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

251–260 of 358 posts

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

#251

Post by ceejayoz »

rayiner wrote: post #245
ceejayoz wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution was explicitly not a “here are your rights, and only these ones” document. The Ninth Amendment states: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Sure—but those other rights must still exist and come from somewhere. Where does the right to abortions until viability come from?

The same place my right to pick my nose, eat creme brulee, and hug my kids come from.

It doesn't have to be written down for it to be one.

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

#252

Post by ceejayoz »

remarkEon wrote: post #218
KerrAvon wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies, but you are completely detached from political reality. Right now, multiple states have passed legislation banning all abortion, period, no exceptions. Texas’s legislation that SCOTUS refused to halt has made it legally perilous to move out of state to get an abortion. And do you thinkt he cons on the SCOTUS are satisfied with this? They’ll be glad to ban abortion nationwide completely. They’re not gonna l…

>And do you thinkt he cons on the SCOTUS are satisfied with this? They’ll be glad to ban abortion nationwide completely. Did you read what Alito wrote? He's explicitly stating he doesn't want SCOTUS ruling on the legality of abortion. How, precisely, would SCOTUS "ban abortion" in this scenario?

They'll be glad to uphold a Federal ban passed by an upcoming Republican Congress and White House.

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

#253

Post by ceejayoz »

rayiner wrote: post #246
KerrAvon wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies, but you are completely detached from political reality. Right now, multiple states have passed legislation banning all abortion, period, no exceptions. Texas’s legislation that SCOTUS refused to halt has made it legally perilous to move out of state to get an abortion. And do you thinkt he cons on the SCOTUS are satisfied with this? They’ll be glad to ban abortion nationwide completely. They’re not gonna l…

> And do you thinkt he cons on the SCOTUS are satisfied with this? They’ll be glad to ban abortion nationwide completely. They’re not gonna leave it to the states. On what basis? Do you think they’ll make up a right to override state abortion laws the way Roe did?

What would stop a future Republican Congress / White House from banning it at the Federal level, and SCOTUS from upholding that?

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

#254

Post by leereeves »

slg wrote: post #210
TimTheTinker wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your remarks are a good summary of pro-choice arguments. There are also credible pro-life arguments. The 14th amendment's Equal Protection clause is arguably provides the strongest legal basis for banning abortion: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So the legal question is…

>Zooming out a bit, pro-life people see abortion as a modern analog to slavery in the US (where enslaved African-Americans were viewed as 3/5 of a person), except that unborn babies are viewed as not a person at all -- and this framing is used to justify killing them, not merely enslaving them and denying them the right to vote. I would argue the better slavery analogy is taking away the bodily autonomy of one indivi…

Parental responsibility doesn't stop there. Parents can be jailed for failing to take care of their children; imprisoned for life if their children die through neglect or abandonment; or almost literally enslaved, told what jobs to take and have their earnings confiscated.

I haven't heard anyone seriously challenging the extent of parental responsibility, only when it begins.

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

#255

Post by hotpotamus »

pdonis wrote: post #165
hotpotamus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that the US is a country and Europe is not. Generally speaking it might limit your liberties if one state did not recognize your spouse and another did.

> Generally speaking it might limit your liberties if one state did not recognize your spouse and another did. That would violate the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. Even before Obergefell v. Hodges, states that didn't allow gay couples to marry still had to honor the marriages of gay couples who were married in other states that did allow it.

Was that ever actually settled before Obergefell? My memory is that it was undecided, and Obergefell ended it pretty decisively.

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

#256

Post by NoSorryCannot »

onesafari wrote: post #166
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.

If that's true, the country is over. It's the last authoritative institution.

Overly dramatic. A lot of countries that are still countries have completely rewritten their constitutions a few times over.

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

#257

Post by dredmorbius »

rayiner wrote: post #248
quantified wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re attached by an umbilical cord and that dependent on the womb’s environment, you are in no way individual. If I hadn’t made it out alive, I wouldn’t care about a thing, same as I won’t care 70 years or so from now. Would have been fine with not experiencing the life I’ve had.

> If you’re attached by an umbilical cord and that dependent on the womb’s environment, you are in no way individual A newborn is completely dependent and isn’t meaningfully any more of an individual. Also can be killed at will?

A newborn is dependent on society. Anyone willing to take on its care can do so.

A foetus is dependent upon its mother. Specifically. One person to whom it is biologically attached. Not society generally.

Technology is advancing, but costs of transferring care are extraordinarily high, and outcomes quite uncertain.

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

#258

Post by debacle »

ceejayoz wrote: post #38
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

Lawrence and Griswold may be on the chopping block, as well.

It sounds like this ruling is precisely based on throwing out Griswold.

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

#259

Post by rayiner »

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…

Those states voted for those laws. What interest does someone in California or New York have in trying to overturn the local will?

Abortion isn’t like civil rights, where southern states passed laws directed at a minority that had a unique historical position. States where voters choose to ban abortion have women the same as states who choose to allow abortion and those women agree with the bans. The majority of Black women in Mississippi think abortion should be illegal. Why should anyone in New York get a say?

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

#260

Post by rayiner »

slg wrote: post #224
remarkEon wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But who gets to decide what those “rights” are?

Very few countries around the world think that there is a “right” to abortion until viability. It was created out of whole cloth by elite lawyers in the US.

Post reply on HN