The Race For 2024

[Politesse]

The big centrist newspapers are running scare headlines about Biden losing younger voters, and Trump apparently gaining them. To which all I can say is, I understand boycotting Biden, but if anyone under 35 is actually dumb enough to actively vote for Trump, they deserve the life they'll lead in Trump's America. I have met the Zoomers, and can assure you that most of them are not cut out for work in the mines.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Arizona now seems to be pretty likely to go blue again in 2024 with the ruling that effectively bans abortion in almost all cases, except health of the mother (which we've seen isn't much of an exception). The math indicates that Trump's path to the White House is notably harder now. Assuming AZ is pale blue now, that leaves NV, PA, WI, MI for Trump... assuming he wins FL, GA, and NC and the first two are not assured at all for different reasons.

Trump needs some combination of:

• PA
• WI, NV, MI or PA
• NV, MI

I suppose PA could happen, but I think WI/NV is more likely, and that isn't enough. Clinton lost the north because she went for a knockout. Had she known the risks, I doubt she would have lost having stayed up north and ensured those states.

 

[Elixir]

Arizona now seems to be pretty likely to go blue again in 2024 with the ruling that effectively bans abortion in almost all cases, except health of the mother (which we've seen isn't much of an exception).

I wonder if their SC is picking a fight with their AG, who was granted the power to not prosecute under that law, by the Dem governor. Maybe the plan is to muddy the waters so badly with accusations and counter-accusations that people don’t know WTF they’re voting for.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Arizona now seems to be pretty likely to go blue again in 2024 with the ruling that effectively bans abortion in almost all cases, except health of the mother (which we've seen isn't much of an exception). The math indicates that Trump's path to the White House is notably harder now. Assuming AZ is pale blue now, that leaves NV, PA, WI, MI for Trump... assuming he wins FL, GA, and NC and the first two are not assured at all for different reasons.

Trump needs some combination of:

• PA
• WI, NV, MI or PA
• NV, MI

I suppose PA could happen, but I think WI/NV is more likely, and that isn't enough. Clinton lost the north because she went for a knockout. Had she known the risks, I doubt she would have lost having stayed up north and ensured those states.

1864. Shit like that rings throughout the nation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What 50 yrs before it becomes a state?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Arizona now seems to be pretty likely to go blue again in 2024 with the ruling that effectively bans abortion in almost all cases, except health of the mother (which we've seen isn't much of an exception).

more like *life* of the mother, in that she has to be at death’s door, in septic shock, before they’ll act, risking her life and future fertility.

 

[Elixir]

Arizona now seems to be pretty likely to go blue again in 2024 with the ruling that effectively bans abortion in almost all cases, except health of the mother (which we've seen isn't much of an exception).

more like *life* of the mother, in that she has to be at death’s door, in septic shock, before they’ll act, risking her life and future fertility.

And the doctor needs everything on video to prove it was as necessary as he said, and he’s not really harvesting baby parts for sale on the black market.
(MAGA wants a cut if they are.)

 

[blastula]

Arizona now seems to be pretty likely to go blue again in 2024 with the ruling that effectively bans abortion in almost all cases, except health of the mother (which we've seen isn't much of an exception). The math indicates that Trump's path to the White House is notably harder now. Assuming AZ is pale blue now, that leaves NV, PA, WI, MI for Trump... assuming he wins FL, GA, and NC and the first two are not assured at all for different reasons.

Trump needs some combination of:

• PA
• WI, NV, MI or PA
• NV, MI

I suppose PA could happen, but I think WI/NV is more likely, and that isn't enough. Clinton lost the north because she went for a knockout. Had she known the risks, I doubt she would have lost having stayed up north and ensured those states.

The article says,

Under the 1864 territorial law, which went into effect 48 years before Arizona became a state

I thought the right wingers liked to insist on ignoring any non-US laws.

 

[Derec]

Under the 1864 territorial law, which went into effect 48 years before Arizona became a state

I thought the right wingers liked to insist on ignoring any non-US laws.

How does AZ being a US territory make it a "non-US law"?

 

[Toni]

Under the 1864 territorial law, which went into effect 48 years before Arizona became a state

I thought the right wingers liked to insist on ignoring any non-US laws.

How does AZ being a US territory make it a "non-US law"?

It was only a territory and not a state??? Kind of like Puerto Rico isn't 'really' America to some people....And sadly enough, some people think that New Mexico is not in the US......

 

[Elixir]

Under the 1864 territorial law, which went into effect 48 years before Arizona became a state

I thought the right wingers liked to insist on ignoring any non-US laws.

How does AZ being a US territory make it a "non-US law"?

