No. No he doesn't. He simply doesn't have that right. It's not even disputable.
Sorry, you'll have to bring back the Fugitive Slave Act first.
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
407 points (98.1% liked)
politics
18863 readers
3936 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Don't give the Supreme Court ideas...
It would literally have to go to SCOTUS because it is simply not legal on the state level to charge people with crimes they didn't commit in that state. Marijuana is not legal in Indiana. You can't prosecute someone for buying and smoking it in Michigan or Illinois.
And I don't think even SCOTUS would mess with that. They're evil but they're not that crazy.
This is why the crime is facilitation, because facilitation takes place in state. It's designed purposefully and fully hypocritically to ignore the rights of other states to set their own law.
There is no crime to facilitate. If something is illegal in one state and you cross the state line to do it, you are explicitly avoiding committing a crime.
The crime (stupid as it is) is getting an abortion in Alabama. No one facilitated that because it didn't happen.
If you drive from a dry country to a wet one to buy beer, no one will be able to charge you with anything. There are exceptions in federal law for leaving the US to commit felonies (like child prostitution), but those are more serious and on the federal level.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
That was the first thing that came to mind. Another example: many states have laws against gambling. If you lived in one of those states and took a trip to Vegas, could your home state prosecute you for gambling in another state? If your neighbor paid for your Vegas trip, could they be prosecuted for engaging in a criminal conspiracy?
People don't seem to grasp what fascism means. There's no "right" here at this point to even dispute.
There is zero chance this is legal. It 100% violates the commerce clause.
If this were legal, he could prosecute Southwest for flying people to Vegas to gamble. He could prosecute United for flying people to Denver to smoke weed.
If this were legal, he could prosecute Southwest for flying people to Vegas to gamble. He could prosecute United for flying people to Denver to smoke weed.
Give it time.
Historically the government loses against wealthy companies.
DAWG. You can't champion states rights and then punish your constituents for availing themselves of another state's laws. Unless you're some kind of hypocrite...
Interstate commerce is regulated by federal government; they could block this easily but Republicans are filibustering any attempt.
If I were a Democrat and I saw that 6–3 Supreme Court, I would be very wary of attempting anything involving interstate commerce. The Supreme Court clearly has no regard for precedent or consistency anymore, the last thing I want to do is call attention to one of the most potent weapons I have for checking the powers of state governments and the executive branch.
That would be the quickest way to destroy every red state's infrastructure funding and blue states could easily retaliate saying that they don't recognize driver's licenses from red states and won't let in the so-called citizens without a passport.
This is a particularly dumb move given that the states likeliest to produce the greatest number of climate change refugees over the next few decades are Texas and Florida; the Northeastern states would be perfectly delighted to have a legal excuse to shut the door on them.
What makes you think blue states could get away with the same bullshit as red states? The only standards in play are double standards.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Interesting that he's calling it a "criminal conspiracy". To this non-lawyer, it looks like an attempt to distract from Trump's high-profile case, and make it seem like anything is a criminal conspiracy now.
Standard GOP MO. As soon as the Dems accuse (credibly) a Republican of wrongdoing, the GOP floods the airwaves with talking-heads using the same language to dilute the meaning for the intellectually-challenged that make up their viewership. They did it for "coup", "insurrection", "quid pro quo", etc. It's all part of DARVO.
DARVO?
DARVO is the acronym for the abuser's tactics:
- Deny ("I didn't hit you.")
- Attack ("You deserved to be hit.")
- Reverse Victim and Offender ("You made me hit you!")
Cool, TIL, thank you
Deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender. Basically the GOP handbook
Why does this feel all Fugitive Slave Act…?
Because this is basically the same thing as the Fugitive Slave Act. Just swap slaves for pregnant women.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Republicans want to rule you. They don't have popular ideas and the majority of American citizens don't agree with them.
Stop voting for Republicans, they don't believe in our democracy.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Can we officially define republicans as not the party of small government?
Also not the party of personal responsibility or fiscal responsibility either.
And they're DEFINITELY not the "Party of Lincoln" anyone.
Between this and flat out ignoring the supreme court when they don't like the ruling, Alabama Republicans are really pushing for a constitutional crisis.
"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."
We've been in the 'constitutional crisis' stage for awhile now
The Union should have scorched earthed the South when they had the chance.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Whatever happened to these state rights that the GOP keep hounding on about? Almost like they've been making bad faith arguments all this time and just really want to criminalize it throughout the whole country...
load more comments
(1 replies)
He also has the right to go fuck himself
Notable, since the most-ardent anti-abortionists are always those nobody else would fuck.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You know what, if we're just saying anything we want I have the right to kick you in the fucken teeth.
Does that apply to only residents of Alabama? Or fetuses conceived in Alabama? Or pregnant women that stepped foot in Alabama? These laws make no sense.
Yeah but also as humans we have the right to literally do anything we want to people like this guy. ...anything at all.
It's about time Americans start understanding they are humans and can do anything to these psychotic inhuman greedy assholes.
This is the key understanding right here.
Piece of fucking shit
Know what I would do if I were a billionaire? I'd fund cases fighting these clowns. Hundreds of challenges to these stupid asshats like the "Scopes Monkey Trial" (which was a test case, designed to kill a law, if you didn't know). But then again, no one who believes in actual altruism becomes a billionaire, so this is sort of fantasy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Alabama’s Republican attorney general said in a court filing that he has the right to prosecute people who make travel arrangements for pregnant women to have out-of-state abortions.
The court filing comes in response to lawsuits against Marshall that was filed in July from two women’s health centers and Yellowhammer Fund, an organization which says it provides “financial and practical support for those who are pregnant and require assistance.” The plaintiffs argue that Marshall violated their constitutional rights by publicly stating that organizations which help pregnant women in Alabama get an abortion out of state could be criminally investigated.
Marshall is now asking Judge Myron Thompson to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that helping a woman avoid Alabama’s restrictions by facilitating an abortion elsewhere is a conspiracy.
“The conspiracy is what is being punished, even if the final conduct never occurs,” Marshall’s filing states.
In the wake of the Dobbs Supreme Court decision last summer, several Republican-led states passed strict anti-abortion laws, while several others, including Alabama, that had passed so-called trigger laws anticipating an eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade saw their new restrictions go into effect.
Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, who wrote on X Wednesday, “California will NOT cooperate with any state that attempts to prosecute women or doctors for receiving or providing reproductive care.”
The original article contains 318 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 32%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
These anti-abortion politicians seem to be competing with each other for who can be the most outrageous.
Sounds like a violation of the Commerce Clause to me!
view more: next ›