Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 358 posts

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#151

Post by Maursault »

rayiner wrote: post #90
purple_ferret wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares. The supreme court has lost all credibility and has become just another political arm.

It takes some mental gymnastics to say that elective abortions to 24 weeks is a “human right” that’s so important it must be read into the Constitution—implying that countries like France, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and Spain are violating human rights by limiting abortions to the first trimester. But to go further and say the Supreme Court “has lost all credibility” by returning US law to the international norm—where…

> It takes some mental gymnastics to say that elective abortions to 24 weeks is a “human right”

No one ever said that... and apparently you've entirely missed the ProChoice argument. Does a government have the right to prevent you from having an appendectomy? Where does the government end and you begin? ProChoice is about limiting absolute government authority, like, over your cells and junk.

btw the rights in question are already in the Constitution. We generally refer to it as the Fourth Amendment, though an explicit line limiting what the government can do also lives in the Third Amendment. With the 3rd and the 4th Amendments, any ban on abortion is necessarily unconstitutional, in that we have a right to be secure in our persons free from government intrusion, and the government can't force anyone to take on a tenant, even if for only 9 months.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#152

Post by rayiner »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #108
rayiner wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like Roe, Obergefell would be another decision where if the Supreme Court overruled, it would simply make the law the same as Europe: https://eclj.org/marriage/the-echr-unanimously-confirms-the-... Likewise in affirmative action. You just listed three things where the supposedly arch conservative Supreme Court is simply making our law the same as France.

> Likewise in affirmative action. You just listed three things where the supposedly arch conservative Supreme Court is simply making our law the same as France. The reason abortion is not legal until 22 weeks in France is because the Netherlands allows it, and our left-and-center governments don't want to spend the political capital on it. Same stupid reason why Democrats haven't passed a bill since Roe vs Wade. That…

How do you figure this is bad for republicans? Most people are squishy on abortion. They support some level of abortion, but mostly in the first trimester or for life of mother or birth defects. All of which are consistent with the Mississippi law that the Supreme Court upheld.

Roe guarantees elective abortions to the end of the second trimester with few restrictions, and is well to the left of what the public supports: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-....

Generally, when the current law is detached from public opinion, the party that seeks to change the law should stand to benefit from it. Of course liberals will use their vast media and cultural power to dupe people into thinking the Supreme Court just banned abortion. But most people will notice that the Supreme Court didn’t do that when blue states inevitably adopt liberal abortion laws as a reaction. And most of the people who will be really worked up about it will live in blue states that will quickly enact abortion until birth. I suspect most other states will pick some 13-15 week middle ground.

I can see Republicans fumbling the ball by trying to ban abortion nationwide. But I can also see a bunch of white liberals reacting to this by shouting “celebrate your abortion” and turning off the mostly Hispanic 3 out of 10 Democrats who identify as “Pro Life,” as well as a bunch of squishy moderates.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#153

Post by themacguffinman »

rayiner wrote: post #90
purple_ferret wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares. The supreme court has lost all credibility and has become just another political arm.

It takes some mental gymnastics to say that elective abortions to 24 weeks is a “human right” that’s so important it must be read into the Constitution—implying that countries like France, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and Spain are violating human rights by limiting abortions to the first trimester. But to go further and say the Supreme Court “has lost all credibility” by returning US law to the international norm—where…

Not really, bodily/medical control is a popular perspective on the abortion debate and it's a fairly classic human right, and as we've seen in the recent pandemic, it's a right that the US takes very seriously, more seriously than almost every other country. Wanting the unrestricted freedom to choose what medical/physical procedures can be performed on your own body shouldn't be hard to understand, I'm sure I can find a link to a better explanation if you're really struggling to wrap your head around it.

I'm not really sure what mentioning those European countries is supposed to demonstrate. Are Western European countries supposed to be the last word on human rights? I can believe France, Denmark, Germany, Italy and Spain currently violate a variety of rights I consider human rights, rights that the US upholds. Europe will have substantial political differences with other countries on how it sees rights, this is to be expected. This is a very odd appeal to authority.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#154

Post by ModernMech »

jmyeet wrote: post #76

People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to just how effective conservatives are at propaganda and messaging.. We don't know if this is a majority opinion. It may be a minority opinion in the hopes of becoming a majority opinion. It may not even be real (although that seems unlikely). It could've been leaked by someone on the right to drum up on support but my guess is it's more l…

> People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to just how effective conservatives are at propaganda and messaging..

