This message was self-deleted by its author

[lindysalsagal]

This message was self-deleted by its author (lindysalsagal) on Tue Apr 9, 2024, 05:15 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[hlthe2b]

1. The law was promulgated BEFORE AZ was even a state. That's ridiculous...

One could just as well argue that Mexican laws applied or those of Spanish conquistadors. I have not seen it decisively discussed whether there had been ANY attempt once AZ adopted a constitution to form a US state whether these territorial "laws" were specifically evaluated and voted on by a legal forum for inclusion. If someone has read those details, feel free to weigh in. I know that was NOT the case in WYOMING-- and as a result, many old relic laws were summarily and formally excluded a few decades ago when the state legislature sought to update certain areas of its laws in cooperation with the courts. The assumption was that they were no longer valid, but since they were taking the time to review some areas, they would just make it official. I recall hearing that one that was removed had allowed for periods of severe wind (a common annoyance and even dangerous phenomenon in WY) to be used as a positive (affirmative) defense in murder trials. (yes, really).

As far as I know, there has been no litigation on whether or not laws passed before statehood remain in effect, but it would be interesting to know what even a morally corrupt SCOTUS would say about that.

[lindysalsagal]

2. No one was arguing that on msnbc today. They were angry but didn't mention it was pre-state

No one suggested the law wasn't real. It's OLD but not real. I wonder why they didn't use the last year to pull out out by the roots. I guess they will in november.

[hlthe2b]

3. It has been reportedly discussed as "ridiculous" which is likely what they were assuming the AZ Supreme Court

would conclude. But when that is the ONE thing that anti-abortion conservative judges can use to make their finding then of course they will choose not to address that. The MSNBC piece that I saw was focused on the repercussions of this decision, not relitigating the case.

But news pieces the past year or so from AZ that I have seen had largely assumed it would be rendered invalid because it predated statehood.