanaugh in his concurrence. There is a constitutional right to interstate travel already, so states trying to stop that would run afoul of this doctrine.


I was referring to federal ban. Not states prohibiting interstate travel for abortion.
LSB_2002
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No more baby killin, unless your state has provided that ability.....
agsfan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

agsfan said:

Does this mean the states authority to legislate basically any medical procedure? If the state of Texas decided to pass a law banning vasectomies for people under the age of 30, would that hold up?
No. The majority specifically states it only applies to abortion, period.


I get that point. But the overall point that an abortion was never mentioned in the constitution, thus it isn't a right, seems like it will end up being used when it comes to other issues. Thomas said as much in his opinion.

I think abortion is abhorrent in most cases, so I'm not upset about today's opinion. Just wondering what this means going forward.
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Kvetch said:

twk said:

Kvetch said:

With the vast expansion of the federal government using the commerce clause, you could probably justify a federal law with one case of a person crossing state lines for an abortion.

Or maybe this court would start reversing some of the garbage federal powers gained through that clause. Seems like a win-win to me.
Crossing state lines was addressed by Kavanaugh in his concurrence. There is a constitutional right to interstate travel already, so states trying to stop that would run afoul of this doctrine.


I was referring to federal ban. Not states prohibiting interstate travel for abortion.
OK. There is no constitutional power for Congress to ban abortion, even if people cross state lines to do it. That doesn't turn abortion into interstate commerce, although I'm sure someone would argue to the contrary (or already has). This court (including Roberts) has indicated at times that it is going to rein in some of the wildly overbroad commerce clause claims, and I would expect them to be extremely skeptical of such claims with this subject matter.
BlackGoldAg2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
_mpaul said:

Kvetch said:

With the vast expansion of the federal government using the commerce clause, you could probably justify a federal law with one case of a person crossing state lines for an abortion.

Or maybe this court would start reversing some of the garbage federal powers gained through that clause. Seems like a win-win to me.
Frankly, the ridiculous scope of the ICC is my biggest concern in the states' ability to limit the power of the federal government.
gosh, can you imagine how much of the federal government would have to disappear if the ICC scope was reigned back in to something reasonable/defensible...

javajaws
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

javajaws said:

Urban Ag said:

It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.
I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.

They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
That would be great if so. More power to the states is always good. But I'm sure they'll try...
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
agracer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

_mpaul said:

aggiehawg said:

javajaws said:

Urban Ag said:

It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.
I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.

They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
What part of Dobbs makes you think that?

10th Amendment part. Not in the Constitution itself? Goes back to the states. Not within the purview of the federal government.

Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.
Yet the KS Supreme Court did just that in 2019.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
agracer said:

aggiehawg said:

_mpaul said:

aggiehawg said:

javajaws said:

Urban Ag said:

It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.
I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.

They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
What part of Dobbs makes you think that?

10th Amendment part. Not in the Constitution itself? Goes back to the states. Not within the purview of the federal government.

Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.
Yet the KS Supreme Court did just that in 2019.
Link? Context? No idea to which case you are referring.
Loyalty
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ThunderFighter06 said:


What does this mean other than feminazis losing their minds on social media? Already seeing people talking about moving to Europe!
Hope they don't let the door smack em in the ....
wreckncrew
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In a couple states, you can still have an abortion up to birth.
javajaws
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What would stop the feds from passing a federal law that would deny money to states who pass abortion restriction laws? Would any part of this ruling prevent that? Isn't that what the feds do already with other things to force states into compliance?
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
javajaws said:

What would stop the feds from passing a federal law that would deny money to states who pass abortion restriction laws? Would any part of this ruling prevent that? Isn't that what the feds do already with other things to force states into compliance?
There are limits to these carrot and stick laws; some have been struck down. I'm not going to go look those up, but I feel confident in saying that it would not pass scrutiny with this court.
Its Texas Aggies, dammit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Exactly. Like a number of other Supreme Court decisions on controversial issues, a liberal majority of the court made stuff up out of whole cloth that is nowhere in the Constitution.

MouthBQ98 said:

They had a previous court fabricate abortion as a universal federal civil right to privacy. That is has been overturned. Now it is a state level right based on state law.
Its Texas Aggies, dammit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From your lips to God's ears. . .

