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

241–250 of 358 posts

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

#241

Post by throwaway0a5e »

slg wrote: post #224
remarkEon wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Do you not understand how Federalism works? Voters in some states prefer more restrictive abortion laws. I'm still not following your argument. Is it that, according to you, "millions of people who want abortions" will not be able to get them because some states that are full of people (also millions, ostensibly) who want more restrictive abortion laws are now able to enact them? Because if that's your argument…

The whole point of Federalism is not for the states to decide whatever they want. That would leave little purpose for the existence of the Federal government. The Federal government abdicating the protection of certain rights means states will infringe on those rights. I can be upset that my fellow citizens will lose those rights even if I live in state that will continue to protect my rights.

> That would leave little purpose for the existence of the Federal government.

Yes, that's exactly the point. States run themselves like little countries and the glowies handle issues that are truly interstate or effect the entire nation.

The idea that someone in "practically Canada" Maine and someone in "practically Mexico" California and someone in "I can see russia" (lol) Alaska all have to run their businesses in some particular way because some jerk on Wall Street ruined it for everyone and got a law made after them is asinine.

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

#242

Post by sumedh »

dredmorbius wrote: post #240
sumedh wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Her decision didn't subvert process. His did.

That does not change the fact that she was very selfish person who could have easily predicted that the other side will play such political games. Instead of enjoying retirement her ego came in the way

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

#243

Post by dredmorbius »

sumedh wrote: post #242
dredmorbius wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her decision didn't subvert process. His did.

That does not change the fact that she was very selfish person who could have easily predicted that the other side will play such political games. Instead of enjoying retirement her ego came in the way

I'm not arguing that point.

I've made it myself.

Again: it did not subvert process or go against precedent. Numerous justices have long-overstayed their terms.

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

#244

Post by ceejayoz »

zdragnar wrote: post #41
ceejayoz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This decision is disregarding what process? Stare decisis, aka precedent. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/is-roe-v-wade-settled-la... "During his confirmation to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh convinced Sen. Susan Collins that he thought a woman’s right to an abortion was 'settled law,' calling the court cases affirming it 'precedent on precedent' that could not be casually overturned."

There is precedent for overturning precedent. Stare decisis is not supposed to mean that a decision is set in stone for eternity.

Certainly, but one of the deciding votes here won their seat very recently claiming precedent in this specific case made it settled law. That appears to have been a lie.

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

#245

Post by rayiner »

ceejayoz wrote: post #237
rayiner wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony of this line of argument is that an “impartial AI judge” never would have created Roe in the first place. A computer wouldn’t conjure up a right to abortion that’s not expressly listed in the constitution from a right to privacy that’s also not expressly listed in the constitution but is instead conjured up from the “penumbras” of listed rights. Only a human would do such a thing.

The Constitution was explicitly not a “here are your rights, and only these ones” document. The Ninth Amendment states: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Sure—but those other rights must still exist and come from somewhere. Where does the right to abortions until viability come from?

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

#246

Post by rayiner »

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. They’re not gonna leave it to the states.

On what basis? Do you think they’ll make up a right to override state abortion laws the way Roe did?

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

#247

Post by rayiner »

Maursault wrote: post #151
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…

> It takes some mental gymnastics to say that elective abortions to 24 weeks is a “human right” No one ever said that... and apparently you've entirely missed the ProChoice argument. Does a government have the right to prevent you from having an appendectomy? Where does the government end and you begin? ProChoice is about limiting absolute government authority, like, over your cells and junk. btw the rights in questi…

No post body was provided.

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

#248

Post by rayiner »

quantified wrote: post #207
TimTheTinker wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your remarks are a good summary of pro-choice arguments. There are also credible pro-life arguments. The 14th amendment's Equal Protection clause is arguably provides the strongest legal basis for banning abortion: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So the legal question is…

If you’re attached by an umbilical cord and that dependent on the womb’s environment, you are in no way individual. If I hadn’t made it out alive, I wouldn’t care about a thing, same as I won’t care 70 years or so from now. Would have been fine with not experiencing the life I’ve had.

> If you’re attached by an umbilical cord and that dependent on the womb’s environment, you are in no way individual

A newborn is completely dependent and isn’t meaningfully any more of an individual. Also can be killed at will?

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

#249

Post by elliekelly »

remarkEon wrote: post #220
elliekelly wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sooo a twitter rumor?

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

#250

Post by rayiner »

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?

I think if Texans want to be like Ireland until 2020 or Poland now they should be allowed to do that and it’s none of my business here in Maryland.
Post reply on HN