It makes it a non-State law.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Under the 1864 territorial law, which went into effect 48 years before Arizona became a state

I thought the right wingers liked to insist on ignoring any non-US laws.

How does AZ being a US territory make it a "non-US law"?

Shall we cite the Mayflower Compact?

 

[Politesse]

Under the 1864 territorial law, which went into effect 48 years before Arizona became a state

I thought the right wingers liked to insist on ignoring any non-US laws.

How does AZ being a US territory make it a "non-US law"?

It makes it a non-State law.

That is not true. When Arizona became a state, its territorial laws were recognized as binding unless specifically over-ruled by the new constitution.

 

[Derec]

It was only a territory and not a state??? Kind of like Puerto Rico isn't 'really' America to some people....

When US acquired new territory, they were organized as, well, territories before becoming states. That does not make territorial laws null and void upon statehood.
I am not defending the law - it should have been repealed a long time ago. I am just saying that blastula's objection (it being a "non-US law") does not hold water.
Btw, shouldn't blastula of all people be in favor of strict abortion laws?

And sadly enough, some people think that New Mexico is not in the US......

Or Hawaii ...

 

[Elixir]

Under the 1864 territorial law, which went into effect 48 years before Arizona became a state

I thought the right wingers liked to insist on ignoring any non-US laws.

How does AZ being a US territory make it a "non-US law"?

It makes it a non-State law.

That is not true. When Arizona became a state, its territorial laws were recognized as binding unless specifically over-ruled by the new constitution.

Semantics. It’s still a territorial law. It doesn’t appear in the State statutes. Or so I am led to believe.

 

[Politesse]

Under the 1864 territorial law, which went into effect 48 years before Arizona became a state

I thought the right wingers liked to insist on ignoring any non-US laws.

How does AZ being a US territory make it a "non-US law"?

It makes it a non-State law.

That is not true. When Arizona became a state, its territorial laws were recognized as binding unless specifically over-ruled by the new constitution.

Semantics. It’s still a territorial law. It doesn’t appear in the State statutes. Or so I am led to believe.

Then you have been led to misunderstand US law.

 

[TV and credit cards]

https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2024/CV230005PR.pdf

¶4 In 1864, the First Legislative Assembly published a code of
laws governing the territory of Arizona. See Howell Code (1864). The
Howell Code established Arizona’s first criminal code, which included
constraints on abortion. In 1901, the Twenty-First Legislative Assembly
enacted a penal code reiterating the abortion law, dividing criminality
between people who facilitate abortions and women who solicit assistance
to procure an abortion. See Revised Statutes of Arizona, Penal Code §§ 234,
244 (1901). This language was adopted in whole in 1913, after Arizona
statehood. See Revised Statutes of Arizona, Penal Code § 273 (1913). In
1928, the Arizona Legislature codified abortion criminality in A.R.S.
§§ 13-211 to -213.

 

[Elixir]

Under the 1864 territorial law, which went into effect 48 years before Arizona became a state

I thought the right wingers liked to insist on ignoring any non-US laws.

How does AZ being a US territory make it a "non-US law"?

It makes it a non-State law.

That is not true. When Arizona became a state, its territorial laws were recognized as binding unless specifically over-ruled by the new constitution.

Semantics. It’s still a territorial law. It doesn’t appear in the State statutes. Or so I am led to believe.

Then you have been led to misunderstand US law.

Oh? I said nothing about US law.
Perhaps you are led to misunderstand territorial law and its permission by States.

 

[Toni]

It was only a territory and not a state??? Kind of like Puerto Rico isn't 'really' America to some people....

When US acquired new territory, they were organized as, well, territories before becoming states. That does not make territorial laws null and void upon statehood.
I am not defending the law - it should have been repealed a long time ago. I am just saying that blastula's objection (it being a "non-US law") does not hold water.
Btw, shouldn't blastula of all people be in favor of strict abortion laws?

And sadly enough, some people think that New Mexico is not in the US......

Or Hawaii ...

Oh, I’m not suggesting that it makes sense or is correct…..

 

[Politesse]

Under the 1864 territorial law, which went into effect 48 years before Arizona became a state

I thought the right wingers liked to insist on ignoring any non-US laws.

How does AZ being a US territory make it a "non-US law"?

It makes it a non-State law.

That is not true. When Arizona became a state, its territorial laws were recognized as binding unless specifically over-ruled by the new constitution.

Semantics. It’s still a territorial law. It doesn’t appear in the State statutes. Or so I am led to believe.

Then you have been led to misunderstand US law.

Oh? I said nothing about US law.
Perhaps you are led to misunderstand territorial law and its permission by States.

My statement stands. You are not simply not correct about how state, territorial, federal, and international law interact in the United States.