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

_mpaul said:

Kvetch said:

With the vast expansion of the federal government using the commerce clause, you could probably justify a federal law with one case of a person crossing state lines for an abortion.

Or maybe this court would start reversing some of the garbage federal powers gained through that clause. Seems like a win-win to me.
Frankly, the ridiculous scope of the ICC is my biggest concern in the states' ability to limit the power of the federal government.
gosh, can you imagine how much of the federal government would have to disappear if the ICC scope was reigned back in to something reasonable/defensible...


Daddy-O5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zarathustra said:


I've argued with a few Democrats online. They're mad because they think the Supreme Court outlawed abortion. "Nine people shouldnt decide the law!" When you point out that the Supreme Court just said it's up to the states, they get mad and point out that many states will outlaw abortion. When I tell them welcome to democracy, they get mad and say that the Supreme Court should legalize abortion. Then I point out that they really do want nine people deciding the law, they get mad again.

This is basically every twitter thread I've ever read.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Daddy-O5 said:

Zarathustra said:


I've argued with a few Democrats online. They're mad because they think the Supreme Court outlawed abortion. "Nine people shouldnt decide the law!" When you point out that the Supreme Court just said it's up to the states, they get mad and point out that many states will outlaw abortion. When I tell them welcome to democracy, they get mad and say that the Supreme Court should legalize abortion. Then I point out that they really do want nine people deciding the law, they get mad again.

This is basically every twitter thread I've ever read.


Like children, they just want into have their way by any means.
TAMU1990
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zarathustra said:


I've argued with a few Democrats online. They're mad because they think the Supreme Court outlawed abortion. "Nine people shouldnt decide the law!" When you point out that the Supreme Court just said it's up to the states, they get mad and point out that many states will outlaw abortion. When I tell them welcome to democracy, they get mad and say that the Supreme Court should legalize abortion. Then I point out that they really do want nine people deciding the law, they get mad again.

Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

_mpaul said:

aggiehawg said:

javajaws said:

Urban Ag said:

It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.
I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.

They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
What part of Dobbs makes you think that?

10th Amendment part. Not in the Constitution itself? Goes back to the states. Not within the purview of the federal government.

Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.
1. I agree. Cant be constitutionally protected
2. Disagree that a federal law allowing abortions wont pass federal review.

Seems the court just said its not constitutionally protected. This would be no different than a federal law banning weed.
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Science Denier said:

aggiehawg said:

_mpaul said:

aggiehawg said:

javajaws said:

Urban Ag said:

It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.
I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.

They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
What part of Dobbs makes you think that?

10th Amendment part. Not in the Constitution itself? Goes back to the states. Not within the purview of the federal government.

Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.
1. I agree. Cant be constitutionally protected
2. Disagree that a federal law allowing abortions wont pass federal review.

Seems the court just said its not constitutionally protected. This would be no different than a federal law banning weed.
Drugs are regulated as interstate commerce. Medical procedures not so much. That's the difference.
BrazosDog02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ThunderFighter06 said:


What does this mean other than feminazis losing their minds on social media? Already seeing people talking about moving to Europe!
It means the states will make the decision. It means that there will be laws that strictly and explicitely outline the means, methods, and situations in which abortions can be performed. Let's be clear, they should be allowed, and they will be, we just have to get away from the left wing nuts screaming about "women's rights" and we have to get rid of the dip**** right wingers screaming about "ban all abortions". We have to rid ourselves of the emotional thinkers which is what 98% of this forum is filled with. It also means the GOP will help turn a lot of people into single issue voters, lose a few seats that were locked down for decades, and eventually swing the state blue.

The dumbass Beto only lost by a small percentage. That will likely not be the case in the future. There are a lot of implications for the decision, but those are probably the most pressing and important.
AgFormerlyInIrving
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Explain it to me like I'm five
alternatively, "explain it to me like I'm just barely smarter than your average democrat."
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Drugs are regulated as interstate commerce. Medical procedures not so much. That's the difference.
OK, maybe a bad example.

