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

221–230 of 358 posts

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

#221

Post by slg »

remarkEon wrote: post #213
slg wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Some states ban it or near ban it Well yes, this is the part that people are most objecting to and calling a human rights violation. How do you gloss over the fact that millions of people in the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens?

>the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens? This isn't true. The US is somewhat of an outlier in how liberal the abortion laws are here. What's likely is that, should SCOTUS not bow to the inevitable mob that will come after this leak, blue states keep their liberal abortion laws and red states don't. Most of the country will probably have abortion laws that…

Please reread both my comment and your comment. Do you not see how misleading your reply is? You completely left out a portion of my original quote so you could argue against a straw man.

I didn't say "the US will lose a basic right...".

I said "millions of people in the US will lose a basic right...".

No one thinks this will result in a federal abortion ban, but over a dozen states will immediately ban abortion upon the overturning of Roe v Wade. Those states contain millions of people who will lose the right to an abortion.

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

#222

Post by remarkEon »

slg wrote: post #221
remarkEon wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens? This isn't true. The US is somewhat of an outlier in how liberal the abortion laws are here. What's likely is that, should SCOTUS not bow to the inevitable mob that will come after this leak, blue states keep their liberal abortion laws and red states don't. Most of the country will probably have abortion laws that…

Please reread both my comment and your comment. Do you not see how misleading your reply is? You completely left out a portion of my original quote so you could argue against a straw man. I didn't say "the US will lose a basic right...". I said "millions of people in the US will lose a basic right...". No one thinks this will result in a federal abortion ban, but over a dozen states will immediately ban abortion upon…

Sure. Do you not understand how Federalism works? Voters in some states prefer more restrictive abortion laws. I'm still not following your argument. Is it that, according to you, "millions of people who want abortions" will not be able to get them because some states that are full of people (also millions, ostensibly) who want more restrictive abortion laws are now able to enact them?

Because if that's your argument it sort of gives away the game about the robustness of the Roe/Casey decision(s) in the first place.

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

#223

Post by pdonis »

matsemann wrote: post #211
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, who will enact varying policies according to what the consciences of the majority of their citizens tell them. That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..? Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority.

> That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..?

That would depend on what your conscience says, wouldn't it?

> Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority.

If a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, how would enacting a law against it, for that person, be any different than enacting a law against murder? Nobody argues that laws against murder are "tyrannizing the minority" who want to commit murder.

Or, to look at it the other way, if a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, but the majority in the state they live in think it isn't, and the laws of the state they live in, which are in accord with the wishes of the majority, permit abortions liberally, is that majority "tyrannizing" that person?

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

#224

Post by slg »

remarkEon wrote: post #222
slg wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please reread both my comment and your comment. Do you not see how misleading your reply is? You completely left out a portion of my original quote so you could argue against a straw man. I didn't say "the US will lose a basic right...". I said "millions of people in the US will lose a basic right...". No one thinks this will result in a federal abortion ban, but over a dozen states will immediately ban abortion upon…

Sure. Do you not understand how Federalism works? Voters in some states prefer more restrictive abortion laws. I'm still not following your argument. Is it that, according to you, "millions of people who want abortions" will not be able to get them because some states that are full of people (also millions, ostensibly) who want more restrictive abortion laws are now able to enact them? Because if that's your argument…

The whole point of Federalism is not for the states to decide whatever they want. That would leave little purpose for the existence of the Federal government.

The Federal government abdicating the protection of certain rights means states will infringe on those rights. I can be upset that my fellow citizens will lose those rights even if I live in state that will continue to protect my rights.

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

#225

Post by remarkEon »

loeg wrote: post #171
dragonwriter wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the absolute destruction this will wreak on internal institutional trust at the Court, there is only one sitting Justice that would really risk nothing at all by leaking it.

Barrett?

I’m assuming dragonwriter means Breyer, who is retiring after this term. Having followed the court for over a decade I’d been genuinely shocked if it was him.

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

#226

Post by matsemann »

pdonis wrote: post #223
matsemann wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It should be left to the states, who will enact varying policies according to what the consciences of the majority of their citizens tell them. That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..? Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority.

