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

341–350 of 358 posts

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

#341

Post by matsemann »

pdonis wrote: post #290
matsemann wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? That kind of argument would not support the Roe and Casey viability standard for when states can ban abortions, since our current science and experience says that an abortion will cause suffering to the fetus well before viability. > Because it's mostly about control of others, right? A woman get…

My point was really that if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, do stuff that actually helps: promote sexual education, support free and available contraceptive, support government programs that help families so that having a kid is less of a financial burden, support longer maternity leave.

Etc etc etc. All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal? So why are mist people against abortion also against most of this stuff?

And we all know that outlawing abortions doesn't stop them. It just makes them more dangerous and lead to more suffering for everyone involved.

So what is really your goal here? Tell me.

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

#342

Post by weakfish »

NoSorryCannot wrote: post #256
onesafari wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Americans can’t handle not being exceptional

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

#343

Post by vkou »

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.

You're calling it the last authoritative institution, when two of the last three appointments (Coney and Gorsuch) to it have been made through an utterly insane hypocritical[1], and blatantly partisan circus.

[1] 2016 - It's inappropriate to do an appointment on election year! [2]

[2] 2020 - Of course we will fast-track an appointment on election year!

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

#344

Post by ceejayoz »

xyzzyz wrote: post #338
ceejayoz wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you think this court makeup would uphold a Federal abortion protection? They largely won’t even uphold the VRA.

How did this court makeup rule in the Bostock case?

This court didn’t, unless I missed some news about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s miraculous resurrection.

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

#345

Post by Maursault »

rayiner wrote: post #322
Maursault wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

I'm sorry, you have to read the first 11 words of the Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons

> 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.

I said the spirit of a right of abortion lives in this amendment. If the government bans abortions, this is precisely the same thing as effectively nationalizing fetuses and quartering them in bodies, yes, but also in houses, as those bodies live in houses. The point is consent... if a woman does not consent to a pregnancy...

You really have to try very very hard not to see it. Well done.

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

#346

Post by Maursault »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #201
Maursault wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

The problem is, even if a fetus is a person, by all philosophical definitions of a person, pregnancy is only an ethical arrangement if the mother consents to the pregnancy.[1] If she does not, the fetus is, perhaps ironically, violating her human rights.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

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

#347

Post by tragictrash »

leereeves wrote: post #283
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).

Quoted post unavailable.

It's people like you that make the world hell to live in.

You have no business telling anyone what to do with their body.

What about your supposed encroachment of our freedoms? Does that not apply here?

Oh, right, when it's the CDC making public health recommendations that's your freedoms being eroded, but when it's the government limiting a woman's autonomy, your all for it.

You are insufferable.

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

#348

Post by rayiner »

ceejayoz wrote: post #344
xyzzyz wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did this court makeup rule in the Bostock case?

This court didn’t, unless I missed some news about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s miraculous resurrection.

Bostock was 6-3, with Gorsuch and Robert’s joining the majority. Even swapping RBG for Barret, Bostock still would have come out the same way. Also note that only Alito and Thomas wrote in criticism of Obergefell to concur in the denial of cert for the Kim Davis case.

I know you think conservatives are just as results oriented as liberals, but that’s not true. No liberal Justice will ever go wobbly on a liberal social issue. It’s always a conservative justice that breaks the party line on cases like Bostock (O’Conner, Kennedy, Roberts, and now Gorsuch).

Roe is uniquely at risk because it embraces the liberal notion of Supreme Court as national moral tribunal in its purest form. Even liberals struggle to defend the decision on its on merits. Tim Carney has collected an entire list of quotes from prominent liberal academics criticizing Roe https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/restori...

> One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” That's liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe.

Decisions like Oberrgefell and Bostock are on far firmer legal footing.

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

#349

Post by fundad »

purple_ferret wrote: post #42
dragonwriter wrote: post #21

SCOTUSblog’s Twitter has an on point take on the significance of the leak within the Court: https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521295411545260035?t=... It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.

Who cares. The supreme court has lost all credibility and has become just another political arm.

The credibility of the court only matters to people who want Republican outcomes. I’ve always resented that we have no Federal legal protections for mixed marriage, birth control or abortion.

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

#350

Post by fundad »

IAmWorried wrote: post #116
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.

Stupid take man. Even if they have "lost all credibility" in your eyes they still make decisions that have impact.

Because we comply. Look at how the right did away with mask mandates. And remember who needs to be up front.
Post reply on HN