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

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#371

Post by ausbah »

screye wrote: post #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 wi…

you can't say "figure it out democratically" with the Senate and electoral college

saying "its the other branches problem" doesn't work either as SCOTUS is appointed by the undemocratic president and Senate

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#372

Post by mmaunder »

I strongly recommend reading Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s thoughts on Roe v Wade in 1992 - expressed about a year before she became a Supreme Court justice.

She describes Roe as a “breathtaking” decision and as interrupting a process already underway. Her discussion starts on page 1198 in this PDF which is a rewarding read if you have the time.

I’m not advocating either way - I merely hope to present Justice Ginsbergs eloquent views (in 1992) on the matter for further discussion here.

https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_059254.p...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#374

Post by timbit42 »

cupofpython wrote: post #348

the supreme court did not ban abortion. It removed abortion as a legal right. It means people cannot use the power of the federal government to overrule their own state legislature on the topic of abortion. If you understand how the US Government works, then you understand that the Supreme Court cannot establish ANYTHING by removing laws. (ie overturning previous decisions). What the Supreme court did was allow for t…

So theocracies? Huge doubt there are any states where every citizen is of the same religion.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#376

Post by troyvit »

criddell wrote: post #361

> The sad part of democracy is that it aims to represent the views of the voting majority. That's warped by the fact that rural votes count more than urban votes thanks to the electoral college.

And the Senate. But another question I don't see answered much is, why are rural blocs so different in their moral stance from urban ones, and what can we learn from it?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#377

Post by ncallaway »

lesstyzing wrote: post #154

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…

> Regarding abortion, what aspect of the constitution would cover it?

The 9th amendment of the United States reads:

> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This was added as an Amendment, because many founders were deeply concerned that the introduction of a bill of rights would create the impression that if they enumerated some rights, people would consider that list to be complete.

That is, they recognized that there were many rights not explicitly enumerated by the constitution that were still important rights. Nearly everyone agreed that the enumeration of rights was not intended to capture every right.

So, relying on "what rights are explicitly mentioned in the constitution" is antithetical to the entire concept of the bill of rights. It's an incorrect place to start reading the constitution.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#379

Post by pclmulqdq »

InTheArena wrote: post #188

Separate abortion from Roe v. Wade. The big challenge has been that Roe v. Wade was horribly decided. Even RBG thought so. Roe v wade gave the Supreme Court the right to make law without reference to any text in the constitution. Casey tried to change the justification but it still was a disaster. Sadly it is far from the only time the Supreme Court has made things up out of whole cloth that has had massive societal…

From 2008-2010, the Democratic party had the chance to enshrine abortion into the law of the land. They even had a perfect vehicle, the ACA, in which to do it, since it already dealt with healthcare rules. They declined.
Post reply on HN