There are many, many things the federal government does that were originally left to the states. While I wish it would happen, the SC isn't going to overturn all of that.

Federal law that bans/prohibits individual rights as outlined by the constitution is generally what they rule on. Unless the SC rules that the fetus also has guaranteed constitutional rights and literally bans abortion, they won't overturn a law that gives abortion rights to women.

This ruling didn't outlaw abortions. It just said the SC was wrong to make it a constitutional issue.

At least that's how I'm interpreting it.
EKUAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Science Denier said:

Quote:

Drugs are regulated as interstate commerce. Medical procedures not so much. That's the difference.
There are many, many things the federal government does that were originally left to the states. While I wish it would happen, the SC isn't going to overturn all of that.

Federal law that bans/prohibits individual rights as outlined by the constitution is generally what they rule on. Unless the SC rules that the fetus also has guaranteed constitutional rights and literally bans abortion, they won't overturn a law that gives abortion rights to women.

This ruling didn't outlaw abortions. It just said the SC was wrong to make it a constitutional issue.

At least that's how I'm interpreting it.
You are right as to what this opinion says, but the commerce clause argument is totally separate and didn't come up in this case. The Obama administration argued the Commerce Clause as a basis for the individual mandate under Obama care and Roberts slapped that down pretty emphatically, before weaseling out on their alternative argument that it was a tax. I'm willing to bet that arguing that an abortion procedure constitutes interstate commerce won't fly with the current court, whether the Act of Congress purports to legalize abortion or ban it. The majority opinion says that it is up to the States to regulate abortion henceforth.
AzAg80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ThunderFighter06 said:


What does this mean other than feminazis losing their minds on social media? Already seeing people talking about moving to Europe!
So they're moving from Canada to Europe? What did Canada do?

LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
javajaws said:

Urban Ag said:

It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.
that's wrong - it would take a constitutional amendment since abortion is no longer a right

just like the Feds can't pass a simple law mandating how Texas hands out driver licenses.

you think the Congress under Pelosi and Schumer would not have tried to just "pass legislation" if that was the answer?
_mpaul
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LMCane said:

javajaws said:

Urban Ag said:

It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.
that's wrong - it would take a constitutional amendment since abortion is no longer a right

just like the Feds can't pass a simple law mandating how Texas hands out driver licenses.

you think the Congress under Pelosi and Schumer would not have tried to just "pass legislation" if that was the answer?
They tried after the opinion was leaked. Manchion wouldn't go for it so they didn't have the votes. If they can come up with some other basis for authority, it's possible. Remember, the government thinks it has authority to stop a single farmer from growing wheat on his own property for his own livestock under the Interstate Commerce Clause, so don't put it past them. Regardless, since when are those two turds concerned about whether a law actually violates the Constitution?
Burdizzo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Urban Ag said:

It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.


So the state regulates abortions like they regulate hair and nail salons
Proc92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So, when a state like Cali legalizes abortion up to birth or even 30 days thereafter, who will be able to bring a challenge on behalf of the baby to say the Cali abortion law deprives them of their right to life under the us constitution and Cali constitution?
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

agracer said:

aggiehawg said:

_mpaul said:

aggiehawg said:

javajaws said:

Urban Ag said:

It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.
I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.

They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
What part of Dobbs makes you think that?

10th Amendment part. Not in the Constitution itself? Goes back to the states. Not within the purview of the federal government.

Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.
Yet the KS Supreme Court did just that in 2019.
Link? Context? No idea to which case you are referring.

Given the context of this discussion and the year referenced, I'm guessing it's Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt. https://www.kscourts.org/KSCourts/media/KsCourts/Opinions/114153.pdf?ext=.pdf
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Proc92 said:

So, when a state like Cali legalizes abortion up to birth or even 30 days thereafter, who will be able to bring a challenge on behalf of the baby to say the Cali abortion law deprives them of their right to life under the us constitution and Cali constitution?
Anyone can challenge state laws. I just wonder when the NY abortion law that allows killing a baby already born will be challenged. Maybe they were waiting for this one to get thru.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Anyone can challenge state laws


This is false
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BMX Bandit said:

Quote:

Anyone can challenge state laws


This is false
Not "literally" anyone.
Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.