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

191–200 of 358 posts

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

#191

Post by AnimalMuppet »

What if this is a Russian leak?

Hear me out before you shred...

A big part of Russia's game has been to try to divide the US politically. Well, this is probably the single biggest hand grenade they could have thrown into the middle of our society. And it's at a time when they'd really love to distract us from what they're doing in Ukraine.

So they have motive. It fits their MO. Do they have the means to breach the Supreme Court? Probably.

Does that mean that they definitely did it? No. It's just an idea - a pattern that seems to fit.

Shred away...

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

#192

Post by wwweston »

spoils19 wrote: post #162
parrellel wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alito is literally calling out gay marriage and contraception as on the chopping block in that thing. I think this ends up someplace very very ugly very quickly.

This just reads like the slippery-slope fallacy. At no point will gay marriage and contraception be on the chopping block. I just talked to some conservative gay couples who align with this draft ruling, and they have no fears whatsoever.

"I didn't think the leopards would eat my face!"

https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/nancy-kaffer/...

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/republican-marria...

https://jezebel.com/yes-republicans-are-coming-for-gay-marri...

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1521296185977417732

https://twitter.com/notstevenwhite/status/152129472044988825...

One of my acquaintances who's a lawyer says in particular certain personal rights to privacy/autonomy that Griswold is built around is a target of the federalist society for a variety of reasons, some of which are business related. Can't remember the details but if you combine a wealth/profit-driven interest with a social conservatives christian patriarchy, the idea that Griswold is just safe because the court wouldn't go there looks pretty thin.

The courts are going to go for broke here, they've got a certain makeup that's been in the making for decades and McConnell's manipulations and Trump's victory got them across the finish line. They're not kidding around with power, they're going to use it.

EDIT: Downvoters, while we're all entitled to the use of that pointy disapproval button, if you think it's fundamentally incorrect to state that Obergfell or Griswold are going to be targeted by the court, you have no idea how thrilled I'd be to be persuaded you're correct. Please, make your case.

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

#193

Post by jmyeet »

pdonis wrote: post #172
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…

> that person is a hero. I don't think you have fully thought through your position. See below. > People have consciences whether you agree with them or not. Yes, exactly. And many people's consciences in this country tell them that abortion is murder. Particularly abortion of a fetus after 15 weeks (which is when the Mississippi law under review here bans abortion), when the fetus, as the brief for petitioners in th…

> It should be left to the states

Ah, yes. The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy.

Your 15 weeks bit is actually where I expected this to go. Robert’s, who I genuinely believe is aware of and concerned with the perceived legitimacy of the Court, I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like that. But that’s not what this draft looks like.

You may believe abortion is murder but that’s a completely arbitrary and, more importantly, a religious doctrine. As an aside, even that view is a modern reinterpretation that has its roots in segregation. In the early 1970s, Baptists said the Bible was silent on the issue.

Your religion is your business. I draw the line at you imposing it on others.

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

#194

Post by ModernMech »

themacguffinman wrote: post #153
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…

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 fin…

> This is a very odd appeal to authority.

They're just the talking points of the last cycle, when the case was argued in front of the court. I don't think the poster as quite internalized what this opinion means in relation to those old talking points. The thinking back then was that the court was maybe going slightly soften Roe by changing something subtle like the line past which an abortion is no longer legal. With a decision like that, the defense would be "Well look at these European countries! You can't say we're worse than them, because Europe is so progressive and liberal, right?" It was supposed to be a way to short-circuit Democratic arguments.

With this newly leaked opinion, the calculus has changed -- it seems that the court will not go with a slight modification to Roe and is instead going with a complete overturning. I think the mistake is in assuming that that's where it all ends. The court has surprised the right and the left here (in opposite ways). So I think it's a valid question as to how far this goes. Because who can stop it? All it takes to invalidate gay marriage is for some religious conservative to put it before the court, and it's done if the court says so.

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

#195

Post by refurb »

capguy255 wrote: post #131
refurb wrote: post #118

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? 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.

Factually inaccurate. Your statement could be said about the political branches as well, given that direct elections didn't exist when the Constitution was originally drafted the Congress/President were appointed by state legislatures. But more specifically -- when the country was founded jurisdiction of the court was limited in nature and mainly involved mediating disputes between state governments. The idea that th…

Huh? Your argument is "that role for the Supreme Court wasn't decided until 1789"?

I mean, that's correct, but isn't that relevant to the discussion of the Court's role 230 years later.

I think what you want to say is "when the court rules the way I like, it's correct, but when it doesn't, the court is acting incorrectly".

It doesn't work that way

And what’s most hilarious is nobody actually read the draft opinion it says “Roe vs Wade has not resolved it, far better to have Congress resolve it”.

