Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

apnews.com

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#321

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…

> This is the final chapter

No, its not.

The use of state power to exterminate trans people is the next chapter, and its already well under way. More broadly, much of the next series of chapters is using selective application of “religious liberty” to establish unique and particular entitlement for favored Christian groups across the board, by dismissing the sincerity of other beliefs and/or judging the burdens imposed on them by a different subjective standard in applying the “substantial burden” test than is applied on favored Christian beliefs.

Viewed even more broadly, the focus is on dismantling substantive anti-discrimination protections for non-favored groups extending beyond religion by similar means (as is the case for the above trends, we’ve already seen some elements of this, such as the judicial dismantling of much of the Voting Rights Act; but that is just the beginning, there is much more to come.)

EDIT: Heck, this isn’t even the end of this chapter, if one considers the way this is part of the integrated campaign against sexual and reproductive freedom and the right of privacy established in the line of cases running (through Roe) back to Griswold v. Connecticut, which are all under attack, and span issues beyond abortion to include contraception, same sex marriage, sodomy laws, etc.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#322

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 think the system is broken if the personal affiliations of supreme court judges plays such a big part in the outcome of cases. It should be about the law, not about politics. They're supposed to put that stuff aside when they take a legal office. Trias politica and all.

You must be new

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#323

Looking at this ruling and the one a few days ago on arms - could someone explain to me why they're wrong legally? FYI I'm not American and personally am in favour of legalised abortion + severe gun restrictions. My understanding is these rulings are both based on the constitution. The one on guns seems really straightforward: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of th…

Nothing in this opinion bars the Congress from crafting a compromise. One might hope it prompts just such deliberation, though within the confines of present politics I find that unlikely.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#324

Looking at this ruling and the one a few days ago on arms - could someone explain to me why they're wrong legally? FYI I'm not American and personally am in favour of legalised abortion + severe gun restrictions. My understanding is these rulings are both based on the constitution. The one on guns seems really straightforward: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of th…

This is exactly the point for me. Roe V Wade embraced a court that decided that judges could/should legislate (that is, make new laws) rather then enforce the text of existing laws. This is not new from the court - separate but equal, Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, Dredd Scott - all basically where examples of the court taking matters into their own hands. This simply says "Abortion is a legislative matter - the cons…

And in their justification, the assenting justices are now coming for gay marriage. It’s funny that justice Thomas is not also gunning for interracial marriage, given that they were both legalized using the same interpretation of the law. SCOTUS is a joke, and it’s decisions should hold no bearing going forward.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#326

So this raises some interesting questions. What if an American person wishing to have an abortion just travels to another country where it's legal to get it done? Can they be arrested upon return? If so, does that mean that all Europeans that had an abortion could be liable to prosecution in the US if they choose to visit? Not that I expect a huge impact to tourism etc. I've seen gay football fans willing to go to Qa…

Why would those women go to a different country instead of a different state?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#327
post #118

I'm pro-choice but I still believe that this is the right move. > “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.…

So you believe that doing the wrong thing for the right reason is better than doing the right thing for the wrong reason? That intent matters more than outcome? And that laws being structured in a way you specifically find compelling matters more than the morality of a law?

I think we can have some nuance here. As individuals I believe we have the leeway to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. But once we get to the level of government and acting in accordance with laws, I believe that acting for the right reasons (i.e. following the laws) is the only option that can lead to long term outcomes.

For the government to selectively follow laws, saying that in this case they don't apply since they don't give us the right result, makes a mockery of the very idea of having laws.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#328
post #156

So why doesn’t Biden change the size of the court to stack it with liberals?

Because its a huge balancing act, if 25% of population (no matter political beliefs) views the government as illegitimate it leads to chaos.

Our current technological civilization is EXTREMELY fragile. 5 attackers in 2014 took down a CA power grid and caused millions in damages. They were never caught.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/05/272015606...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#329
post #205

Looking at this ruling and the one a few days ago on arms - could someone explain to me why they're wrong legally? FYI I'm not American and personally am in favour of legalised abortion + severe gun restrictions. My understanding is these rulings are both based on the constitution. The one on guns seems really straightforward: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of th…

> ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I think was this was meant to mean was: Any citizen has the right to join their local/state militia, and keep their service rifle and uniform with them at home.

> I think was this was meant to mean was: Any citizen has the right to join their local/state militia, and keep their service rifle and uniform with them at home.

Seems sensible. But the court is saying that if you look at what laws were passed / in force at the time, and what courts said about them around that time, you'll see that to contemporaries of ratification the second amendment meant a right to carry arms, not just to be in a militia, or whatever. That too seems sensible. Now what?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#330
I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states.

It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court will show restraint towards political activism (in either direction) in general. Call it naive, but I'll wait and see.

States rights has always been a double edged sword. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The same state rights that allow gun control and homosexuality to be locally legalized before national concensus; also now lead to abortion legislation being a state issue.

The sad part of democracy is that it aims to represent the views of the voting majority. If the voting majority truly cares about access to abortion then we will hopefully see enough democratic traction to give them the mandate needed. Now, the rural republican votes counting for more in the senate is a huge issue and threat to democracy that the US needs to figure out if it ever wants to represent the views of the people. But, the Supreme Court should not be responsible for managing dysfunction in other branches of govt.

My personal opinion is that polarization has pushed both sides to be completely antagonistic towards each other. 'Own the libs, fuck the deplorables', no compromise. The jaded side of me says: vote in more moderates that are willing to strike compromises. Crazed jesus Republicans and hyperprogressive activists are terrible people to put into national office. They gain power by antagonizing and being unhelpful roadblocks for change, all while asking for the most stubbornly impossible outcomes.

In the long run, history will have a dim view of this era of global polarization with all political sides to blame.

Post reply on HN