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

301–310 of 358 posts

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

#301

Post by native_samples »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #272
native_samples wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

No, the "narrative" is not based just on Clinton's claims. There's way more than that. There's research into fake social media accounts, what they do, and who runs them. To me, the one that really stands out was when sock puppet Facebook accounts organized a BLM rally and a MAGA rally at the same time and place. That seems pretty clear what the intent was.

And virtually all that research is wrong. It's full of stuff like "here's a Russian bot whoops no that's actually a Scottish car park attendant". Or "here's an ML model that detects Russian bots oops it detected Biden as a bot".

The quality of evidence for this idea (really, this conspiracy theory) is absurdly low. And it remains true that nobody was spreading this idea up until the moment it became clear that the supposed Russian sock puppets appeared to be supporting both sides in the election. I remember it quite clearly. The supposed Russian master plan changed overnight after that.

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

#302

Post by shkkmo »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #286
zaccusl wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So the legal question is whether a baby that hasn't yet been born is a person" That's not the important question. The question is can one person be compelled to use their body to sustain another persons life. We can't even force DEAD people to use their body to sustain life (i.e., a person has to consent to donate organs before they die).

> That's not the important question. This debate hinges entirely on a disagreement over which moral question is the most important.

It isn't really about which is "more important" morally. Both sides agree that infants have some legal rights, the questions are whether one of those legal rights is having their mother to bear them to term against their mother's will and if so, when that right begins and how much risk the mother can be required to accept in doing so.

Edit: One thing I don't see mentioned is how a ethically consistent Pro-Life stance seems to require support for state sponsored healthcare. Requiring people to bear the costs of pregnancy to achieve the state's moral obligations seems unreasonably cruel and counter productive if the infant's well being is the priority. Banning abortions without covering pregnancy costs seems more interested in imposing culture than in protecting the helpless.

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

#303

Post by ceejayoz »

remarkEon wrote: post #299
ceejayoz wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why would you think this court makeup would uphold a Federal abortion protection?

They largely won’t even uphold the VRA.

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

#304

Post by 5678909787 »

slg wrote: post #293
leereeves wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Safe haven laws don't do that. They just provide an exception to child abandonment laws. They don't directly affect parental responsibility. If a child has two parents and one of them drops the child of at a safe haven location and the other reports the child missing, the child will most likely be found and given to the parent who did not abandon the child. Nobody will be prosecuted, but the parent who dropped the child off will be ordered to pay child support.

I think this is wrong too, but I think banning abortions is much worse because it's a more direct interference with an individual's body. One is like a a tax, money is taken from you without consent but you are mostly free to get the money however you like. The other is like a mix between forced organ harvesting and slavery where somebody else asserts direct ownership/control over your body.

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

#305

Post by 5678909787 »

rayiner wrote: post #300
jfengel wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are not imposing restrictions on themselves. Anyone who doesn't want an abortion can just not have an abortion. They are imposing restrictions on other people. Being a majority doesn't give you the right to impose restrictions on the minority. Bodily autonomy is an individual right. I don't care if you vote 99% to 1%, that 1% still have the right to control their own body.

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

#306

Post by pen2l »

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…

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

That's not entirely true, the people voted for them by proxy. We live in a republic not an athenian democracy, this is how a lot of things work, it's how it's supposed to work.

And I would further argue that the justices are pillars of the government in that the foundations are not easily swayed if indeed they are impervious to the temporal whims of galvanized crowds.

This was ultimately the choice of the country within the current framework of the government.

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

#307

Post by encryptluks2 »

bitwize wrote: post #291
encryptluks2 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

> 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.

That is how you give up democracy.

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

#308

Post by larntz »

rayiner wrote: post #300
jfengel wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

You could also argue that if 59% of people in Mississippi oppose abortion there's no need to make it illegal. No one will ever force that 59% to start having abortions.

The 59% could simply _choose_ not to have an abortion.

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

#309

Post by ceejayoz »

rayiner wrote: post #297
ceejayoz wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 right…

There are three Republican senators and zero representatives, as far as I can see, that espouse anything close to a pro-choice position. It has been a litmus test for their candidates for decades.

I don’t see much evidence of what you’re asserting. 13 states have already pre-banned abortion, and another ten plan to when Roe falls. Doesn’t seem to be much of a split.

https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-23-states-ban-abor...

Similarly, polling of what “most Americans oppose” says the opposite of what you assert.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/03/most-amer...

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

#310

Post by slg »

5678909787 wrote: post #304
slg wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 e…

Safe haven laws don't do that. They just provide an exception to child abandonment laws. They don't directly affect parental responsibility. If a child has two parents and one of them drops the child of at a safe haven location and the other reports the child missing, the child will most likely be found and given to the parent who did not abandon the child. Nobody will be prosecuted, but the parent who dropped the ch…

>Safe haven laws don't do that. They just provide an exception to child abandonment laws. They don't directly affect parental responsibility.

If you can abandon a child without repercussion, how is that not directly affecting parental responsibility?

Whether there are specific exceptions to these rules is irrelevant. Almost no one is pushing for unrestricted abortions up to birth. The analog is that we give people potential outs so they are not forced to be responsible for another person.

Post reply on HN