How is that an opinion worthy of attack?

HN likes to think it has as a more intelligent and logical discussion but looking at these comments it’s clear about 90% of it typical social media commentary you’d find anywhere. The few well thought out comments are downvoted to oblivion.

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

#196

Post by pdonis »

jmyeet wrote: post #193
pdonis wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that person is a hero. I don't think you have fully thought through your position. See below. > People have consciences whether you agree with them or not. Yes, exactly. And many people's consciences in this country tell them that abortion is murder. Particularly abortion of a fetus after 15 weeks (which is when the Mississippi law under review here bans abortion), when the fetus, as the brief for petitioners in th…

> It should be left to the states Ah, yes. The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy. Your 15 weeks bit is actually where I expected this to go. Robert’s, who I genuinely believe is aware of and concerned with the perceived legitimacy of the Court, I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like t…

> The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery

States' rights is in the Constitution: the Tenth Amendment. And there is another amendment that abolished slavery, so we fixed the issue that you are talking about here. But that fix did not abolish states' rights. It still leaves things to the states that should be left to the states.

> should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy.

I already explained why this is nonsense.

> You may believe abortion is murder but that’s a completely arbitrary and, more importantly, a religious doctrine.

Not everyone who believes abortion is murder believes that on religious grounds. There are valid non-religious grounds for considering a fetus, or at least a fetus after 15 weeks, which is the deadline in the law under review, to be a person, at least to a sufficient extent that aborting it would be murder. (The brief for petitioners in this case describes some of them.) You might not agree with them, but that doesn't make them "arbitrary".

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

#197

Post by pdonis »

jmyeet wrote: post #193
pdonis wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that person is a hero. I don't think you have fully thought through your position. See below. > People have consciences whether you agree with them or not. Yes, exactly. And many people's consciences in this country tell them that abortion is murder. Particularly abortion of a fetus after 15 weeks (which is when the Mississippi law under review here bans abortion), when the fetus, as the brief for petitioners in th…

> It should be left to the states Ah, yes. The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy. Your 15 weeks bit is actually where I expected this to go. Robert’s, who I genuinely believe is aware of and concerned with the perceived legitimacy of the Court, I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like t…

> Your 15 weeks bit

It's not mine, it's what the law under review says.

> I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like that.

Upholding the law under review would "look like that" no matter what. 15 weeks is what the law already says. The Court wouldn't have to rule that every state law has to use the 15 weeks deadline; indeed, I don't think it should. It would just have to rule that the 15 weeks deadline is within the power of the state's legislature to enact.

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

#199

Post by dbsmith83 »

hindsightbias wrote: post #33

Unherd of before rulings, but this is the big one. But they’re just warming up. Obergefell v. Hodges, Affirmative Action… a lot of unwinding in the next generation. Remember, both sides are the same. /s

I can't help but see a lot of people using /s for a strawman

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

#200

Post by ModernMech »

pdonis wrote: post #183
KerrAvon wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do some reading on the subject? The arguments here are very well documented. If you don’t want to read non-fiction, try Harlan Ellison’s Neither Your Jenny Nor Mine.

> The arguments here are very well documented. What arguments? The parent to my post didn't make an argument, they made a claim unsupported by argument. If the claim is so obvious, it should be simple to post a sentence or two of supporting argument instead of me having to guess what they're talking about.

I think it's self evident. When abortion is made illegal it's not eliminated it's just made unsafe. People resort to unsafe abortive methods which will result in more dead women along with the fetus. Banning abortion also means that when one does need an abortion for medical reasons, it's difficult or expensive to have one, which will result in fewer women seeking a lifesaving abortion. That America lacks socialized healthcare compounds the problem.

Also it means that someone other than a doctor will be deciding on whether the abortion is medically necessary, and that decision will not be made on the basis of the woman's health (because if it were, the woman and the doctor would be the only ones to make it, and the government and the supreme court would have no say whatsoever). Life and death decisions related to a woman's health that are not grounded purely in actual medicine rather than politics and religion will necessarily result in more deaths (otherwise then I think we should make lawyers and priests into doctors because they are more effective at saving lives).

> the Mississippi law under review in this case does not make abortion illegal until after 15 weeks of pregnancy (and even then there are exceptions like the health of the mother)

I don't think you understand what's happened here. The Mississippi law was written for a world where Roe is still active. This opinion eviscerates Roe. Mississippi has a "trigger law" already on the books for just this occasion, and it will place a total ban on abortion as soon as the opinion is issued. Total abortion bans are going to be a thing very soon, even in the case of rape, even in the case of incest, and yes, even in the case where the health of the woman is threatened. That is all currently on the table.

Post reply on HN