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

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#101

Post by ascagnel_ »

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…

Roe stood for years because the decision directly tied it to the right to privacy (via the 9th and 14th amendments), because that right "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy". The Supreme Court reverses itself in this Dobbs decision; skimming the final decision, it attempts to tear down the original justification, but I'm not seeing an argument beyond "we think they were wrong", which is a pretty awful rationale for the Supreme Court.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#102

Post by willcipriano »

voisin wrote: post #88
qalmakka wrote: post #64

This is the final chapter of a decade-long saga which basically boils down to the Republicans obtaining votes from Evangelicals and other Christian denominations in order to give them what they wanted. In exchange for that, they would use their power to cut taxes, regulations and let the riches become richer and richer at the expense of everyone else. I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and…

> I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and I'd like to remind them that, while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention, he was quite vocal about the fact that greed was not compatible with salvation. I'd like to see Evangelicals and other Christians being as vocal for social justice as they were for abortions and same sex marriage, but I guess they do care more about puttin…

This is simply a matter of law. The justification for Roe Vs Wade doesn't hold water, it never did, it asserts a right to privacy that apparently only applies in the specific case of abortion and not in warrantless surveillance or any other matter. It was a legal fiction.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#103

Post by ClumsyPilot »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #56
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…

In my opinion, It's up to the federal government to make federal laws, not the supreme court. Democrats had _plenty_ of time to put the right for abortion into a law and pass it. Now, they have a platform on which to run for the next election, convenient... Politicians delegate too many decisions to the SCOTUS because they don't want to govern, well the SCOTUS isn't supposed to govern in their place. If nothing can g…

i think it's a twrrible decision, but you have a point policians can keep kicking issues into the long grass- ultinately it will land on scotus and they have to make a decision

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#105

Post by bigmattystyles »

giarc wrote: post #32
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

Rich given he is a black man married to a white women. Cherry picks cases for same-sex marriage but not cases allowing inter-racial marriage.

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#106

Post by cm277 »

It hurts me to say this, but American democracy is broken. Checks and balances have been twisted to subvert true democratic rule. We should stop worshipping the Founders and their intent, and aim for a Second American Republic, built around the tested and true practices of mature European republics (that have done a lot more revisions than our 1.0.33 release...):

- Parliamentary democracy, two chambered if need be, with slowly changing electoral maps (drawn from the Census and controlled by judges, not politicians)

- Ban on non-government funding of political parties. Money raised comes from the government or small donations.

- Parliament/senate majority is enough. Enough of that 19th century filibuster nonsense.

- Faster constitutional amendment cycles that don't require supermajorities

- No assinine lifetime appointments to anything. A 10- or 12-year term and a healthy pension are controls enough

Law is code: it needs to be easy to change when it's not working and it needs good change processes when it does change. But we cant be running a modern economy and society on 250 year old COBOL...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#107

Post by andsoitis »

typeofhuman wrote: post #72
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.

then why do these same people not do other things to protect life that's already being lived?

sorry, this is not enlightened.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#108

Post by gjsman-1000 »

qalmakka wrote: post #64

This is the final chapter of a decade-long saga which basically boils down to the Republicans obtaining votes from Evangelicals and other Christian denominations in order to give them what they wanted. In exchange for that, they would use their power to cut taxes, regulations and let the riches become richer and richer at the expense of everyone else. I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and…

> while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention

In his defense, Jesus came to fulfill the old law and not abolish it, as directly stated by himself. The old law has the 5th commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," which in the times of Jesus was unanimously interpreted to cover abortion (Psalm 139 being one reason why) and Jesus, by not speaking against this interpretation (unlike other interpretations), left that view unchanged.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#109

Post by PathOfEclipse »

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#110

Post by zrail »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #56
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…

In my opinion, It's up to the federal government to make federal laws, not the supreme court. Democrats had _plenty_ of time to put the right for abortion into a law and pass it. Now, they have a platform on which to run for the next election, convenient... Politicians delegate too many decisions to the SCOTUS because they don't want to govern, well the SCOTUS isn't supposed to govern in their place. If nothing can g…

The problem as always is the silent filibuster. If obstructionists in the senate actually had to stand up and defend their obstruction more things would get done.
Post reply on HN