Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

I say it's time for another Civil War...

At this point. It’s either peaceful separation or That. The US has virtually no reason to exist in its current state. Why should California and Kentucky share a country at this point?

[Hannibal]

Well, that's coincidental. It's fairly obvious the Civil War remade the US into more of a "Federal" power country -- it certainly marked a turning point and reformulation of persons perceptions from more of a confederation to a real country. But the more massive growth obviously occured under FDR. And as a matter of Constitutional construction, it was primarily a commerce clause issue (as noted). As a matter of politics, which is what should underlie most if not all policy decisions, it was the shift from States to Federal.

As for actual voting laws -- since that's what Geezer was talking about -- it's actually the 15th A which is explicit. It's not the 14th A. And, again, that's a negative right -- it's not an allocation of power.

FDR was a disaster and so was the Warren Court.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Alright, so we're going to get this civics shit right. If the Federal Government recognizes something as a freedom the question for the Courts is whether they have the legislative authority to pass such restriction on States and that question will require, at some point, an connection to interstate commerce. The 14th Amendment doesn't just pick up rights that Congress legislates. That's not the way it works.

States can be restricted by (a) the 14th A if their actions infringe the terms of that Amendment or the BoR incorporated thereagainst the states; or (b) by an Act of Congress assuming that Congress has the authority to act.

WRT to (b), e.g., in the DOMA case there were two key points. There was an equal protection argument, but before that the Court noted that states almost exclusively determine marriage laws. So, Congress was wading into an area where they had no real authority and then were doing so in a way that targeted a class of folks.

So, with abortion, I'm a little on the fence about the authority of Congress to either (a) declare it legal or (b) declare it illegal. We're fundamentally talking about the States' police powers and those are pretty much bedrock 10th A shit. I could probably conjure up some sort of interstate commerce connection, but in my heart, I think it's a State issue. I'm not wed to it, but that's where I am. And that's where I'd be if (when) the Rs take control of Congress and try to pass some nonsense on the issue.

A number of states are actively trying to introduce laws that prevent women from traveling to get abortions or criminally punish anyone who helps them leave the state to get an abortion. Texas lawmakers sent Sidley Austin a threatening letter telling them they will introduce legislation that criminally punishes employers if they cover the coasts of employee travel outside the state to get an abortion. AND threatened to recommended top attorneys at the firm for disbarment. South Carolina has a bill being written that would make it illegal in South Carolina to inform someone how to get an abortion outside the state, including a ban on websites posting such information.

I just think the argument that this isn't an interstate commerce issue is going to get tougher.

[Hannibal]

Talent — there is a pretty strong argument that the Federal Government can ban abortion because abortion deprives the unborn of their 5th Amendment right to not be deprived of life without due process. It’s a gray area, but definitely less of a Creative Writing exercise than the decisions that abused the “Interstate Commerce” clause or the 14yh Amendment to expand the power and scope of government.

[iam416]

A number of states are actively trying to introduce laws that prevent women from traveling to get abortions or criminally punish anyone who helps them leave the state to get an abortion. Texas lawmakers sent Sidley Austin a threatening letter telling them they will introduce legislation that criminally punishes employers if they cover the coasts of employee travel outside the state to get an abortion. AND threatened to recommended top attorneys at the firm for disbarment. South Carolina has a bill being written that would make it illegal in South Carolina to inform someone how to get an abortion outside the state, including a ban on websites posting such information.

I just think the argument that this isn't an interstate commerce issue is going to get tougher.

They can deal with the interstate commerce aspect of it, but that's it. Furthermore, States don't have the authority to act like that anyway. Those laws will get tossed.

So, yeah, Congress can pass a law saying that States can't prohibit travel to another State to get an abortion -- that has a feasible interstate commerce angle.

[Hannibal]

They can deal with the interstate commerce aspect of it, but that's it. Furthermore, States don't have the authority to act like that anyway. Those laws will get tossed.

So, yeah, Congress can pass a law saying that States can't prohibit travel to another State to get an abortion -- that has a feasible interstate commerce angle.

I expect them to get tossed, but the schadenfreude if they don’t? Heh. Oh man.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Sorry to interrupt for an unrelated story but this doesn't seem a good thing for a Trump ATTORNEY to have put in WRITING

*************************

In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word “fake” to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome. And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny.

“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that “‘alternative’ votes is probably a better term than ‘fake’ votes,” adding a smiley face emoji. 😊


Emails Reveal Details of Trump Fake Electors Plan - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[iam416]

Talent — there is a pretty strong argument that the Federal Government can ban abortion because abortion deprives the unborn of their 5th Amendment right to not be deprived of life without due process. It’s a gray area, but definitely less of a Creative Writing exercise than the decisions that abused the “Interstate Commerce” clause or the 14yh Amendment to expand the power and scope of government.

"Pretty strong" and "gray area" seem, at a minimum, not in line. But, look, the Federal Government doesn't even have a broad murder statute.

And we'll go back to the the Constitution. The 5th A is a limit on legislative action. It does not confer power. The 5th A is also a procedural limitation. It requires some sort of state or federal hearing or something and it acts to limit unfair procedures. HOWEVER, that does not mean Congress can legislate what the appropriate "due process" procedures are. Federal Courts can tell states they violated due process; Congress can't draft legislation in the name of due process.