> That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..? That would depend on what your conscience says, wouldn't it? > Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority. If a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, how would enacting a law against it, for that person, be any different than enacting a law against murder? Nobody argues that laws against murder are "tyrannizi…

Why isn't then the anti-abortion laws similar to laws for murder? Can you sue strangers for murdering some other strangers?

I don't buy the "my point is that it's murder"-arguments, as the behaviors from those people don't really align with that. Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? My guess: Because it's mostly about control of others, right?

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

#227

Post by johnnyanmac »

capguy255 wrote: post #97
rayiner wrote: post #3

This sort of leak, likely from a law clerk given that it was a draft opinion, is not a good development. Nobody has any loyalty to their institutions anymore. Every institutional loyalty has been subjected to team red or team blue.

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, the point of the supreme court is to interpret established law (which IS made through public opinion) and make judgement that isn't trying to appeal for their re-election campaign.

>These nine people are unelected and appointed to their positions for life.

in a vacuum, yes. In reality, they are appointed by the president (elected official) with approval from the senate (elected officials). Checks and balances, it's not perfect but it's made so that no one person can basically rule the country like a monarchy.

>the basic premise of THIS OPINION is that public debate about controversial issues is healthy.

no, the basic premise you replied to is "things are so polarized that even state officials are trying to skew opinions through leaks".

Whether it be revealed yesterday or in 2 years, this ruling would not have changed the obviously charged discourse that such a landmark case would bring. There isn't any particular justification that it's in the public's interest to hear this ruling earlier (since, well...it's been ruled over by now I assume. They aren't just going to re-judge the case over some pre-emptive protests). It is in the courts' interests to not have employees release documents off cue.

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

#228

Post by johnnyanmac »

cudgy wrote: post #168
themacguffinman wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US Supreme justices are appointed for life, the only "face" they have to lose realistically is their legacy reputation, how they are seen by future generations. They are not really vulnerable to populist attacks of hypocrisy or flip-flopping or whatever.

> They are not really vulnerable to populist attacks of hypocrisy or flip-flopping or whatever. They are humans that have to live in society just like the rest of us. No one is completely invulnerable to society. I imagine being the target of some of these radical abortion groups (anti or pro) would be scary, especially for officials that are normally not in the limelight.

>I imagine being the target of some of these radical abortion groups (anti or pro) would be scary, especially for officials that are normally not in the limelight.

These are federal supreme court justices that rule on often (by the nature of the cases they receive) controversial topics constantly. It's not a position you take if you value privacy.

I'm sure now it's especially dangerous, but I don't think this is a novel factor in their life at this point.

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

#229

Post by tastyface »

spoils19 wrote: post #177
ModernMech wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that the current makeup of the court has been engineered for decades. It was a project that took so long because the exact right conditions needed to be in place: namely the death of a liberal justice while Republicans controlled the Senate and Presidency. In some ways the current court is a bit of a perfect storm. And what have they been saying they would do for the past 20 years? Get rid of Roe vs. Wad…

A few points: * It reads like an incredible conspiracy theory that the makeup of the court has been engineered. In addition, abortion has been hotly contested and debated, even from just looking at this site. Gay marriage is far less so, and I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage. There isn't simply a reason to be against it. * Even if it were true, sa…

> I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage.

That would imply that there is no conservative Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, etc. readership on this site?

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

#230

Post by native_samples »

matsemann wrote: post #226
pdonis wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..? That would depend on what your conscience says, wouldn't it? > Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority. If a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, how would enacting a law against it, for that person, be any different than enacting a law against murder? Nobody argues that laws against murder are "tyrannizi…

Why isn't then the anti-abortion laws similar to laws for murder? Can you sue strangers for murdering some other strangers? I don't buy the "my point is that it's murder"-arguments, as the behaviors from those people don't really align with that. Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? My guess: Because it's mostly about control of other…

Isn't this whole thread about those people getting rid of an impediment to changing the laws (in some places) to make it be treated more like murder? You seem to be condemning the pro-life contingent for doing the very thing they're now being also condemned for.
Post reply on HN