undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjmgao3y ago0 comments

Kavanaugh's concurring opinion said this:

> Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause.

0 comments

hotpotamus3y ago

Didn't Kavanaugh also state that Roe was settled precedent? And anyway even if he actually means what he says this time, do you think the right will be satisfied with this outcome? Or when the time comes will they replace him with a judge who will find that the constitution does in fact find that a state can bar a resident from traveling to another state for an abortion?

UnpossibleJim3y ago

True but Thomas opened up, in his opinion explicitly, the line to legally challenge same sex marriage and legal contraception. Same sex marriage only recognized in one state but not another opens all sorts of issues when it comes to interstate travel as far as communal assets, marital rights during hospital visits and death rights, and insurance claims.

gadflyinyoureye3y ago

I think there are (at least) two things on this topic. The majority opinion didn't agree with Thomas (no one signed on to it). Second, event under Thomas' opinion, the question becomes one of shaky Constitutional footing. If these "rights" are not really Constitutional, the issue needs to move to Congress. There is nothing that prevents Congress from crafting a law to explicitly allow anything you listed.

Also, it could be that better argumentation is needed to seat something as a right. Take gay marriage as an example. If we solely describe it as a contract (not a religious rite), then you can probably lay access to gay marriage within the Commerce clause. Married couples move around. We can't have their marriages suddenly annulled by moving within the US. We don't allow that to happen to other contracts. Yes it might require a destination wedding, but the couple will comeback with all the rights an privileges thereof.

nradov3y ago

While I support marriage equality, it seems like fundamentally the wrong issue. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. A better solution would be to eliminate civil marriage from the legal code entirely. If people want to go through some sort of ceremony and declare themselves married then that's fine, but that process shouldn't grant them any more legal rights or privileges than single people.

Currently civil marriage is bundled up with other legal issues like immigration, child custody, income taxes, and medical care decisions. But there's no fundamental reason other than tradition why those things need to be coupled. They could all be handled through separate contracts or elective registries.

2 more replies

landemva3y ago

People can do what they want through voluntary contracts with each other. If marriage is a right, then we don't need government license to practice the right.

sterlind3y ago

I'm not so sure. say that Planned Parenthood operates shuttles to abortion clinics out of state. then Mississippi makes it a crime to operate any business within the state that facilitates abortion.

that would have an indirect effect on interstate commerce, but I could imagine the Court upholding Mississippi's ban, since it only concerns businesses that operate there.

of course, this would run straight into the Heart of Atlanta Motel decision that ended racial discrimination in hotels.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse