That sounds like a very Montana opinion.
I say that not knowing much about Montana. I assume they're conservatives in the same mould Mainers: "You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone."
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
577 points (99.5% liked)
News
22838 readers
3666 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Trump saw fit to have a rally in Montana, a solid red, non-swing state, which means he at least thinks people would swoon for him there.
Montana has been deeply red for many decades like most rural areas. Racism also runs very deep in the state.
Over the past 30 years the population has been becoming more urban. People who live in urban areas are voting overwhelmingly blue in the state.
As the urban areas continue to grow the politics of the state will change as well.
The Republicans will have to resort to voter suppression like they do in other states to maintain their power.
I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't know much more about Montana than a random Lemmy user. Not that I think Montana is some bastion of freedom, but drawing conclusions about a state's culture based on which outside politicians hold rallies there is pretty silly.
My anecdote supports this. My former neighbor is a die hard trump conspiracy theorist. Thought Biden died when he announced he was dropping out of the race without making an appearance type. Grew up in rural Ohio. I mean he's the demographic.
But the nicest dude I've ever met. We lived on the fringe of the hood, and he was always out helping everyone he saw. Old black lady lived on the other side of me: shoved all her snow and never even told her it was him. Constantly stopping while walking his dogs to help people: carry groceries, clean your garage, move a couch. He truly didn't care who you were, what you looked like, or what your situation was, he was going to help.
He got married in glacier national park and never came back lol
I know plenty of people who do nice things but still carry hate in their hearts for certain demographics. As the saying goes, no one is the villain in their own story. It’s great you have a nice neighbor, but if he votes for someone who wants to remove explicit or precedential rights from others, he’s not as nice as he seems.
Roe v Wade was based on a women’s privacy with her doctor, and it was overturned.
How long until someone challenges this and SCOTUS takes up the case? Anyone like to bet how they’d rule!?
The article says the state supreme court ruled it violated the state constitution. SCOTUS has no business interpreting state constitutions, only the federal constitution.
I think the federal constitution supersedes state constitutions, though.
Ah - it does! I had to look it up. It’s called the Supremacy Clause (Wikipedia). It’s not uniformly applied because many states aren’t going to bother with enforcing federal laws they disagree with. (States with legal weed, for instance.) But the federal government does have the right to poke holes in state constitutions if they deem it necessary and want to.
Edit: While I could still see SCOTUS being malevolent using a thin pretext, it appears this case cannot be taken by SCOTUS, because (as far as I can tell), it doesn’t meet the requirements for SCOTUS to take it.
~~I could see SCOTUS taking the case, ruling horribly, the rest of the federal government not taking up enforcement, but Montana lawmakers running amok with their newfound ability to step on desperate teenagers, because SCOTUS said they could.~~
The supremacy clause would be relevant if abortion were outlawed federally, but that hasn't happened, so there is no conflict.
A fine reasoning, if that were in any way the discussion at hand.
The legality or illegality of abortion is immaterial here. The case in question is about privacy, but specifically we’re talking about whether the Federal government can interpret the Montana state constitution (they can).
My “I could see…” was a reference to a reinterpretation of laws/precedent/whatever by the SCOTUS to overrule the state Supreme Court decision. We’ve seen a number of questionable rulings from this SCOTUS, and I would not doubt they would find any justification to legislate from the bench on what seems to be a pet cause of the majority.
SCOTUS doesn't interpret the state constitution. The state courts do that. SCOTUS then takes the state interpretation as fact and judges if it violates the supremacy clause of the US constitution.
Yeah but state constitutions can grant additional rights (versus state law and state institutions) in addition to those guaranteed by the federal constitution. That is what is going on here to my understanding, hard for SCOTUS to rule that the state constitution cannot do that.
That’s a valid point for ‘normal’ times. But I don’t think these are normal times. I also don’t think the SCOTUS would approach their rulings in a manner that respects anything other than the agenda of the majority. I earnestly believe that they would dispense with any sort of legal precedent or sense of decorum to enforce their will.
Yeah, but that is only if the two constitutions contradict each other.
If they don't, then both are go.
Ah, you’re right. I did a bit more digging, and in it appears that unless the case involved contradictory interpretations of the state vs U.S. constitution at each level of it’s trial progression, the case cannot be appealed to SCOTUS.
My supposition at the end of my previous comment wouldn’t come to fruition - at least not as the result of an appeal to this case.
I’ll amend my comment.
The Supremacy Clause won't apply in this case. Repealing Roe means the federal government doesn't protect medical privacy in the case of abortions. It doesn't mean they restrict it.
I was editing my comment as you were typing yours. But - yeah.
The supremacy clause wouldn’t even have the chance to be applied, because the case wouldn’t ever leave the state.
Purely hypothetically now, I was not so much thinking of Roe or the reasons used to undo that decision being applied here, but just any spurious legal justification they could come up with.
If SCOTUS did that without a direct conflict in the state and federal documents then they would be ruling that state constitutions and courts are now moot.
I wouldn’t put it past them to pull something like that, but the bit about conflict between the constitutions (plus another commenter’s input) caused me to question on what grounds a case can be appealed from a state Supreme Court to SCOTUS, and it looks like there isn’t a path for that here.
SCOTUS still can overrule a state constitution, but they can’t pick up this case, as far as I can tell. There just doesn’t seem to be a path that leads to them. I’ll amend my comment.
The Montana State constitution has a guaranteed right to privacy, which is what Row v Wade used to guarantee abortion access. It would take a Montana constitutional amendment to change it in Montana. Scotus has no authority over the matter.
The whole country needs a constitutional right to privacy
Agreed, and we did prior to Roe v Wade being repealed
Well, this was the state supreme Court, so to do that a federally ruling would have to have pretty broad implications, like "states cannot legally guarantee a right to privacy to their citizens" and would be pretty contentious
