News Roe v. Wade overturned

Page 90 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

linkgoron

Platinum Member
Mar 9, 2005
2,286
810
136
If my math is correct, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire were the only 3 states where Clinton would have won had she gotten all of the Stein votes. That's only 30 electoral votes, still leaving Trump over 270. As far as 3rd parties, Gary Johnson received more votes than Jill Stein in every state, so 3rd parties took more from Trump.

She would have won Pennsylvania by 5649 votes as well.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,279
4,406
136
Small government my ass!


I agree that is screwed up. If they want to travel let them. I don't see how that it is possible to stop them see Privileges and Immunities Clause.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause says that a citizen of one state is entitled to the privileges in another state, from which a right to travel to that other state may be inferred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi
Dec 10, 2005
23,990
6,793
136
The Privileges and Immunities Clause says that a citizen of one state is entitled to the privileges in another state, from which a right to travel to that other state may be inferred.
Inferred you say? So non-existent if the court wants to allow states to ban interstate travel, since it's not explicitly enumerated; or maybe in this case they would read the tea leaves and decide that the right does exist. Whatever they want to do, they'll figure out how they'll justify it later with ouija board rulings.
 

dlerious

Golden Member
Mar 4, 2004
1,772
719
136
She would have won Pennsylvania by 5649 votes as well.
The source I saw had her at 2,844,705 and him at 2,912,941. I checked pa.gov and saw she was close enough. That would put her over assuming the Stein voters would have voted for Clinton had she not run and another Green candidate wasn't on the ballot.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,855
26,649
136
Has anyone discussed this segment from Samantha Bee yet?

The gist is that by executive order Biden could declare abortions legal on fed lands or enclaves. Military bases and such.
Enclaves are a very small subset of federal lands. Congress would have to act to expand enclaves, which would open a can of worms. If Congress is to act, it might as well pass a national abortion rights law.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
I don't know if this will actually happen, given the government we have. Though I very much expect the deal-breaking stumbling block will be the suggestion of spending money on foreigners, rather than the issue of abortion itself (it would presumably also apply to Poles).

 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,006
12,077
146
Inferred you say? So non-existent if the court wants to allow states to ban interstate travel, since it's not explicitly enumerated; or maybe in this case they would read the tea leaves and decide that the right does exist. Whatever they want to do, they'll figure out how they'll justify it later with ouija board rulings.
Thank you for accurately pointing out what happens when you incorrectly assume that the Constitution enumerates rights rather than limits government, as I've stated multiple times in this thread. It turns into an absolute shit show, as you've correctly stated.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,896
32,697
136
If Biden wants to be renominated for 2024 he's going to have to do a lot better than this. The conservative assault on rights is going to get way worse over the next couple years and you can't just sit around handwringing talking about trust in institutions, especially an institution that is intent on proving its total untrustworthiness (SCOTUS).

 

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
8,937
4,263
136
If Biden wants to be renominated for 2024 he's going to have to do a lot better than this.
So the solution is not vote D!!! Love the logic Biden needs to do more. Like I get it, many want someone else in 2024. But you’ll spite Biden by not voting for him and writing in someone else. IDIOTS!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Pohemi

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,452
9,837
136
Biden backs anti-abortion Republican for Kentucky judgeship in apparent McConnell deal

President Biden is poised to nominate a conservative Republican anti-abortion lawyer for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge in Kentucky, a nomination strongly opposed by fellow Democrat and U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Louisville.
The nomination of Chad Meredith appears to be the result of a deal with U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, ostensibly in exchange for the Senate Minority Leader agreeing not to hold up future federal nominations by the Biden White House, according to Yarmuth and other officials who confirmed the pending nomination to The Courier Journal.

Robert Steurer, a spokesman for McConnell, said he would have no comment until Biden makes his nomination.
Meredith also declined to respond to a request for comment, as did a spokeswoman for Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat.
The White House also declined to comment, saying "we do not comment on vacancies."


feels a bit naive to me

View attachment 63771
No deal with Mitch means anything unless you get payment up front.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,452
9,837
136
Inferred you say? So non-existent if the court wants to allow states to ban interstate travel, since it's not explicitly enumerated; or maybe in this case they would read the tea leaves and decide that the right does exist. Whatever they want to do, they'll figure out how they'll justify it later with ouija board rulings.
You see, it'll be an obvious right to travel to buy guns, but not too get abortions.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,896
32,697
136
So the solution is not vote D!!! Love the logic Biden needs to do more. Like I get it, many want someone else in 2024. But you’ll spite Biden by not voting for him and writing in someone else. IDIOTS!!!!!

I'm not sure who you think said that. He's going to face a contested primary for the nomination. If he wins the nomination I'd still vote for him.
 

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
8,937
4,263
136
Messaging wise it's an improvement to go from "hey we can't do anything but vote for us and maybe we'll see" to "send me more democrats so we can do this thing".
Umm but that is the only message they can do. Not like they can convince the 2 DINOs to vote to eliminate the fillibuster before November

Edit - oh wait, what happen to changing it to a talking fillibuster? Manchin was on board with that. If Moscow Mitch wants to stand up and blabber until he croaks in the Senate floor, like oh well, so sad.
 
Last edited:
Dec 10, 2005
23,990
6,793
136
I wonder how much presidents outwardly say when they don't have the political power to act. Why give your opponents ammunition to beat you over the head with over something you don't even have the power to do?

At the same time, too many people are pumping and dumping on the "Democrats bad" train to suppress turnout because they won't "do something".

All the stuff about federal law "codifying" abortion rights seems like it would be pointless in this Supreme Court environment. After all, we had voting rights codified, and the Supreme Court tossed half the protections right out the window.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,896
32,697
136
All the stuff about federal law "codifying" abortion rights seems like it would be pointless in this Supreme Court environment. After all, we had voting rights codified, and the Supreme Court tossed half the protections right out the window.

You would probably need to strip the courts of jurisdiction in the legislation. If the Republicans want to change it back they've got to do it the old fashioned way and take the heat the results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo
Dec 10, 2005
23,990
6,793
136
You would probably need to strip the courts of jurisdiction in the legislation. If the Republicans want to change it back they've got to do it the old fashioned way and take the heat the results.
Wouldn't the court still have its original jurisdiction though, as a state could be a party to a lawsuit challenging the law?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,896
32,697
136
Wouldn't the court still have its original jurisdiction though, as a state could be a party to a lawsuit challenging the law?

Most of the analysis I have read indicates this is not the case and that congress would be within its powers, if it so decided.