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

281–290 of 358 posts

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

#281

Post by ceejayoz »

vanattab wrote: post #275
ceejayoz wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same place my right to pick my nose, eat creme brulee, and hug my kids come from. It doesn't have to be written down for it to be one.

But you don't have an inaliable right to creme brulee do you? If the FDA/Congress decides dairy should no longer be sold or consumed in the USA then they can pass a rule/law and it would almost certainly be upheld as constitutional. All the politicians might get thrown out by the cheese lovers in the next election. But it would be perfectly legal. The constitution I think is referring to other rights established in E…

Unenumerated rights are implied, inferred, etc. The right to vote, for example, isn't actually in the Constitution (eligibility is left to the States, and various amendments only forbid certain types of discrimination in eligibility), but everyone agrees it exists to some extent.

Similarly, a right to privacy of some level is generally considered to stem from the Fourth Amendment. The right to freedom of movement is inferred from the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

An attempt by the FDA to ban dairy would likely meet Constitutional challenges, and I'd expect SCOTUS to find some way to deem it a legislative overreach.

English common law has meaning in the US because of State-level actions, not Federal/Constitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute (Entertainingly, this means oddities like theoretically having the right to trial by combat in Virginia.)

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

#282

Post by vanattab »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #181
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #117

Maybe this is the issue that causes a Convention of the States to finally happen.

You're not going to find any unity on this issue in a Convention of the States, either.

Hmm I don't know. I could possibly see some room for a compromise between blue and red states where a constitutional addmenment would protect a right to abortion in the first trimester and ban it afterwords. It would be likey be opposed by many on both extremes but ALOT of people are in the fuzzy gray space between the two sides on this very complex issue.

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

#283

Post by leereeves »

zaccusl wrote: post #277
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…

"So the legal question is whether a baby that hasn't yet been born is a person" That's not the important question. The question is can one person be compelled to use their body to sustain another persons life. We can't even force DEAD people to use their body to sustain life (i.e., a person has to consent to donate organs before they die).

No post body was provided.

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

#285

Post by leereeves »

slg wrote: post #274
leereeves wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parental responsibility doesn't stop there. Parents can be jailed for failing to take care of their children; imprisoned for life if their children die through neglect or abandonment; or almost literally enslaved, told what jobs to take and have their earnings confiscated. I haven't heard anyone seriously challenging the extent of parental responsibility, only when it begins.

Except we don’t force this on people. We give parents the opportunity to opt out through adoption.

Only if that's considered to be in the child's best interests. For example, older children can't be given away without their consent, fathers generally can't terminate their responsibility without the mother's consent, and it must be done in a manner that protects the child (not simply abandoned).

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

#286

Post by TimTheTinker »

zaccusl wrote: post #277
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…

"So the legal question is whether a baby that hasn't yet been born is a person" That's not the important question. The question is can one person be compelled to use their body to sustain another persons life. We can't even force DEAD people to use their body to sustain life (i.e., a person has to consent to donate organs before they die).

> That's not the important question.

This debate hinges entirely on a disagreement over which moral question is the most important.

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

#287

Post by eternalban »

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…

The embryo technically develops in a cavity of the “body” of the mother. It is neither limb nor organ (vital or not) of the ‘host organism’ (mother). It is a distinct organism. The open Q is at what point it is a ‘human being’ with associated rights. (Just for FYI, in Islam this transition is held to occur after the development of eyes after which abortion is not acceptable. [I believe this window of ‘choice’ for parents is the first trimester.])

> tenant

Eviction is not something a landlord may decide on their own. Typically you have to take the tenant to court. Sometimes in fact they do end up staying rent free for months.

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

#289

Post by ceejayoz »

zdragnar wrote: post #270
ceejayoz wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is very much not what he claimed. We also don't yet know how he voted.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abort...

> A person familiar with the court’s deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/21/brett-kavanaugh-ro...

> “We talked about whether he considered Roe to be settled law,” Collins told reporters. “He said that he agreed with what [Chief] Justice [John] Roberts said at his nomination hearing in which he said that it was settled law.”

Lisa Murkowski now openly claims to have been misled by the nominees, as well. https://twitter.com/SamanthaJoRoth/status/152152291819859148...

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

#290

Post by pdonis »

matsemann wrote: post #226
pdonis wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..? That would depend on what your conscience says, wouldn't it? > Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority. If a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, how would enacting a law against it, for that person, be any different than enacting a law against murder? Nobody argues that laws against murder are "tyrannizi…

Why isn't then the anti-abortion laws similar to laws for murder? Can you sue strangers for murdering some other strangers? I don't buy the "my point is that it's murder"-arguments, as the behaviors from those people don't really align with that. Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? My guess: Because it's mostly about control of other…

> Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering?

That kind of argument would not support the Roe and Casey viability standard for when states can ban abortions, since our current science and experience says that an abortion will cause suffering to the fetus well before viability.

> Because it's mostly about control of others, right?

A woman getting an abortion is controlling another: the fetus. She is determining the fate of that fetus without the fetus being able to defend itself.

A big part of the problem with the "bodily autonomy" side of the abortion issue is that they only talk about the woman, never about the fetus. The hard truth is that once a woman is pregnant, it's no longer just about her. Any reasonable concept of personal responsibility will require the woman to take the fetus's interests into account and will not support a claim that a woman has a right to an abortion just because she has a right to "autonomy".

Post reply on HN