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

321–330 of 358 posts

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

#321

Post by rayiner »

shkkmo wrote: post #302
TimTheTinker wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No post body was provided.

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

#322

Post by rayiner »

Maursault wrote: post #151
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…

> It takes some mental gymnastics to say that elective abortions to 24 weeks is a “human right” No one ever said that... and apparently you've entirely missed the ProChoice argument. Does a government have the right to prevent you from having an appendectomy? Where does the government end and you begin? ProChoice is about limiting absolute government authority, like, over your cells and junk. btw the rights in questi…

> We generally refer to it as the Fourth Amendment

Help me understand what protections against warrantless “searches and seizures” has to do with the State regulating medical procedures?

> 3rd amendment

Which says: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner.”

I’m at a loss. You understand the Constitution is a legal document, right? Not a sequence of metaphors and allegories? Is a fetus a “soldier?” No? Then the Third Amendment is irrelevant.

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

#323

Post by rayiner »

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?

Roe exists only because Supreme Court Justices in their ivory tower overturned the laws the “public” had supported. People are afraid of Roe being overturned only because they are afraid of the laws duly elected officials will enact with public support when it’s gone.

The Supreme Court, as conceived by liberals, is an ivory tower where elite lawyers dish out rulings on moral issues without regard to the public perception.

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

#324

Post by dahfizz »

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.

Then why do I pay so much for welfare and Medicare? You're clearly okay forcing people to sustain other people on some level.

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

#325

Post by bitwize »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #307
bitwize wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Germans banned the Nazis from political participation or even airing their views publicly. Did the Germans give up democracy?

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

#326

Post by capguy255 »

refurb wrote: post #127
capguy255 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hand-wringing about "process" is a POLITICAL argument designed to deflect attention from substance. It's an argument that politicians make to change the topic and not an appropriate argument for the courts. Stop trying to change the topic. And even if accepting this framing -- which "process" exactly has been undermined? Has someone suggested stripping the courts of jurisdiction for certain cases? Have the courts bee…

Are you aware of “judicial independence”? Are you aware of “separation of powers”? Are you aware that no such leak has ever occurred before it interferes with judicial independence? Are you aware that the courts job is to decide if laws are constitutional/valid and Congress’ job to actually create law? You hand wave away “process” when the entire function of the government is based on process. If you throw away proce…

This stuff has happened before. It will happen again. I assume that you must believe that the violation of the nine person sacred debate club is far worse than any of the substantive consequences from the actual decision, right?

Specifically -- are you aware that before the Roe v. Wade decision was released in 1973, that news of the decision leaked to the Washington Post? The idea that this has "never occurred" is absurd when a) it has, b) it literally happened in the case that this will overturn.

Are you aware that there was a series of leaks during the Berger court and that everything ended up fine?

> Judicial independence, separation of powers

If the leak came from within the judiciary, how does this threaten the independence of the court?

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

#327

Post by t-3 »

rayiner wrote: post #321
shkkmo wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

So, when do we start sending women to jail for a miscarriage?

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

#328

Post by krapp »

vanattab wrote: post #282
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not going to find any unity on this issue in a Convention of the States, either.

Hmm I don't know. I could possibly see some room for a compromise between blue and red states where a constitutional addmenment would protect a right to abortion in the first trimester and ban it afterwords. It would be likey be opposed by many on both extremes but ALOT of people are in the fuzzy gray space between the two sides on this very complex issue.

Red states aren't going to compromise now that they know the Supreme Court is in their pocket. If they go for a constitutional amendment it will be for an explicit and unconditional ban on abortion, and probably an amendment banning gay marriage as well.

They consider themselves fighting a holy war where these things are concerned, not mere politics, and doesn't compromise with the enemy when one can destroy them utterly.

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

#329

Post by encryptluks2 »

bitwize wrote: post #325
encryptluks2 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The Germans banned the Nazis from political participation or even airing their views publicly. Did the Germans give up democracy?

LOL, the Nazis rose to power and it wasn't until they were defeated in war that they did so. It is an entirely different situation, and Germans also lost certain political freedoms including certain video games.

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

#330

Post by 5678909787 »

slg wrote: post #310
5678909787 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

The rule is just that it's not a crime to leave a child in that location. It doesn't legally affect parental responsibility or anything else outside of criminal law.

I'm 100% in favour of unrestricted abortions up to birth. Bodily autonomy doesn't have a time-limit and it doesn't suddenly become okay for another person to decide what someone can do with their body just because they waited past a particular deadline.

Post reply on HN