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

311–320 of 358 posts

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

#311

Post by leereeves »

shkkmo wrote: post #302
TimTheTinker wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not the important question. This debate hinges entirely on a disagreement over which moral question is the most important.

It isn't really about which is "more important" morally. Both sides agree that infants have some legal rights, the questions are whether one of those legal rights is having their mother to bear them to term against their mother's will and if so, when that right begins and how much risk the mother can be required to accept in doing so. Edit: One thing I don't see mentioned is how a ethically consistent Pro-Life stance…

On the other hand, the stance that one person cannot be forced to support another would seem to forbid universal healthcare. It's rare to see a 100% ethically consistent position in politics, where most decisions are based on self-interest.

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

#312

Post by leereeves »

slg wrote: post #310
5678909787 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safe haven laws don't do that. They just provide an exception to child abandonment laws. They don't directly affect parental responsibility. If a child has two parents and one of them drops the child of at a safe haven location and the other reports the child missing, the child will most likely be found and given to the parent who did not abandon the child. Nobody will be prosecuted, but the parent who dropped the ch…

>Safe haven laws don't do that. They just provide an exception to child abandonment laws. They don't directly affect parental responsibility. If you can abandon a child without repercussion, how is that not directly affecting parental responsibility? Whether there are specific exceptions to these rules is irrelevant. Almost no one is pushing for unrestricted abortions up to birth. The analog is that we give people po…

> The analog is that we give people potential outs so they are not forced to be responsible for another person.

I wonder if you take the same position regarding fathers and child support.

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

#313

Post by ceejayoz »

rayiner wrote: post #295
ceejayoz wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Unenumerated rights are implied, inferred, etc. It’s easier to find some rights implied than others. And the US Supreme Court is unusual in how aggressively it overrules legislatures in finding implied rights. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights contains an express right to marriage. Yet in 2016, the European Court of Human Rights found that there was no implied right to same sex marriage in the Co…

> Yet in 2016, the European Court of Human Rights found that there was no implied right to same sex marriage in the Convention.

They've ruled EU states have to recognize other countries' same-sex unions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coman_and_Others_v_General_Ins...) and required at least civil unions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliari_and_Others_v._Italy), which puts them well ahead of the pre-Obergefell USA.

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

#314

Post by rayiner »

ceejayoz wrote: post #309
rayiner wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep saying “conservative” but you don’t seem to understand the conservative position here. The right is split over abortion. What they’re united against is Roe , which is both egregious legal ju jitsu and enshrines a right extending to fetal viability that most Americans oppose. There are six votes to overturn Roe . There aren’t six votes to overturn a federal enactment that protects some level of abortion right…

There are three Republican senators and zero representatives, as far as I can see, that espouse anything close to a pro-choice position. It has been a litmus test for their candidates for decades. I don’t see much evidence of what you’re asserting. 13 states have already pre-banned abortion, and another ten plan to when Roe falls. Doesn’t seem to be much of a split. https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-23-states…

Republican politicians say that because they’re not in a position to actually ban abortion. It’s like how moderate democrats all purport to support all sorts of progressive things they didn’t support when they were actually in a position to enact them.

35% of republicans say abortion should be legal in all/most cases compared to 80% of democrats: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-i.... Until democrats got more liberal in 2008, there were about the same number of pro choice republicans as there are pro life democrats—over 35% in both parties.

Most Americans don’t know what Roe specifically requires and thinks abortion would become illegal if it were overturned.

If you actually ask people where they think the line should be drawn, most people don’t support Roe’s full scope. They think it should be legal in the first trimester, and support other restrictions that Roe precludes. 44% of democrats think life begins sometime in the first trimester.

https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-us-supreme-court-abort...

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-...

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

#315

Post by slg »

leereeves wrote: post #312
slg wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Safe haven laws don't do that. They just provide an exception to child abandonment laws. They don't directly affect parental responsibility. If you can abandon a child without repercussion, how is that not directly affecting parental responsibility? Whether there are specific exceptions to these rules is irrelevant. Almost no one is pushing for unrestricted abortions up to birth. The analog is that we give people po…

> The analog is that we give people potential outs so they are not forced to be responsible for another person. I wonder if you take the same position regarding fathers and child support.

You can't equate a purely financial obligation with all the responsibilities of being a legal guardian let alone the process of going through a pregnancy.

I don't think it is fair for one parent to bear 100% of the financial responsibility for a child. I would be in support of a system that allowed a parent to relinquish any financial obligation to a child in exchange for forsaking any familial rights parenthood would traditionally grant them as long as the state would step in and assume that financial obligation. Until the state does that, I think expecting the father to contribute to supporting the child is fair.

