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

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#461

Post by dpbriggs »

d23 wrote: post #111
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…

Christianity’s true face has been shown. I’ve rarely seen it to have anything to do with the teachings of Christ.

Do you paint other religious groups with that same broad brush? I'm sure you supported similar rhetoric about Muslims post 9/11.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#462

Post by ausbah »

insickness wrote: post #190

It's a shame the abortion debate is overtaken by radicals on both sides when the majority of Americans would prefer laws similar to most European nations: legal abortion within the first trimester.

its not really "both sides" when only one side is having a say in how the ruling is handed down

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#463

Post by AnimalMuppet »

notch656a wrote: post #407
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…

What's perplexing is why they don't apply this to the rest of the federal powers. Overturn Wickard v Filburn and cut it at the root. The federal government has no legitimacy to regulate intrastate trade, most gun laws, most of the civil rights act, the controlled substance act, etc. The fact that they picked abortion but not the root of anti-constitutional federal expansionism is truly baffling.

They decide what's in front of them. If you've got a good challenge case for Wickard v Filburn, they might hear it. But this case wasn't a case that could overturn Wickard v Filburn.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#464

Post by dang »

We changed the URL from https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/24/us/roe-wade-abortion... (which is more of a feed) to what looks like a reasonable article.

The ruling itself is at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf, via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31863903.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#465

Post by dc-programmer »

ausbah wrote: post #371
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

Many of the judges on the bench were literally pushed through undemocratically through the deep state cabal known as the Federalist society. The idea that the US can fix things by just voting better is laughable.

Also why is everyone playing “devils advocate” on this thread? It’s clear what the majority sentiment is here, why bother pretending to take a middle of the road “nuanced” position?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#466

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

colinmhayes wrote: post #424
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…

> If the voting majority truly cares about access to abortion then we will hopefully see enough democratic traction to give them the mandate needed The problem is we have an electoral system that forces us into a two party system. One of those parties is beholden to religious ideologies. If any republican votes for abortion protection they will get primaried. So we end up in a situation where a healthy majority of th…

When Obama was running in 2008 he claimed to want to codify Roe as law his first day as office, and was elected with a super majority. Never once tried. This was not the only opportunity in the last 50 years.

It’s not JUST about means, motive, opportunity. There has to be the desire to spend the political capital. I think it’s interesting no one in 50 years with all the majority make ups have put the effort in.

I don’t speculate a reason other than it seems more expensive than the media might have me believe?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#467

Post by sophacles »

lanstin wrote: post #397
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…

Pence just asked for federal legislation banning all abortions. So I think you are wrong to say the Republicans are trying to return it to the states, thy are trying to ban it. Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. The constitut…

Let me guess, you're in a group that is not normally outcast for existing?

Gradual expansion of equal protection only makes sense if:

1. you are already protected

2. you benefit from unequal protection.

3. You want to appear "nice"

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#468

Post by andrew_ »

notch656a wrote: post #407
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…

What's perplexing is why they don't apply this to the rest of the federal powers. Overturn Wickard v Filburn and cut it at the root. The federal government has no legitimacy to regulate intrastate trade, most gun laws, most of the civil rights act, the controlled substance act, etc. The fact that they picked abortion but not the root of anti-constitutional federal expansionism is truly baffling.

Agree it was a weird hill to choose. I can see more expansionism being picked at over the next few years.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#469

Post by slg »

noslenwerdna wrote: post #447
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…

Where is gerrymandering so bad that Democrats have to win 3-1? This doesn't represent the experience of the median voter.

Not exactly gerrymandering, but there is a systemic bias against Democrats due to the structure of our government. The most obvious example, Republicans have won the national popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#470

Post by umvi »

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.

This assumes there is a universally agreed upon definition of "upward" and "forward". Religious people would argue things like abortion rights and pride celebrations are the opposite of upward and forward progress since they enable and encourage what they believe to be sin.
Post reply on HN