Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#71

Post by ADifferentKyle »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #30
YPPH wrote: post #23

As an Australian, a few things about the SCOTUS absolutely shock me, aside from the obvious issue of politicisation. I've only skimmed the judgment, but Roberts CJ convincingly points out that there was no need for the court to completely overturn Roe. It would suffice to jettison the viability standard. Going further was completely unnecessary to decide the case. On the other hand, Thomas J took the occasion, withou…

“Judicial activism” refers to striking down state laws. In this case they upheld a law.

I've never heard such a limiting definition for judicial activism. It's typically understood more broadly as a criticism of American judges who, according to some, go beyond their duties of "interpreting law" and instead create it. To borrow from conservapedia (a resource I wouldn't otherwise defend, except in this limited case), it's "when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court."

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#72

Post by typeofhuman »

lawn wrote: post #52

There's this belief that society always moves in a "forward/upward" directory, where we become more advanced, more enlightened and more moral. But this is not the case and sometimes we regress.

A contrarian argument would say that protecting life - especially young life - is a more enlightened and moral direction.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#73

Post by voisin »

echelon wrote: post #60
uptown wrote: post #19

"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112

The Supreme Court positions to be elected positions. None of this is the will of the people.

If I understand correctly, it now devolves to the states where elected people make the laws that apply.

So the issue is really what the hell is wrong with the states where the people elected feel empowered to take rights away from half their populace.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#74

Post by JasonFruit »

echelon wrote: post #60
uptown wrote: post #19

"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112

The Supreme Court positions to be elected positions. None of this is the will of the people.

The Court is a counterbalance against the tyranny of the majority. It's specifically, intentionally undemocratic.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#77

Post by _ph_ »

usrn wrote: post #6

This doesn't ban abortion, it leaves it up to the states. IMO that's the best since people simply aren't going to agree on it. EDIT: Abortion is not in the Constitution in any way, it's not a right.

Do get states to decide on slavery again too? I think such fundamental, health and freedom-related questions should be decided on a national level.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#78

Post by windows2020 »

dimator wrote: post #62

The real question is, what kind of draconian laws will they start hatching to make abortion tourism (flying to a state where it's legal, then coming back) illegal. How do you legislate that? Are people still free to go to another state if they want? Are they getting arrested as soon as they come back? The next case they'll hear is about Mississippi v Some Nonprofit That Pays For Abortion Flights.

You don't legislate that. That's the point of states.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#79

Post by qalmakka »

thriftwy wrote: post #26

(edited) It's not like you had any more urgent issues than this? That move greatly reinforces Galkovsky's position that USA is now a Latin American country not unlike Brazil; and indeed, Latin American countries also deeply care about this (non)issue and have abortion laws inappropriate to their general level of economical and human development. The problem being, at least Brazil recognizes that it is Brazil and know…

It's a simple vote exchange, you know. People got triggered badly by Roe and "liberal" rulings that actually enshrined the right of women to have a sexual life and control their own life, so they made a pact with the Republicans to overturn it. In exchange for that, the Republicans had a free hand to cut taxes to rich people and ensure that poor people stayed poor.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#80

Post by ncallaway »

jjgreen wrote: post #10

The day that the coat-hanger became a medical instrument (again).

We very thankfully have more options for women that are much safer than coat hangers.

There are drugs that will allow women to have illegal abortions that are much much safer than a coat hanger. The important factor will be finding ways to get such drugs to women in states where they cannot be legally used, and ensuring that such a delivery mechanism delivers safe, and authentic drugs.

Post reply on HN