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

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#81

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #56
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 g…

I would buy this as an argument if the Court, when presented with ways to absolutely improve the legislative situation, add more checks and balances to the legislature, and make it more democratic, doesn’t turn around and do the opposite (gerrymandering and Citizens United are two obvious examples).

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#82

Post by kadoban »

YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #40
anonu wrote: post #8

Interestingly: The NYT link was written 4 hours ago (~6AM EST) - but the decision seems to have been released around ~10AM EST. I suppose everyone expected this post the leak. Without taking any side on this issue: this is a tough day in America, when a 50-year precedent is overturned.

I believe that pre-writing articles for both sides of major binary decisions and only releasing the one that turns out to be correct is standard practice at large news organisations, where the value of being first to publish is far higher than the cost of writing two articles.

Especially when you have a leaked opinion and already know what it's going to say.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#83

Post by caracustard »

luckystarr wrote: post #58

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

Bad generalization and prejudice right there. While whether someone is brought up in an environment that encourages care absolutely influences the choices people make down the road, whether the person in question was "wanted" does not matter. I can't exactly back that up with some solid data but i think that many people know someone who is far from being an "unwanted" person but still made some bad choices in life.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#84

Post by Vvector »

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

Thomas - "...in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. ... we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents"

Griswold - contraceptives

Lawrence - same-sex sexual relations

Obergefell - same-sex marriage

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#85

Post by JacobThreeThree »

rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote: post #47

How is this seen like it's the end of the world? Just vote with the people that won't ban abortion.

Because the media is making it out to be the end of the world. This ruling does not ban abortion, it lets the states have jurisdiction over the issue.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#86

Post by danpalmer »

mvts wrote: post #49
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #25

I'm pro-choice but I still believe that this is the right move. > “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.…

do you think the supreme court did this because they share the same opinion as rbg? I think this Case was maybe a wonky solution for the Problem but it was the only one you Americans Had.

They definitely did not.

RBG thought that Roe v Wade won for the wrong reasons, but didn't want to repeal it because of the damage she knew it would cause – she wanted to roll-forward rather than roll-back.

This court, or at least the conservative majority, are very much in favour of rolling-back, and I suspect are only vaguely in favour of letting the legislature pass laws because they know that there will be challenges to those laws that they can then get involved in, meanwhile they have shifted the overton window of women's rights.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#88

Post by voisin »

qalmakka wrote: post #64

This is the final chapter of a decade-long saga which basically boils down to the Republicans obtaining votes from Evangelicals and other Christian denominations in order to give them what they wanted. In exchange for that, they would use their power to cut taxes, regulations and let the riches become richer and richer at the expense of everyone else. I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and…

> I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and I'd like to remind them that, while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention, he was quite vocal about the fact that greed was not compatible with salvation. I'd like to see Evangelicals and other Christians being as vocal for social justice as they were for abortions and same sex marriage, but I guess they do care more about putting woman back in the kitchen as indentured servants more than they do about social justice.

It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control. We need to stop pretending it has anything to do with Jesus and everything to do with power over others. Nietzsche is more relevant here than Jesus.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#89

Post by ipnon »

lawn wrote: post #52

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.

"The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#90

Post by kadoban »

windows2020 wrote: post #78
dimator wrote: post #62

The real question is, what kind of draconian laws will they start hatching to make abortion tourism (flying to a state where it's legal, then coming back) illegal. How do you legislate that? Are people still free to go to another state if they want? Are they getting arrested as soon as they come back? The next case they'll hear is about Mississippi v Some Nonprofit That Pays For Abortion Flights.

You don't legislate that. That's the point of states.

They absolutely will and already are. There will be loopholes or lax enforcement for the rich and white, but the poor and non-white will have those options restricted and prosecuted.
Post reply on HN