If someone advocates for a parent to not have an obligation to pay child support without a way for the other parent to receive the money that child support would traditionally provide them, then they aren't truly concerned about the wellbeing of the child. I therefore will ignore any anti-abortion argument they make that places the wellbeing of the unborn child above the wellbeing of the mother.

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

#316

Post by leereeves »

slg wrote: post #315
leereeves wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The analog is that we give people potential outs so they are not forced to be responsible for another person. I wonder if you take the same position regarding fathers and child support.

You can't equate a purely financial obligation with all the responsibilities of being a legal guardian let alone the process of going through a pregnancy. I don't think it is fair for one parent to bear 100% of the financial responsibility for a child. I would be in support of a system that allowed a parent to relinquish any financial obligation to a child in exchange for forsaking any familial rights parenthood woul…

> as long as the state would step in and assume that financial obligation

Do you mean a system that provides for the needs of poor children (based solely on financial need)? That already exists, and I'd support expanding it.

Or do you mean a system that reduces the financial burden on a wealthy woman who can afford to provide for her children but simply doesn't want to? I don't see the compelling need for a system like that.

Government support for children should be provided based on their financial need, not an alternative to child support based on the father's income. That's how the available funds can most improve children's welfare.

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

#317

Post by usrn »

cudgy wrote: post #161
rayiner wrote: post #3

This sort of leak, likely from a law clerk given that it was a draft opinion, is not a good development. Nobody has any loyalty to their institutions anymore. Every institutional loyalty has been subjected to team red or team blue.

Perhaps because institutions care not about their people? Granted that Leaking of information by a law clerk when the clerk should be aware that they are not going to like many of the decisions made while clerking is unprofessional at the least.

I don't think the MBAs appreciate just how destructive decisions that effect the employee's trust in the organization are.

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

#318

Post by slg »

leereeves wrote: post #316
slg wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't equate a purely financial obligation with all the responsibilities of being a legal guardian let alone the process of going through a pregnancy. I don't think it is fair for one parent to bear 100% of the financial responsibility for a child. I would be in support of a system that allowed a parent to relinquish any financial obligation to a child in exchange for forsaking any familial rights parenthood woul…

> as long as the state would step in and assume that financial obligation Do you mean a system that provides for the needs of poor children (based solely on financial need)? That already exists, and I'd support expanding it. Or do you mean a system that reduces the financial burden on a wealthy woman who can afford to provide for her children but simply doesn't want to? I don't see the compelling need for a system li…

Neither.

During pregnancy a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy to avoid obligation to the child. The rights of the woman supersede the rights of both the child and the father because it is her body that needs to go through pregnancy.

After the birth the parental rights should be equal. Both parents should be able to renounce their obligation to the child. In this situation, the state should step in and assume that responsibility. That applies to both guardianship and financial obligation. The state will only take over guardianship if both parents give up their obligation. The state will step in financially if one parent gives up their obligation.

It is acceptable to put limited restrictions on these such as establishing a reasonable cutoff for abortions as Roe v. Wade allows or the short windows of time that safe haven laws usually establish. What is important is that the parents at least have a choice at some point in the process. Once the parents make that decision, I am fine with them being held to it.

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

#319

Post by leereeves »

slg wrote: post #318
leereeves wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as long as the state would step in and assume that financial obligation Do you mean a system that provides for the needs of poor children (based solely on financial need)? That already exists, and I'd support expanding it. Or do you mean a system that reduces the financial burden on a wealthy woman who can afford to provide for her children but simply doesn't want to? I don't see the compelling need for a system li…

Neither. During pregnancy a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy to avoid obligation to the child. The rights of the woman supersede the rights of both the child and the father because it is her body that needs to go through pregnancy. After the birth the parental rights should be equal. Both parents should be able to renounce their obligation to the child. In this situation, the state should step in and a…

> The state will step in financially if one parent gives up their obligation.

Always? Like, if two millionaires have a child and one gives up their obligation, the government would pay child support to the other millionaire parent?

I couldn't support that. I think whether the state steps in should be based on the child's financial need, not the number of responsible parents.

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

#320

Post by slg »

leereeves wrote: post #319
slg wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither. During pregnancy a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy to avoid obligation to the child. The rights of the woman supersede the rights of both the child and the father because it is her body that needs to go through pregnancy. After the birth the parental rights should be equal. Both parents should be able to renounce their obligation to the child. In this situation, the state should step in and a…

> The state will step in financially if one parent gives up their obligation. Always? Like, if two millionaires have a child and one gives up their obligation, the government would pay child support to the other millionaire parent? I couldn't support that. I think whether the state steps in should be based on the child's financial need, not the number of responsible parents.

Too many benefits in the US are gate kept by means testing. It adds unnecessary bureaucracy and causes needless division and animosity among the population.
Post reply on HN