Welcome to Thunderdome

"Women and children dying off" is very dramatic and frightening imagery.

What I outlined would be, admittedly, the darkest timeline.

TPRJones wrote:As for the state they'll be in violation of the constitution. So technically it would be up to the DoJ to enforce that.

But how? What can the DoJ do? Not saying I advocate that, just curious as to what option the federal government would have. It would eventually come down to threats to withhold funding again.

Vince wrote:

TPRJones wrote:As for the state they'll be in violation of the constitution. So technically it would be up to the DoJ to enforce that.

But how? What can the DoJ do? Not saying I advocate that, just curious as to what option the federal government would have. It would eventually come down to threats to withhold funding again.

No, it would come to National Guard units or armed G-men standing outside abortion clinics and forcibly keeping them open.

Malcolm wrote:

Vince wrote:

TPRJones wrote:As for the state they'll be in violation of the constitution. So technically it would be up to the DoJ to enforce that.

But how? What can the DoJ do? Not saying I advocate that, just curious as to what option the federal government would have. It would eventually come down to threats to withhold funding again.

No, it would come to National Guard units or armed G-men standing outside abortion clinics and forcibly keeping them open.

It would have to be armed G-men since the national guard is activated by the governor. And what could the G-men do? They can't bar state officials from entering the clinics I don't think. Then the agents would be arrested under state laws of interfering with a state official.

It could come down to something like this. Although Obama is no Jack Kennedy.

Then the agents would be arrested under state laws of interfering with a state official.

If enforcement of that state law violate a clear federal rule that supersedes state law, which the ruling says it does, the G-men would prevent any state official from closing it down for violation of state law. I guarantee they'd send in FBI units or regular military ones if necessary.

Malcolm wrote:

Then the agents would be arrested under state laws of interfering with a state official.

If enforcement of that state law violate a clear federal rule that supersedes state law, which the ruling says it does, the G-men would prevent any state official from closing it down for violation of state law. I guarantee they'd send in FBI units or regular military ones if necessary.

Can't send in regular military. Straight up a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. A Supreme Court ruling is not a Federal law or statute. That's why I think it'd be interesting to see what would happen. There's nothing the FBI could enforce. That's why I think unless the state government agrees to abide by the ruling, withholding federal funds would be the only recourse available legally. Not that the federal government isn't above doing something way outside of their scope of power granted by the Constitution.

So they send in a few thousand FBI agents or the prez federalizes the Texas NG temporarily. There is no scenario under which Texas wins. Or they bring in army reserve. They'll find a way to place heavily armed personnel and tanks if need be to make a point.

Malcolm wrote:So they send in a few thousand FBI agents or the prez federalizes the Texas NG temporarily. There is no scenario under which Texas wins. Or they bring in army reserve. They'll find a way to place heavily armed personnel and tanks if need be to make a point.

End of the Republic if that happened. Might as well dissolve the Constitution (what's left of it) and dissolve the state lines and their Constitutions as well. Texas would break away, I think. Many others would follow suite. On the up side, I think it would hasten the call to a convention.

I like Mark Levin's idea of an Amendment from the convention that allows a 2/3 state override to vacate a Supreme Court decision. I don't think the founders ever intended for the SCOTUS to have this sort of legislative powers.

As my crazy, Hillary-loving aunt recently said about the concept of Texas seceding, "LOL BYE.". She thinks Texas would become a 3rd world shithole without federal money, and relishes the chance to watch the citizens of a red state suffer.

End of the Republic if that happened.

As TPR pointed out, enforcing desegregation happened without a race war. I doubt closing some abortion clincs in one state is going to escalate to that point, but if it does there won't be a rebellion.

Thinking the national mood might be worse now than when we hated each other with white-hot passion in the 1950s.

GORDON wrote:Thinking the national mood might be worse now than when we hated each other with white-hot passion in the 1950s.

No fuckin' way.

The 50s, whites hated black. Now whites hate half of other whites, some think non whites should take care of themselves for good or ill, and the other half of whites think the coloreds need to be cared for like children, because that gets them votes. Everybody hates everybody, passionately. So tell me more about Trump.

Lots of differences between the segregation issues of the 60's and today. The most important of which, this is a citizen vs government. And if you think the federal government behavior in any way resembles the passive resistance of MLK, I don't know what to do for you. THAT was what eventually tuned the mood of the people. Not the heavy handed use of force by the federal government. To the contrary, the heavy use of force by the state governments what was what won the day for MLK.

GORDON wrote:As my crazy, Hillary-loving aunt recently said about the concept of Texas seceding, "LOL BYE.". She thinks Texas would become a 3rd world shithole without federal money, and relishes the chance to watch the citizens of a red state suffer.

I think about half of the jobs created during our last 7 years of "recovery" came from Texas. I suspect they'll be fine. I suspect California would end up in bad shape as the illegal crossings would probably all end up on their border.

Texas 3rd in job growth rate, 2nd in # of jobs created. Certainly not 50% of all jobs.

TheCatt wrote:Texas 3rd in job growth rate, 2nd in # of jobs created. Certainly not 50% of all jobs.

Eh... still enough to show it'd hurt the rest of the country more than it'd hurt TX.

TheCatt wrote:Texas 3rd in job growth rate, 2nd in # of jobs created. Certainly not 50% of all jobs.

Looking at that map, the stat I was remembering (this is from months ago) is probably minus jobs related to fracking.