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

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#451

Post by hackyhacky »

zackees wrote: post #434
nus07 wrote: post #391

I fail to see what moderates can do in a two party system where gerrymandering is so heavily done that often Democrats have to win 3-1 to control any majority. At this point I see it as a fight between rich landowners+business owners+religion vs all the rest of the people . For a country where political lobbying and donations to effect legal decisions is common , I do not expect judgements to ever be fair. The battle…

Quoted post unavailable.

This is backwards thinking. It's not a sports game, this is not about "winning" and "losing."

The goal is not to have voters choose their representatives, not the other way around. In a contested or closely divided district, the representatives must adapt to appeal to a majority, resulting in a more moderate position. In a gerrymandered district, the politician can do anything they want, because they know they effectively won't lose.

You're right that gerrymandering is not new, but it's gotten more aggressive, thanks to new technology and de facto sanctioning by SCOTUS.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#452

Post by jimt1234 »

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…

The fascinating thing about all this is the power of human manipulation. I grew up in a deeply religions area of the Midwest, the Bible Belt. Everyone was a hardcore Christian. However, as a youngster, I don't recall anyone talking about abortion. No mention of it. Back then churches would organize to help feed poor people and spread the word. That was it. Then, sometime around the mid-80s, everyone started talking about abortion. It seemed like that's all anyone talked about. And the tone changed, too. It went from, "Let me show you the way" to "You're going to rot in hell!"

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#453

Post by andrew_ »

darth_avocado wrote: post #402
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #337

The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct. If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. And if most people can't agree on that, well, adding that wouldn't be de…

63% of Americans support Roe v Wade and 80% support abortions in some cases. People agree on that. Adding it to the constitution hasn’t happened because politics.

It's getting the states to ratify the amendment that's difficult. General population poll numbers don't equate to state ratification support.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#454

Post by cryptonector »

motive wrote: post #223
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 guns, the dissent argues that “well-regulated” and “militia” are key components of the text. The applicants for concealed carry were not part of a militia, and the current court doesn’t seem to acknowledge the “well-regulated” piece exists at all. With regard to abortion, the constitution guarantees us a right to privacy, which is closely linked to bodily autonomy. The argument being that there is constitut…

I've seen it claimed that "well-regulated" in 1789 meant "well-equipped". Think of what a "regular" and "irregular" meant then (and kinda still means now). A "regular" was a soldier in an army. An "irregular" was a civilian joining the fight. I don't know if it is true that "well-regulated" meant "well-equipped", but it makes sense that it might have.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#455

Post by ceilingcorner »

duped wrote: post #99

I'm tired of having the minority religious and bigoted views dominate politics and starve us of progress. Regardless of what the "right" ruling is on the law, or the roles of the different branches of government, the practical impact of this ruling is millions of Americans denied the right to healthcare while simultaneously being denied free access to any democratic process to secure it.

It’s not a minority view, both in the United States and in the world at large.

I don’t quite understand why American progressives think they represent the world at large. Neo-colonialism, I suppose.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#456

Post by Mindless2112 »

krnlpnc wrote: post #129

It's depressing to watch the USA continually fail to keep up with the progress of other first world countries. Often times even taking steps backwards like this. There are so many actual issues deserving of this attention. In what universe is removing rights a priority?

> Only seven of the 59 countries allow elective abortions after 20 weeks, the group found: Canada, China, Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#457

Post by mattnewton »

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…

Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority- and it will not stop here. Other things the Supreme Court has blocked state law using the same logic as roe v Wade (due process of the 14th amendment[0]) on are blocking contraception bans (grisewald), overturning anti-sodomy laws (lawrence), and giving equal protection to gay marriage (obergafel). Several states still have laws on the books banning those things and there could easily be a situation in 4 years where gay couples, legally married in California, are arrested for sodomy after the border to Texas when traveling. There are already laws on the books seeking to do this for abortion providers or people seeking abortions.

This is a small minority that just needs 51% of voter turnout in a particular state (or not even that in a heavily gerrymandered one), and they can control the lives of anyone living in or even traveling through an entire region of the US with apparently very little federal protection (and certainly no representation for the travelers)

This ruling is disastrous and shows the capriciousness of the current court in interpreting precedent to mean whatever is popular with their party. The 14th can amendment be limited but the second cannot, the first can mean infinite money in politics but the 5th does not mean Miranda warnings are required anymore.

Edit -[0] this link is not hypothetical, Thomas’s solo concurring opinion calls these cases out by name to be reconsidered by the court in light of this recent decision, and shows members of the court are absolutely interested in returning these to the realm of the states.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#458

Post by runarberg »

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…

The elected representatives of the Democratic party is overwhelmingly moderate. There are a handful of conservative democrats and equally many progressive democrats. Progressive democrats have been loosing as many primaries as they win, but overwhelmingly they are not up for election, instead a moderate democrat is the default choice.

The same can not be said about the Republican Party. This is not a both sides issue. Polarization is happening on the right wing in the American Party system, and the right wing alone.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#459

Post by function_seven »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #379
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.

There is a 0% chance ACA would have gone anywhere if it included protections for abortion.

0%. Democrats did not in fact have a "perfect vehicle" nor did they have a chance to enshrine abortion into the law of the land.

Post reply on HN