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

351–358 of 358 posts

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

#351

Post by fundad »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #227
capguy255 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yes, the point of the supreme court is to interpret established law (which IS made through public opinion) and make judgement that isn't trying to appeal for their re-election campaign. >These nine people are unelected and appointed to their positions for life. in a vacuum, yes. In reality, they are appoi…

If it’s not a political operation it should be transparent. It’s simple

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

#352

Post by rayiner »

larntz wrote: post #308
rayiner wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

By that logic, there’s no need to ban beating your dog because you can simply _choose_ not to beat your dog.

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

#353

Post by pdonis »

matsemann wrote: post #341
pdonis wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ag…

> 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.

Our society already does most of these things. One I would add is adoption.

> All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal?

I don't think reducing the number of abortions is the goal of many pro-abortion people, no. I think they just want a convenient way to not have to deal with a child they don't want by making it just go away.

> why are mist people against abortion also against most of this stuff?

Many people who are for abortion are also against much of this stuff.

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

This argument assumes that abortion is not inherently wrong. Many people who oppose abortion do believe that it is inherently wrong. If abortion is inherently wrong, it should not be legal even if some people will choose to do it knowing it is illegal, and having to do it by more dangerous means. If they choose to do it knowing it's illegal, that's their choice and they will have to bear the consequences.

> what is really your goal here?

As far as I my personal policy preference? I think the fact that there is such profound disagreement about whether abortion is wrong means that there should not be one single policy dictated to everyone. Different states should be able to have different policies.

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

#354

Post by TimTheTinker »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #337
t-3 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and if the miscarriage was caused by drinking, drugs, falling down the stairs? Who is to blame?

Accidents happen. But if someone besides the woman herself can be legally proved to be at fault, I'd argue that person ought to be guilty before the law of anything between involuntary manslaughter to murder, depending on motive, premeditation, actions, and surrounding circumstances. To clarify my position further, I'm not entirely convinced a woman who intentionally aborts her own baby should be subject to legal rev…

To be clear, what I'm advocating is the equivalent of outlawing assisted suicide alongside murder/manslaughter/etc - all are morally wrong because they take a life.

If someone wants to commit suicide, the law can't do anything about it - they're morally culpable before God for that. But if someone helps them, that ought to be against the law.

If someone helps a woman kill her baby (whether through providing abortifacient drugs, performing an abortion, etc.), that also ought to be against the law.

Maybe I'm equivocating by saying maybe we shouldn't create a law against a woman taking action to terminate her own pregnancy. And I probably would change my mind if I became convinced that such a law could be enforced justly without subjecting grieving victims of miscarriages to a miscarriage of justice.

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

#355

Post by matsemann »

pdonis wrote: post #353
matsemann wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ag…

> 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. Our society already does most of these things. One I would add is adoption. > All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal? I don…

You managed to weasel out of most of my points, which doesn't make for very fruitful discussion. But I have one more thing to add:

> This argument assumes that abortion is not inherently wrong. Many people who oppose abortion do believe that it is inherently wrong.

No. If they believed it, they wouldn't themselves get an abortion when having a child would be bad. Soooo many stories of pro-lifers preaching one thing, and doing something else when they themselves face a situation wanting to abort. They are "excused" because of the circumstances, but when others have the same problems, they are "immoral" for getting into the situation.

That's hypocritical, and shows it's more about imposing moral values onto others and controlling them, not a belief about it being inherently wrong.

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

#356

Post by cudgy »

usrn wrote: post #317
cudgy wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because institutions care not about their people? Granted that Leaking of information by a law clerk when the clerk should be aware that they are not going to like many of the decisions made while clerking is unprofessional at the least.

I don't think the MBAs appreciate just how destructive decisions that effect the employee's trust in the organization are.

True. MBA’s are short time horizon creatures. The impacts of their decisions are closely measured related to the number of years they expect to be employed at that company. Why should they care about anything else? Unfortunately, most of the executive compensation measures at corporations support this type of thinking.

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

#357

Post by pdonis »

matsemann wrote: post #355
pdonis wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Our society already does most of these things. One I would add is adoption. > All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal? I don…

You managed to weasel out of most of my points, which doesn't make for very fruitful discussion. But I have one more thing to add: > This argument assumes that abortion is not inherently wrong. Many people who oppose abortion do believe that it is inherently wrong. No. If they believed it, they wouldn't themselves get an abortion when having a child would be bad. Soooo many stories of pro-lifers preaching one thing,…

> You managed to weasel out of most of my points, which doesn't make for very fruitful discussion.

It seems to me that you are the one weaseling, since the points you are responding to bear no resemblance to any points I've actually made.

> Soooo many stories of pro-lifers preaching one thing, and doing something else when they themselves face a situation wanting to abort.

I am not any such "pro-lifer" (I'm not a "pro-lifer" at all, that's a buzzword, just like "pro-choice" or "bodily autonomy"). So whoever you think you are responding to here, it isn't me. Nor are all people who believe abortion is wrong "pro-lifers".

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

#358

Post by hunter2_ »

rayiner wrote: post #352
larntz wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

By that logic, there’s no need to ban beating your dog because you can simply _choose_ not to beat your dog.

We give the benefit of a safe life to dogs because beating them offers no benefit (and I should note that we _do_ allow putting them down when they're causing excessive harm).

The same doesn't hold for aborting a fetus, because that can be key to the mother's wellbeing. Whether the scale tips toward that of the mother or that of the fetus is the debate, and since it's not cut and dry, individual choice makes sense.

Post reply on HN