I think it would be interesting to study, if SCOTUS overturns Roe and Casey, how many states have already declared fetuses to be persons, which would make abortion, or travel to get abortion, murder, with no statute of limitations.
Also interesting would be whether a law that is on the books, but unenforceable, may be applied retroactively if that law is declared constitutional.
If I were looking to point out the problems with forcing women to give birth, I think the purely discretionary enforcement of laws carrying mandatory life sentences would be a good thing to focus on.
I think I can acknowledge that ACB is a brilliant woman and a potentially great justice and also that the end of the right to privacy under the 9th would be a nightmare.
And I would propose that this is a more fruitful line of attack than showing women in little red outfits.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you chase someone with your car, that is aggravated assault. And you cannot be justified doing something once you commit a felony. You can't shoot an armed homeowner, for instance, if he tries to stop you from burglarizing his house.
Now let's say it turns out that the armed homeowner is a murderer.
That shit isn't relevant, because no set of facts about his past make it ok to break into his house and shoot him.
The first thing to note about Trump's WSJ lawsuit is that he filed it federally in Florida.
In almost every jurisdiction, filing a lawsuit federally helps you avoid the anti-SLAPP statute.
But not in Florida.
So, for instance, when Dan Bongino filed a lawsuit against the Daily Beast for saying he was fired, the Daily Beast filed an anti-SLAPP motion, even though it was in federal court.
And prevailed, because the suit was without merit.