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

291–300 of 358 posts

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

#291

Post by bitwize »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #288
bitwize wrote: post #284

Whoever did this is a Chelsea Manning-tier hero. As long as the conservatives keep ratfucking democracy and human rights, they do not deserve the quarter afforded by the usual closed-door processes.

[flagged]

This is true. However, we need to start somewhere and the GOP is overtly a far-right, terrorist organization. It would only take a declaration from the President to that effect, and then the government could legitimately freeze its assets and lock it out of political life, setting the stage for a Democrats-Greens bipartisan political axis. When the farthest right party that's still acceptable is the Democrats, maybe real work can begin.

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

#292

Post by jfengel »

rayiner wrote: post #250
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?

I think if Texans want to be like Ireland until 2020 or Poland now they should be allowed to do that and it’s none of my business here in Maryland.

And if Texans want to be like Texas until 1865?

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

#293

Post by slg »

leereeves wrote: post #285
slg wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except we don’t force this on people. We give parents the opportunity to opt out through adoption.

Only if that's considered to be in the child's best interests. For example, older children can't be given away without their consent, fathers generally can't terminate their responsibility without the mother's consent, and it must be done in a manner that protects the child (not simply abandoned).

>Only if that's considered to be in the child's best interests.

I don't have to argue against you. I can just point to the leaked draft that argues against you. It specifically cites safe haven laws which allow people to anonymously put their child up for adoption. These laws have no consideration on what the child's life would be like with their biological parents or after they become a ward of the state. The mere existence of those laws is legal precedent that it is acceptable to abdicate care over a child post-birth. Why shouldn't that be possible pre-birth?

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

#294

Post by slg »

rayiner wrote: post #250
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?

I think if Texans want to be like Ireland until 2020 or Poland now they should be allowed to do that and it’s none of my business here in Maryland.

Might as well dissolve the union then. What is the point of having a Federal government if what happens in Texas is none of my business?

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

#295

Post by rayiner »

ceejayoz wrote: post #281
vanattab wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you don't have an inaliable right to creme brulee do you? If the FDA/Congress decides dairy should no longer be sold or consumed in the USA then they can pass a rule/law and it would almost certainly be upheld as constitutional. All the politicians might get thrown out by the cheese lovers in the next election. But it would be perfectly legal. The constitution I think is referring to other rights established in E…

Unenumerated rights are implied, inferred, etc. The right to vote, for example, isn't actually in the Constitution (eligibility is left to the States, and various amendments only forbid certain types of discrimination in eligibility), but everyone agrees it exists to some extent. Similarly, a right to privacy of some level is generally considered to stem from the Fourth Amendment. The right to freedom of movement is…

> Unenumerated rights are implied, inferred, etc.

It’s easier to find some rights implied than others. And the US Supreme Court is unusual in how aggressively it overrules legislatures in finding implied rights.

For example, the European Convention on Human Rights contains an express right to marriage. Yet in 2016, the European Court of Human Rights found that there was no implied right to same sex marriage in the Convention. But the year before, the US Supreme Court had found the same right in the US Constitution, which doesn’t even contain an express marriage right.

The Supreme Court was not designed to be a tribunal of experts that overrules the people on moral questions. Not only is there no basis for that in our Constitution, it’s a departure from how most developed nations understand democracy to work.

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

#296

Post by rayiner »

ceejayoz wrote: post #253
rayiner wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The same thing that stops legislatures from doing that in other countries, and the same thing that forced Ireland to legalize abortion a few years ago: voters.

Around time Roe was decided, the high courts of several developed countries (Italy, West Germany, etc.) all took up the same issue. The US was the only one to find a fundamental right to abortion. Germany found the opposite, a fundamental right to life. The other courts determined it was an issue for the legislature.

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

#297

Post by rayiner »

ceejayoz wrote: post #267
ReptileMan wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will stop a future Democratic Congress from enshrining it at the Federal level and SCOTUS upholding that?

You mean other than six conservative justices?

You keep saying “conservative” but you don’t seem to understand the conservative position here. The right is split over abortion. What they’re united against is Roe, which is both egregious legal ju jitsu and enshrines a right extending to fetal viability that most Americans oppose.

There are six votes to overturn Roe. There aren’t six votes to overturn a federal enactment that protects some level of abortion rights.

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

#298

Post by rayiner »

zaccusl wrote: post #276
rayiner wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

This is a fallacious argument until you grapple with the reality that no HUMAN has the right to use another HUMAN to sustain life. It doesn't matter if a person is a fully grown adult that can cure cancer and world hunger, or a 1 year child. That person does not have the right to use another person to sustain their own life under any circumstances. You are arguing a strawman. The question is not if the fetus is "huma…

> This is a fallacious argument until you grapple with the reality that no HUMAN has the right to use another HUMAN to sustain life.

Says who? By that logic, abortion should be legal until birth, and even the most liberal countries in Europe reject that position.

Virtually everyone, including the Roe itself, recognizes that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy has a limit. The question everyone grapples with is where to draw the line.

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

#299

Post by remarkEon »

ceejayoz wrote: post #252
remarkEon wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

And they'd just as likely uphold a Federal protection of abortion if an upcoming Democrat Congress and White House passed one.

What's your point?

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

#300

Post by rayiner »

jfengel wrote: post #292
rayiner wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if Texans want to be like Ireland until 2020 or Poland now they should be allowed to do that and it’s none of my business here in Maryland.

And if Texans want to be like Texas until 1865?

We had a whole civil war and enacted several amendments to address the unique situation of a majority in a state enslaving or discriminating against a discrete minority.

That has nothing to do with a majority of people imposing restrictions on themselves. 59% of people in Mississippi oppose abortion, including the majority of women. There is no need for California or New York to parachute in and tell them otherwise.

Post reply on HN