Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#51

Post by ncallaway » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 2:44 PM UTC

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #30

YPPH wrote: post #23

As an Australian, a few things about the SCOTUS absolutely shock me, aside from the obvious issue of politicisation. I've only skimmed the judgment, but Roberts CJ convincingly points out that there was no need for the court to completely overturn Roe. It would suffice to jettison the viability standard. Going further was completely unnecessary to decide the case. On the other hand, Thomas J took the occasion, withou…

“Judicial activism” refers to striking down state laws. In this case they upheld a law.

That’s nonsense.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#52

Post by lawn » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 2:44 PM UTC

There's this belief that society always moves in a "forward/upward" directory, where we become more advanced, more enlightened and more moral.

But this is not the case and sometimes we regress.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#53

Post by AdmiralAsshat » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 2:44 PM UTC

uptown wrote: post #19

"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112

No post body was provided.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#54

Post by pastor_bob » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 2:45 PM UTC

uptown wrote: post #19

"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112

Holy sh*t. Lawrence v Texas? Literally banning gay sex on the mind of American Conservatives

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#55

Post by gnicholas » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 2:45 PM UTC

jonathanjaeger wrote: post #37

gnicholas wrote: post #13

As expected, the 5 justices on the leaked Alito opinion constitute the majority, Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion (in which he argues that the principle of judicial restraint requires merely upholding the law in question, not overturning Roe), and the 3 liberal justices dissented. In total, the opinions are 217 pages long. Anyone able to quickly run a diff on the leaked majority opinion and the offici…

Don't have that for you, but I found one difference cited on Twitter: https://twitter.com/notjessewalker/status/154034207000234803...

Tweet deleted — what did it say?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#56

Post by throw_m239339 » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 2:45 PM UTC

YPPH wrote: post #23

As an Australian, a few things about the SCOTUS absolutely shock me, aside from the obvious issue of politicisation. I've only skimmed the judgment, but Roberts CJ convincingly points out that there was no need for the court to completely overturn Roe. It would suffice to jettison the viability standard. Going further was completely unnecessary to decide the case. On the other hand, Thomas J took the occasion, withou…

In my opinion, It's up to the federal government to make federal laws, not the supreme court. Democrats had _plenty_ of time to put the right for abortion into a law and pass it. Now, they have a platform on which to run for the next election, convenient...

Politicians delegate too many decisions to the SCOTUS because they don't want to govern, well the SCOTUS isn't supposed to govern in their place.

If nothing can get done at Washington, then the problem is at Washington itself, not the supreme court.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#57

Post by HideousKojima » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 2:45 PM UTC

giarc wrote: post #32

uptown wrote: post #19

"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112

Rich given he is a black man married to a white women. Cherry picks cases for same-sex marriage but not cases allowing inter-racial marriage.

In Thomas's mind, one has long-standing historical precedence where the other doesn't.

Interracial marriage has existed for pretty much all of human history (though race as a concept likely didn't, at least not the way it is perceived in modern times). Heck you even have Moses marrying an Ethiopian woman and his siblings spoke out against him over it and were punished by God for it (see Numbers chapter 12).

Gay marriage, on the other hand, has near zero historical precedence outside of a few cases with Roman emperors and stuff like that.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#58

Post by luckystarr » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 2:45 PM UTC

The mid 2030s and 2040s will be the years of crime. That's when all the unwanted kids will "grow up" without affection.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#59

Post by fhkatari » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 2:45 PM UTC

I work for a company, headquartered in the Mid West, that has been very public in their support of LGBTQ rights, among other things. Do you think corporations should take a public stance in support of abortion rights? Will tech companies continue to flock to Texas, in what will become a very difficult environment for abortion?

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#60

Post by echelon » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 2:45 PM UTC

uptown wrote: post #19

"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112

The Supreme Court positions to be elected positions.

None of this is the will of the people.