Finally even in a substantive due process case, the question is typically the right of someone to enjoy a right free of government intrustion. WRT abortion, it's not a matter of government intrustion, it's government inaction.

Again, this is fundamentally a State police power question. And States' generally have wide latitude to exercise the police power and Congress has little authority to encroash on that exercise.

[iam416]

I expect them to get tossed, but the schadenfreude if they don’t? Heh. Oh man.

No schaudenfruede for me. They're such terrible laws purely from a perspective of Constitutional structure and separation/allocation of powers that they should be laughed out of court.

Don't get me wrong -- I get what you're saying, but, IMO, wrong time, wrong place.

I will do a big ol' fucking jig if/when they toss affirmative action, though.

[Hannibal]

"Pretty strong" and "gray area" seem, at a minimum, not in line. But, look, the Federal Government doesn't even have a broad murder statute.

And we'll go back to the the Constitution. The 5th A is a limit on legislative action. It does not confer power. The 5th A is also a procedural limitation. It requires some sort of state or federal hearing or something and it acts to limit unfair procedures. HOWEVER, that does not mean Congress can legislate what the appropriate "due process" procedures are. Federal Courts can tell states they violated due process; Congress can't draft legislation in the name of due process.

Finally even in a substantive due process case, the question is typically the right of someone to enjoy a right free of government intrustion. WRT abortion, it's not a matter of government intrustion, it's government inaction.

Again, this is fundamentally a State police power question. And States' generally have wide latitude to exercise the police power and Congress has little authority to encroash on that exercise.

I don’t necessarily disagree with what you are saying there — I’m just thinking that it takes less of an imagination to Constitutionally justify a Federal ban on abortion than, say, one of Sonia Sotomayor’s opinions.

[Tom W]

A number of states are actively trying to introduce laws that prevent women from traveling to get abortions or criminally punish anyone who helps them leave the state to get an abortion. Texas lawmakers sent Sidley Austin a threatening letter telling them they will introduce legislation that criminally punishes employers if they cover the coasts of employee travel outside the state to get an abortion. AND threatened to recommended top attorneys at the firm for disbarment. South Carolina has a bill being written that would make it illegal in South Carolina to inform someone how to get an abortion outside the state, including a ban on websites posting such information..

Sorry, but there's a point where citizens do need to be held responsible for what happens in their own state.

Sure, that's easier said than done, I live in Whitmeristan and my congressional district is likely to be represented by Tlaib (following that twit who is still getting mileage out of the 2009 auto bailout).. That's embarrassing, and I'll never vote for them, but you've still got to own it and keep trying to improve it.

[lineygoblue]

I say it's time for another Civil War...

I agree. Lets declare war on Nebraska.

fricken Nebraskans

[Hannibal]

Alex Jones trial began today to determine how much he'll be forced to pay to Sandy Hook parents

Jury selected for Alex Jones' Sandy Hook defamation trial | AP News

I’ll give you guys credit where credit is due — y’all really don’t fuck around. You see an influential enemy and you take him the fuck out by any means necessary (the means of choice is usually the SPLC forcing somebody to cough up millions of dollars because they exercised their Constitutional right to free speech.). You guys better pray that our side never adopts these same tactics.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I’ll give you guys credit where credit is due — y’all really don’t fuck around. You see an influential enemy and you take him the fuck out by any means necessary (the means of choice is usually the SPLC forcing somebody to cough up millions of dollars because they exercised their Constitutional right to free speech.). You guys better pray that our side never adopts these same tactics.

Alex Jones harassed Sandy Hook parents for years, calling them liars and crisis actors and every stupid conspiracy bullshit item he could think off. He egged on psychos and shitheads to encourage them to believe these parents were part of a conspiracy to steal their guns. Your boy, Paul Joseph Watson, warned Jones and Infowars that this stuff had gone way too far and was clearly not true, but Jones kept it going for years because it got him listeners and morons to buy his phony medicines, which raked in something like $125 Million over the last four years. He's now trying to hide that wealth in LLCs and whatnot so he can plead poverty when it comes to damages.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/infowars-editor-warned-alex-jones-that-his-sandy-hook-sources-were-bat-shit-crazy/

This Sandy Hook stuff is killing us,” Watson wrote to Jones on December 17, 2015, according to court documents filed this week. “It’s promoted by the most bat shit crazy people like [Jeff] Rense and [James] Fetzer who all hate us anyway. Plus it makes us look really bad to align with people who harass the parents of dead kids. It’s going to hurt us with Drudge and bringing bigger names into the show. Plus the event happened three years ago. Why even risk our reputation for it?”

After he was finally sued for defamation because he simply wouldn't stop smearing these people, he dragged his heels for more than two years, refusing to turn over documents and evidence requested during discovery. That led to two different judges, one in Connecticut and one in Texas, finding him guilty by default judgment. Decisions of that type are pretty rare. You have to really, really piss off a judge usually.

He has no one but himself to blame. He's a contemptible piece of shit.

[Obi-Jon]

What Jones did was intentional and with malice, inflict duress and mental harm without cause or basis in fact, upon grieving parents of murdered children for financial gain. Much like yelling fire in a crowded theatre, I doubt that's protected speech. Hanni has some strange heroes.