Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge decides against Internet Archive

file770.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#621

Post by starkd »

cbozeman wrote: post #616
uda wrote: post #408

Initially I'm enraged against the publishers, the judge and the system in general as many of you, but they are not the issue, while I can't talk on behalf of IA, I don't see this as a fight against the publishers, but a fight against broken business models flourishing because and protected by broken laws meant to protect earlier broken business models The current law is broken, we know that, but most of us don't gras…

[flagged]

It also can be argued that overturning Woe v. Wade was good, because it put it into the hands of legislators. It was shitty law because it instituted a right where none was. Thus, it kept legislators from legislating on an evolving issue.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#622

Post by silvr »

cbozeman wrote: post #616
uda wrote: post #408

Initially I'm enraged against the publishers, the judge and the system in general as many of you, but they are not the issue, while I can't talk on behalf of IA, I don't see this as a fight against the publishers, but a fight against broken business models flourishing because and protected by broken laws meant to protect earlier broken business models The current law is broken, we know that, but most of us don't gras…

[flagged]

> Everyone at the time recognized that Roe v. Wade was shitty law, but they put their objections on the back burner and kicked the can down the road so they wouldn't have to have the Mother of all Debates.

Well, no. It codified roughly what the public thought was appropriate at the time - the stable achievable policy equilibrium. And in the past 50 years, public sentiment has remained mostly unchanged; it's just trended a tiny bit towards more permissiveness around abortion.

See the graph displaying Gallup's public polling results here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how-has-public-opinion-a....

> Two years after the court’s decision, 54 percent of U.S. adults said they supported abortion under certain circumstances and another 21 percent said abortion always should be legal, according to Gallup polling from 1975, while 22 percent of Americans said it should be illegal.

> By 2018, Gallup pollsters found little change [...]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#623

Post by ratboy666 »

bachmeier wrote: post #490
forgotusername6 wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it. You can't hope that the judge takes your side because then the judge could just as easily take the other side. There is of course an element of interpretation which the judges can use to decide in different directions over the same thing, but that again is an example of a broken law.

> Judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it. That's not the right characterization of the argument. Judges are there to tell legislators that they can't make certain laws. The abortion dispute is not about judges making abortion legal, it's about judges telling politicians that they cannot make abortion illegal. Without that, politicians would literally have the ability to do anything they want.

Judges do NOT legislate from the bench! That is incredibly anti-democratic, and a collapse of our system. Judges do NOT tell politicians that they cannot make abortion illegal. That right, and yes, it IS a right, is reserved to the electorate. Who gets their will expressed through politicians. Judges judge against the body of legislation (and common law). And, yes politicians LITERALLY have the ability to do anything that the electorate want. That includes Global War.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#625

Post by cbozeman »

mushbino wrote: post #424
encomiast wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and also I am bigger and stronger than you. Therefore I take your physical object and you can't stop me. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). Natural laws are brutish and don't support the kind of society that most of us want to live in.

The golden rule is pretty universal for human.

If it was universal the Mongols wouldn't have changed the carbon footprint of the planet by slaughtering so many millions of people.

The one constant as you move through human history objectively is that might makes right... the best you can hope for is a philosopher king who is willing to put his iron gauntlet in a velvet glove and then use that hand to guide society into a better place... and apply pressure when necessary, as opposed to crushing.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#626

Post by [deleted] »

mushbino wrote: post #424
encomiast wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and also I am bigger and stronger than you. Therefore I take your physical object and you can't stop me. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). Natural laws are brutish and don't support the kind of society that most of us want to live in.

The golden rule is pretty universal for human.

[deleted]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#627

Post by unholythree »

meany wrote: post #566
komali2 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What actions can Americans possibly take given the captured two party system and drawing back of voting rights? Not to mention the wildly unrepresentative government, wherein for example more people can vote for Trump in California than Texas in 2020 yet each of those person's votes are functionally meaningless, or, republicans can fail for over two decades to win a popular vote and still elect three presidents in th…

The slowness and lethargy of the system is by design. For instance, The constitution is really hard to change to prevent tyranny. Checks and balances against power protect all our rights. There is no garauntee that the people in power will choose your path forward. There is also no garauntee that the majority view is yours. Hitler for example was elected. The system was setup to ensure for hundreds of years at the pr…

It’s hard for people to appreciate just how much better our lives are, and how much more just life is in western society now than all of the millions of years of human life before. 200 years ago some people were literal property, 150 years ago women couldn’t vote almost anywhere, less than 75 years ago Turing was chemically castrated for being a homosexual. Huge, meaningful strides have been made for equally and fairness very recently.

It may seem terrible and unjust that there are some now that are as rich as a Roman emperor and can buy a great deal of influence, but the world was once thousands of unaccountable tyrants, free to brutalize their peasants and slaves.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#628

Post by starkd »

LilyFrenchPants wrote: post #620
cbozeman wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Well, thanks for the strawman. When you debate in strawman arguments, you block constructive debate from moving forward. The issue is one of judicial discernment. It is the ability for a supreme court to make up rights not written into the constitution. This is not difficult to recognize, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life. The correct place for this is in legislation. It is an emotional topic that is constantly evolving. What is going to happen when a fetus can survive in an artificial womb? We are a long way from that, but that is something a council of unelected justices should not have to rule on.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#629

Post by Apfel »

cbozeman wrote: post #616
uda wrote: post #408

Initially I'm enraged against the publishers, the judge and the system in general as many of you, but they are not the issue, while I can't talk on behalf of IA, I don't see this as a fight against the publishers, but a fight against broken business models flourishing because and protected by broken laws meant to protect earlier broken business models The current law is broken, we know that, but most of us don't gras…

[flagged]

Not particularly keen to get in an abortion debate on HN of all places.

That being said, regardless of anyone's political stance, you saying 'because you made bad decisions' is inflammatory, and clearly based on the assumption that the pregnancy was a result of fully consensual sex.

Don't be that guy.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#630

Post by MrVandemar »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #520
frankfrankfrank wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you until you parroted the propaganda trope about Roe v Wade. Roe has always been known as “bad law” even though it was never law, only illegitimate judicial dictate. It’s always been known as one of the worst rulings in American history. It’s unfortunate that you would demonstrate such logically compromise in such a blatant manner, ironically, in a post about “bad law”. Ironically, overturning Roe speci…

I'm confused. You act hostile yet you seem to agree with the original comment. The reason Row v Wade was overturned is that the judges don't want to have to decide if abortion is legal or not. They want legislators to be responsible for that. You, the judges, and the parent comment are all in agreement here.

> The reason Row v Wade was overturned is that the judges don't want to have to decide if abortion is legal or not.

No. The reason Roe v Wade was overturned is because conservative middle-aged/old white-guys with money are not happy about people, and by people I mean women, having reproductive choice.

It's one of the areas that fundamental islam and conservative "Christians" have significant overlap, and that's not a good thing.

Post reply on HN