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

Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#651

Post by yieldcrv »

TameAntelope wrote: post #410
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #337

The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct. If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. And if most people can't agree on that, well, adding that wouldn't be de…

The problem with this legal OCD is that in the meantime, people suffer. This isn't a codebase refactor, this is people's lives. Pulling this ruling before you have "what the people want" in place is like deleting a feature you plan on rebuilding later before you actually rebuild it. Nobody in their right mind thinks that's a good idea in any other context, so why would it make sense here?

> The problem with this legal OCD is that in the meantime, people suffer.

I am willing to empathize with the denial of service but thats it.

Congress was the more appropriate federal authority to be a legislature, and failed to do so. In the absence of a federal law passed by Congress, state ones are the only ones that matter.

The topic of how long the ruling lasted is a complete red herring, as this is not out of character for the court at all.

I don’t feel like the convenience of having the court being so hard to overrule is a good enough reason for it to act as a superlegislature when convenient.

I am the same way on this regarding all topics. On this specific topic, in the past I had tried to point out how odd Roe v Wade was with the court acting as a superlegislature but I quickly learned this was not a conversation people were willing to have as they couldnt separate the “camps” from the case(s) so I stopped bringing it up. I’m glad that this case forces the conversation.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#652

Post by mancerayder »

anigbrowl wrote: post #593
screye wrote: post #330

I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…

The jaded side of me says: vote in more moderates that are willing to strike compromises Suppose I come along and assault you, you defend yourself, and then someone comes along and tells you that you are as much to blame as the person who assaulted you. Are they accurate, or just squeamish? Moderates generally lack any firm convictions or anchoring principles beyond maintaining equanimity, and so contribute mightily…

> Moderates generally lack any firm convictions or anchoring principles beyond maintaining equanimity

That's one way to put it. Here's another to think about: moderates lack rigid principles and avoid ideological convictions.

People on the extremes of both sides have a tendency to "paint." They paint the opposing view as monsters, and they paint people with independent views as "lacking convictions."

It is not accurate.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#653

Post by the_mar »

gonehome wrote: post #516
screye wrote: post #330

I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…

While I personally have strong pro-choice views I think this was correctly decided for the reasons you state. Abortion is a case where there is genuine disagreement among the public and at its core exists a genuine moral question. Most partisans talk past each other, but the core of it is about the rights of the unborn and at which point that becomes relevant. It's different because of this from gay rights and contra…

Don't you think it's better if morality issues are left to individuals?

Don't want an abortion? Don't get one. Care about fetus rights? Start help centers for pregnant women, engage in education and activism, provide social nets for new mothers and children. It's not like we have mandatory abortions.

To me, the abortions is similar to the right to chose to end your own life, ultimately, you can't outlaw killing yourself.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#654

Post by wl »

saghm wrote: post #554
screye wrote: post #330

I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…

> States rights has always been a double edged sword. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The same state rights that allow gun control and homosexuality to be locally legalized before national concensus; also now lead to abortion legislation being a state issue. Except when the same court in the same week strikes down a state law that makes it marginally more effort to carry a concealed weapon in public.

That is a egregious misrepresentation of the law struck down in NYSRPA v. Bruen. In New York City, it was effectively impossible to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public unless one had connections and influence in the police department. Whether or not that is desirable from a policy perspective, it was far more than "marginally more effort" to obtain the permit.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#655

Post by xdennis »

curiousllama wrote: post #122
major505 wrote: post #75

I`m not american, but lets be honest. Is not a constitution right because is not in the constitution. States can now do their onw diligence about the subject. So it`s not the end of the word for pro-choise people.

>Is not a constitution right because is not in the constitution. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment, in its entirety. In other words: there is an entire Amendment specifically dedicated to refuting this argument. People have rights, even if they're not specifically written in the Constitution.

Yes, the argument is bad, but he's right.

The 9th amendment says some rights aren't mentioned. But abortion couldn't be one of those rights because abortion was banned in some states.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#656

Post by hobs »

bko wrote: post #647
cmollis wrote: post #525

When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is caesar’s..” or ‘separation of church and state’. Or, more probable, perhaps it was felt that it simply was not the forum for present-day politics. I don’t know). Since lapsed, A few years ago I was encouraged by a priest, as he enjoyed his fourth old fashioned,…

The framing of this debate is often religious, but it doesn't have to be. The fact is that at some point between inception and time of delivery, the fetus becomes a person and has some rights. Most people agree that it's probably not inception and it's probably not the moment before birth. So the question is when does this happen? In that way, the pro-life crowd has at least a closer framing of the issue. The pro-cho…

Why do you think that we need to agree on framing the issue when a significant minority will only agree to framing it at conception?

You can't find a middle ground with religious extremism.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#657

Post by xxEightyxx »

cmollis wrote: post #525

When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is caesar’s..” or ‘separation of church and state’. Or, more probable, perhaps it was felt that it simply was not the forum for present-day politics. I don’t know). Since lapsed, A few years ago I was encouraged by a priest, as he enjoyed his fourth old fashioned,…

I'm not as old as you (born in the late 80's) but my family left the church (protestant) for this exact reason. There was more discussion of social/political issues than of scripture. To be fair, I think it's OK to some extent, but the elders had made it a priority to denigrate liberal ideas and beliefs.

Look up the Koch brothers. They're largely responsible for much of the chaos we see in our country today.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#659

Post by inlined »

wollsmoth wrote: post #512
screye wrote: post #330

I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…

I do hope that this will motivate us to get some amendments passed to codify some of the rights that we've gained from court rulings. I hope this turns into blowback against the Republicans but I think there's a long road. I guess people just don't believe things will get "that bad" and now we'll see.

With the current Supreme Court the literal text of the constitution doesn’t matter. For example, the text of the second amendment is pretty clear that the right to bear arms is in the pursuit of a well regulated militia. Our militia has since been regulated into the national guard. The second amendment is nothing more than a constitutional right to enlist in the national guard, but it’s used to promote/codify extreme ideologies.
Post reply on HN