HN is focusing on the leak, but I do not think the larger point here can possibly be missed. I think the male/female ratio here has something to do with the framing of the issue. Women tonight are not thinking about how the leak affects workplace relations between supreme court justices. I mean... my God, what are they going to talk about around the watercooler?

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#155

Post by nradov »

capguy255 wrote: post #142
rayiner wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes some mental gymnastics to say that elective abortions to 24 weeks is a “human right” that’s so important it must be read into the Constitution—implying that countries like France, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and Spain are violating human rights by limiting abortions to the first trimester. But to go further and say the Supreme Court “has lost all credibility” by returning US law to the international norm—where…

This is the same court that is very likely to find a "human right" to conceal a firearm, despite that premise being contrary to international norms and also contrary to legal historical in America. In short, America is soon going to switch from a system where a pregnant woman has a human right to self-preservation and instead in many states the life of the unborn child will be privileged over the pregnant woman which…

The Supreme Court was never intended to find human rights. They interpret federal law, including the Constitution. International norms are entirely irrelevant.

Women should be able to control their own bodies, so let's change state laws to make that clear in a way that doesn't depend on judicial interpretation. This shouldn't even be a federal issue to begin with.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#156

Post by [deleted] »

refurb wrote: post #118
capguy255 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think it's a good thing that the judiciary is an ivory tower with absolutely no regard for public perception? These nine people are unelected and appointed to their positions for life. They are insulated from political pressure by the other branches of government. But it is incredibly damaging to a democratic republic if government is unaccountable to the people. Not to mention, the basic premise of THIS OPINION…

You think it's a good thing that the judiciary is an ivory tower with absolutely no regard for public perception? Yes! That the entire point of the Supreme Court. It’s amazing how many comments don’t even understand basic civics and how the US government is structured.

[deleted]

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#157

Post by rayiner »

comrh wrote: post #119
rayiner wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like Roe, Obergefell would be another decision where if the Supreme Court overruled, it would simply make the law the same as Europe: https://eclj.org/marriage/the-echr-unanimously-confirms-the-... Likewise in affirmative action. You just listed three things where the supposedly arch conservative Supreme Court is simply making our law the same as France.

Individual countries have passed laws protecting gay marriage or had restrictions struck down in the courts though.

And the same thing was true in individual US states before Obergefell. Iowa legalized same sex marriage when California banned it by referendum.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#158

Post by tbrownaw »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #94
refurb wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human institutions aren’t perfect? Throw them all out!

I feel like "impartial AI judge" is at least the top 3 most common sci-fi topics. I've yet to see a work that puts such a concept in a good light. Even if humans are prone to corruption, the theoretical point of a judicial system is to deal with the edge cases that are never clear cut.

The "smart contract" stuff from the cryptocoin crowd is more-or-less an attempt at actually doing the "impartial AI judge" thing. I suppose it'll be interesting to see if they get it sufficiently free of bugs and surprise edge cases that it's useful for more than enthusiasts or people doing sketchy things.

But it seems to be getting closer to the point where we can say AI judges are generally unwise based on real experiment rather than on thought experiment. (Assuming it turns out the way I expect.)

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#159

Post by tbrownaw »

jmyeet wrote: post #76

People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to just how effective conservatives are at propaganda and messaging.. We don't know if this is a majority opinion. It may be a minority opinion in the hopes of becoming a majority opinion. It may not even be real (although that seems unlikely). It could've been leaked by someone on the right to drum up on support but my guess is it's more l…

> People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to

...the fact that standard politics tends to be off-topic here, but the meta about how the very unusual leak might impact the system is the sort of thing that's interesting to hackers.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#160

Post by pdonis »

rayiner wrote: post #144
aaomidi wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a bad faith argument I don't even know how to cover it. People are gonna die because of this and you're here AXTUALLTIing this?

I think you’re the one making a bad faith argument. “People are going to die” because democrats let the ETC expire. That’s the nature of legislation. Pretty much all of it is impactful enough that you can come up with a body count. But at the end of the day the rule of law and the process matters. Roe prohibited Americans from banning second trimester abortions, which most Americans think should be banned, and which…

> Roe prohibited Americans from banning second trimester abortions, which most Americans think should be banned, and which most liberal European countries do ban.

It's even worse than that. As the brief for petitioners [1] notes, only three countries in the world do not ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The US is one. The other two? China and North Korea.

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/202...

Post reply on HN