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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#811

Post by i5Aj7PXGjUPy »

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…

> So we end up in a situation where a healthy majority of the country wants some level of abortion rights

some level of abortion rights != Roe and the extent of Roe

I'd imagine an easy majority supports it in cases of threats to the mother's life, but does an easy majority support letting Roe stand without any sort of weakening? I doubt it

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#812

Post by paulmd »

vkou wrote: post #449
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…

This ruling will also let us democratically figure out whether sodomites should be jailed, whether interracial marriage should be banned, and whether contraception is legal. All of the prior court rulings on these topics stem from the principles that were overturned in this one. And then, two years later, after we democratically figure those questions out, we can flip-flop on them, because we voted in a new legislatu…

> And then, two years later, after we democratically figure those questions out, we can flip-flop on them, because we voted in a new legislature.

Don't worry, SCOTUS won't let that happen. There's a pretty good chance they'll intervene in the next presidential election (unless a republican house takes it out of their hands), but either way they'll simply overturn any new laws they don't like. They're not burdened by any need for internal consistency - they'll rule in favor of Texas's abortion-bounty laws and rule against California's anti gun bounty laws, for example. Doesn't matter the logic is the same either way, they're not bound to any internal consistency or past logic, it's all about the will-to-power.

This is actually a pretty noted characteristic of .... "alt-right" movements.

> “Never believe [they] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [They] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

You? You have to make logically consistent legal arguments and follow the process, because you believe in the system. They believe in power. And they have power.

Dangerous times indeed, but here we are overturning Roe v Wade. And criminalizing contraception, overturning gay marriage, and criminalizing homosexuality is up next - Thomas specifically calls out Griswold, Obergefell, and Lawrence as being on the chopping block.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#813

Post by DangitBobby »

missedthecue wrote: post #661
luckystarr wrote: post #58

The mid 2030s and 2040s will be the years of crime. That's when all the unwanted kids will "grow up" without affection.

Is this line of thinking materially different from being pro-death penalty?

It is if you don't consider a fetus to be a person.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#814

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> I’ll be the begrudging devils advocate

Did the Devil somehow run out of enthusiastic advocates?

Because it doesn’t seem that way, on this issue or more generally.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#815

Post by DangitBobby »

andrewclunn wrote: post #301
luckystarr wrote: post #58

The mid 2030s and 2040s will be the years of crime. That's when all the unwanted kids will "grow up" without affection.

Looks at racial break-down of abortions. Rereads parent comment.

The problem is, in a word, poverty.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#816

Post by Trasmatta »

permo-w wrote: post #685
mmaunder wrote: post #372

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 eloqu…

this may come across as emotional, and I suspect it is, so feel free to downvote me. but that person, dead or alive, is completely non-grata to me. she is a big part to blame for allowing the court to become so heavily conservative. if she had stood down in Obama's early years, when she was asked to, it would be a 5-4 split, and a good chance that they wouldn't have had the balls to follow through with this

Agreed. RBG's refusal to step down was a massive blunder. She had too much of a cult of personality around her, and it went to her head.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#817

Post by i5Aj7PXGjUPy »

klyrs wrote: post #553
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 sad part of democracy is that it aims to represent the views of the voting majority. No, not this "democracy." The supermajority of supreme court justices were mostly seated by presidents who lost the popular vote. This ruling is incredibly unpopular among citizens of the US, but the court is also pro-gerrymandering, so the unpopularity is unlikely to have any real impact on elections. The country is rapidly hu…

> but the court is also pro-gerrymandering

See the redistricting of North Carolina

> so the unpopularity is unlikely to have any real impact on elections

Or maybe it isn't as unpopular as you think?

> The country is rapidly hurtling towards religious authoritarianism, and the checks and balances to prevent that have largely been dismantled.

Yes of course, because religious authoritarianism == allowing democratically elected state officials to determine their own state laws

If anything is authoritarian, it's the insistence on the court creating federal "laws" where there is no majority in congress. If you want abortion protection, pass it through congress

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#818

Post by bloomingeek »

Now let's see if far right leaning adults start lining up in droves for foster/adoption care classes. This will let them put their time/money where their mouths are. Cause and affect: you don't want abortion, you now have to take care of those who are not wanted.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#819

Post by i5Aj7PXGjUPy »

anigbrowl wrote: post #593
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 jaded side of me says: vote in more moderates that are willing to strike compromises Suppose I come along and assault you, you defend yourself, and then someone comes along and tells you that you are as much to blame as the person who assaulted you. Are they accurate, or just squeamish? Moderates generally lack any firm convictions or anchoring principles beyond maintaining equanimity, and so contribute mightily…

> Moderates generally lack any firm convictions or anchoring principles beyond maintaining equanimity, and so contribute mightily to shifting of overton windows and ethical drift, where increasingly flawed outcomes are excused in the name of avoiding controversy.

the point of being a moderate is picking and choosing which policies from which party you support and which ones you don't. The insistence that everyone decide between one of two party lines is what's driving this country towards civil war

Post reply on HN