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

How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 358 posts

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#211

Post by matsemann »

pdonis wrote: post #172
jmyeet wrote: post #76

People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to just how effective conservatives are at propaganda and messaging.. We don't know if this is a majority opinion. It may be a minority opinion in the hopes of becoming a majority opinion. It may not even be real (although that seems unlikely). It could've been leaked by someone on the right to drum up on support but my guess is it's more l…

> that person is a hero. I don't think you have fully thought through your position. See below. > People have consciences whether you agree with them or not. Yes, exactly. And many people's consciences in this country tell them that abortion is murder. Particularly abortion of a fetus after 15 weeks (which is when the Mississippi law under review here bans abortion), when the fetus, as the brief for petitioners in th…

> It should be left to the states, who will enact varying policies according to what the consciences of the majority of their citizens tell them.

That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..?

Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#212

Post by refurb »

slg wrote: post #98
rayiner wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes some mental gymnastics to say that elective abortions to 24 weeks is a “human right” that’s so important it must be read into the Constitution—implying that countries like France, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and Spain are violating human rights by limiting abortions to the first trimester. But to go further and say the Supreme Court “has lost all credibility” by returning US law to the international norm—where…

You have to either be extremely naive or totally oblivious of the current political climate in the US to think this ends with only a ban on abortions after 24 weeks.

Interesting opinion, but totally irrelevant to the point at hand.

Many people said “gay marriage won’t stop there” and that argument is irrelevant too.

We don’t stop making good decisions because it might lead to bad decisions later.

Edit: And the fun part about this leak? If the Court comes out differently, people will wonder if it was pressured. If anything this leak just will just HARDEN the opinion. The person who leaked probably caused the exact opposite response they wanted.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#213

Post by remarkEon »

slg wrote: post #163
rayiner wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think “this ends up” the same way as Europe: most places get a ban at the end of the first trimester, when the fetus has a face and can suck its thumb. Some states ban it or near ban it, like Poland or Ireland until a couple of years ago. A handful of blue states end up with abortion until birth.

>Some states ban it or near ban it Well yes, this is the part that people are most objecting to and calling a human rights violation. How do you gloss over the fact that millions of people in the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens?

>the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens?

This isn't true. The US is somewhat of an outlier in how liberal the abortion laws are here. What's likely is that, should SCOTUS not bow to the inevitable mob that will come after this leak, blue states keep their liberal abortion laws and red states don't. Most of the country will probably have abortion laws that look pretty similar to those of e.g. Germany.

I don't see an issue; this is Federalism and it's by design.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#214

Post by sumedh »

KerrAvon wrote: post #184
cocacola1 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beyond that, it's probably also that McConnell used the excuse of the upcoming election to delay that nomination, but not when RBG died. Which, while perhaps unethical to someone on the other side of the political debate, doesn't contravene any rules as far as I'm aware. Same here, so I think the leak is fine.

Quoted post unavailable.

> It’s too bad there’s no opposition party to the cons in this country.

If people dont vote for the opposition party then what exactly can the opposition do when they dont have the majority?

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#215

Post by sumedh »

cocacola1 wrote: post #130
xeromal wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post is gonna be too hot to make reasonable arguments, but I think they're talking about how Garland was never confirmed when Obama appointed him. At least one of these seats should've been someone else.

Beyond that, it's probably also that McConnell used the excuse of the upcoming election to delay that nomination, but not when RBG died. Which, while perhaps unethical to someone on the other side of the political debate, doesn't contravene any rules as far as I'm aware. Same here, so I think the leak is fine.

> but not when RBG died.

RBG could have retired earlier when democrats had majority but probably for some selfish reason she did not do that.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#216

Post by sumedh »

mynameishere wrote: post #69

Oh, well. Roe is really bad law. I mean, just pure made-up gibberish. A real defilement of the Constitution. You should be able to love abortion and hate dada arguments for it at the same time. (I think?) Abortion will still be legal as a practical matter. Some people might have to travel to the next state over, of course.

> Some people

How many?

Whose is going to pay the transportation costs if you are poor?

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#217

Post by refurb »

sjg007 wrote: post #52
refurb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the bigger problem. There is a process and some people seem to think circumventing it is the right response. The courts will make a decision and then it's up to Congress to draft new laws if it wants. Undermining the process of the judicial branch is not going to end well at all.

If the Supremes overturn Roe vs Wade they will lose all of the legitimacy they’ve spent the last 70 years building. At that point the Court itself is fubar. It probably already is fubar since Trump anyway. Clarence Thomas and his wife’s Jan 6th involvement is just the cherry on top of a shit show. In the end they are falliable humans like the rest of us so perhaps we hold too high an opinion.

No post body was provided.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#218

Post by remarkEon »

KerrAvon wrote: post #182
rayiner wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure this is bad for republicans? Most people are squishy on abortion. They support some level of abortion, but mostly in the first trimester or for life of mother or birth defects. All of which are consistent with the Mississippi law that the Supreme Court upheld. Roe guarantees elective abortions to the end of the second trimester with few restrictions, and is well to the left of what the public suppor…

Apologies, but you are completely detached from political reality. Right now, multiple states have passed legislation banning all abortion, period, no exceptions. Texas’s legislation that SCOTUS refused to halt has made it legally perilous to move out of state to get an abortion. And do you thinkt he cons on the SCOTUS are satisfied with this? They’ll be glad to ban abortion nationwide completely. They’re not gonna l…

>And do you thinkt he cons on the SCOTUS are satisfied with this? They’ll be glad to ban abortion nationwide completely.

Did you read what Alito wrote? He's explicitly stating he doesn't want SCOTUS ruling on the legality of abortion. How, precisely, would SCOTUS "ban abortion" in this scenario?

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#219

Post by remarkEon »

tbrownaw wrote: post #138
rayiner wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that liberals peg their views of the Supreme Court’s “legitimacy” on a cluster fuck of an opinion as Roe v. Wade speaks volumes. Roe is so bad that it has long united libertarian conservatives (who hate it because it makes up a right out of thin air) and social conservatives (who had abortion on the merits). In addition to that it manages to be wildly out of line with international norms, which: 1) Generally…

> In addition to that it manages to be wildly out of line with international norms Isn't our take on freedom of speech rather out of line with international norms? And probably also our take on bearing arms being a right? I don't think I buy the implied claim that being out of line with norms is necessarily a bad thing.

Those two examples are literally written down as amendments to the Constitution itself. If France or Germany wanted to amend theirs to reflect free speech and the right to bear arms,, they are free to do so. Likewise, if the Untied States wishes to enshrine a right to abortion analogous to free speech and arms bearing, it is also free to do so.

I'm not following how you think these are comparable.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#220

Post by remarkEon »

elliekelly wrote: post #132
incomingpain wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main topic is inappropriately flagged, but you can clearly see the meltdown and why it's flagged. In terms of a breach, I don't believe I've seen anything like this. They seem to have figured out who leaked this. That person will have to live with their decision. I don't know how they will justify or rationalize it, but I don't fathom I would want to be them right now. Insider threat is very commonly a breach/lea…

> They seem to have figured out who leaked this. Source? Can you elaborate? This is the first I’ve seen anything even mentioned about identifying the source of the leak.

I'm not going to link it, because they're probably catching some significant heat already, but there's speculation it was one of Sotomayor's clerks. Scroll twitter for a bit if you're inclined and you'll find it.
Post reply on HN