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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#941

Post by omginternets »

kdtsh wrote: post #426
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'll be the begrudging devils advocate There are plenty of devils out there, they can advocate for themselves. This ruling can be as technically correct as anyone likes, but it is disastrous in every conceivable way. All this ultimately demonstrates is how feeble rights - real, natural rights - are under the American conception of federal constitutional rights. Edit: there are a lot of people who are clearly very c…

He is advocating for human beings, by taking the defense of democratic processes and institutions, even when he disagrees with the specific decision.

Your plea is exactly reducible to: “thou shalt support the Right Thing, always”. It’s almost disturbingly naive.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#942

Post by seventynine »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #433
katabasis wrote: post #183

If Republicans take back congress and the presidency in the next election cycles, a national abortion ban becomes a serious possibility. This is not just a "red states" issue. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/us/anti-abortion-movement...

They would have to get rid of the filibuster, which seems unlikely.

I'm not so sure. I predict they will torch the filibuster and enact laws that entrench their power for decades. The problem is already that they are barely accountable to voters.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#943

Post by thathndude »

InTheArena wrote: post #188

Separate abortion from Roe v. Wade. The big challenge has been that Roe v. Wade was horribly decided. Even RBG thought so. Roe v wade gave the Supreme Court the right to make law without reference to any text in the constitution. Casey tried to change the justification but it still was a disaster. Sadly it is far from the only time the Supreme Court has made things up out of whole cloth that has had massive societal…

This is a good point. In some ways, Roe v Wade gives pro-life movement an easy layup. It’s poorly decided law with no solid foundation in the Constitution. Nine white men jumped into a raging battle, and killed any debate through the Democratic process. And they did this during a time when the democratic process was trending in favor of abortion rights. Don’t take my word for it. This was Justice Ginsburg’s take on it too.

The smart move for the pro-choice movement, would be to get some state constitutional amendments on the books.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#944

Post by generj »

londgine wrote: post #255

Regardless of my opinion on whether states should be able to restrict abortions, I really didn't like Roe vs. Wade. This should be a law that congress votes for/against and be held responsible for by their voters. I wonder how such a legal framework would work if the court could go to their respective law makers and say that the law is unclear in this case and require them to vote on it. Then, rather than Roe vs. Wad…

I like this proposed mechanism.

Unfortunately it would require a constitutional amendment and so is unlikely to happen. But the benefits are obvious: No mucking around trying to interpret legislative intent, just get new legislative intent! If the executive steps into grey areas of the law, force Congress to clarify things.

I do worry it would solidify the judiciary as a proto -legislature arguing the law back and forth with Congress. I’d also worry about other unforeseen consequences which would somehow cause worse problems then are existing system.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#945

Post by jmull »

jandrese wrote: post #476

What I find interesting is how for many many years people thought Roe would be safe because it was mostly useful as a political tool. A wedge to drive into voting blocks to make sure they stay Republican despite everything else they are doing. It was in nobody's interest to actually repeal it. What nobody expected was for decades of indoctrination to produce true believers that would actually be elected to the Suprem…

I’ve never heard of this. As far as I’m aware, the vast majority of “pro life” and “pro choice” proponents are serious.

It has been used (built, really) as a political tool as you say, but the victors here are quite happy to have won.

And they know what happens now. (It’s gay marriage and trans rights.)

It’s not like there’s a shortage of political wedge issues. And since this is about power, not principle, they will always find more.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#947

Post by bsder »

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…

> In the long run, history will have a dim view of this era of global polarization with all political sides to blame.

Actually, in the long run, history takes a dim view of the people in the center.

People on one "extreme" side are vindicated. And everybody else gets flagged as supporting the wrong position.

As I put it to one friend: "When the issue was Catholics marrying Lutherans, your church and everybody in the "middle" were on the wrong side of the decision. When the issue was racial intermarriage, your church and everybody in the "middle" were on the wrong side of the decision. Now that the issue is gay marriage, why do you believe your church and everybody in the middle are on the correct side of the decision this time?"

The truth lies in the middle is, in fact, generally wrong.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#948

Post by sumeno »

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'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states.

The devil already has 6 seats on the supreme court, he doesn't need you to advocate for him

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#949

Post by fsociety »

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…

The democrats would not have been able to make the right for abortion into a law during that period. And women should not have to suffer because the republic is dysfunctional.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

#950

Post by somewhereoutth »

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…

However only one side is hellbent on wrecking peoples' lives.
Post reply on HN