On top of the f*caked up nature of sentencing disparities likely to follow the Dobbs decision, we now have the coordinated efforts of “conservative” States’ legislatures to pass criminal laws against other States’ efforts to keep abortion legal and safe. When they do pass, the laws will be written with Texas-style vigilante enforcement. …
On top of the f*caked up nature of sentencing disparities likely to follow the Dobbs decision, we now have the coordinated efforts of “conservative” States’ legislatures to pass criminal laws against other States’ efforts to keep abortion legal and safe. When they do pass, the laws will be written with Texas-style vigilante enforcement.
I can easily picture a bunch of well armed goons setting up “check points” at the border crossing on I-68 between Maryland and West Virginia. Sure we could once say that violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. But with this Supreme Court’s 6 clerics, can we now?
I think this court can and willl find a 'religious freedom' that trumps any other law. 'God told me to' is going to become a get out of jail free card for any and all audacious actions of the far-right.
If they go with "religious freedom", I'll bet a LOT of Jewish organizations will immediately speak up, saying "Our faith allows for, and in some cases even requires abortion. Are you being anti-Semitic?"
A lot, including my wife's employer (which usually doesn't take sides on such matters), but not all. Some are even applauding the end of Roe v Wade, which is madness to me.
I already saw someone argue that because the Jewish and Muslim religions didn't have such deep roots in America, and they don't have Popes or something, that they don't technically "count" as much because there isn't an overarching philosophy instead of just a bunch of individual practices.
Which is bullshit to such a large degree that it requires exponents on the exponents.
Violates the travel clause. Violating an actual right spelled out in the text of the Constitution will be harder for states to justify, even with this court.
I don't believe this court would have any problem saying that a person's right to express their religious views in any way they choose trumps any other right, codified or not. They can just say it's one right against another right and religion wins!
The Free Exercise Clause certainly has primacy over the establishment clause in their minds. This is why the fictitious “deeply rooted in American history” standard Alito has invented is so dangerous. It means whatever they want.
Indeed it does. The problem is that in “returning the question to the people and their elected representatives” stated at the end of Dobbs was also decoupled from the strict scrutiny analysis that otherwise restricts laws that infringe individuals’ rights.
I think it’s no longer possible to imagine limits to what this Court majority is willing to do to impose its vision.
On top of the f*caked up nature of sentencing disparities likely to follow the Dobbs decision, we now have the coordinated efforts of “conservative” States’ legislatures to pass criminal laws against other States’ efforts to keep abortion legal and safe. When they do pass, the laws will be written with Texas-style vigilante enforcement.
I can easily picture a bunch of well armed goons setting up “check points” at the border crossing on I-68 between Maryland and West Virginia. Sure we could once say that violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. But with this Supreme Court’s 6 clerics, can we now?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion-state-lines/
I think this court can and willl find a 'religious freedom' that trumps any other law. 'God told me to' is going to become a get out of jail free card for any and all audacious actions of the far-right.
If they go with "religious freedom", I'll bet a LOT of Jewish organizations will immediately speak up, saying "Our faith allows for, and in some cases even requires abortion. Are you being anti-Semitic?"
"Oh, sorry - we didn't mean THAT kind of religious freedom."
A lot, including my wife's employer (which usually doesn't take sides on such matters), but not all. Some are even applauding the end of Roe v Wade, which is madness to me.
I already saw someone argue that because the Jewish and Muslim religions didn't have such deep roots in America, and they don't have Popes or something, that they don't technically "count" as much because there isn't an overarching philosophy instead of just a bunch of individual practices.
Which is bullshit to such a large degree that it requires exponents on the exponents.
If "don't have popes" is a standard, then we can disqualify all the Protestants, right?
I wish. And logically a bunch of cranky Catholics, too.
Violates the travel clause. Violating an actual right spelled out in the text of the Constitution will be harder for states to justify, even with this court.
I don't believe this court would have any problem saying that a person's right to express their religious views in any way they choose trumps any other right, codified or not. They can just say it's one right against another right and religion wins!
The Free Exercise Clause certainly has primacy over the establishment clause in their minds. This is why the fictitious “deeply rooted in American history” standard Alito has invented is so dangerous. It means whatever they want.
Indeed it does. The problem is that in “returning the question to the people and their elected representatives” stated at the end of Dobbs was also decoupled from the strict scrutiny analysis that otherwise restricts laws that infringe individuals’ rights.
I think it’s no longer possible to imagine limits to what this Court majority is willing to do to impose its vision.