6 ms·

One thing I noticed a very long time ago is that most people have not read their religious texts. Roe v Wade being no different. People havent read it, they ha

One thing I noticed a very long time ago is that most people have not read their religious texts. Roe v Wade being no different. People havent read it, they havent read Casey, they havent read this draft, and they havent read other Supreme Court decisions to know what normal looks like. There is a wide degree of room for understanding it from a jurisdiction perspective, that have absolutely nothing to do with one of two “camps” or that camp’s correlation to one of two political leanings. From a legal review perspective, that compartmentalizes the emotional aspect away from any desired outcome, its easy to see inspiration for other outcomes and paths that Roe v Wade shutdown all discussion of. Some of those paths actually reach similar results. I tried once or twice to point that out, but people were just shocked to hear the topic. so I am kind of thrilled that the opportunity to inspire is now forced upon everyone.

tsol 4y ago
>that most people have not read their religious texts. What do you think qualifies you to judge if most Hindus have not read the Rig Veda, most sikhs have not read the Adi Granth, most Muslims have not read the Quran, most jews have not read the Torah, etc for every religion? I find people take the experience they have with one particular religion around them, and then paint all religious people the same way. It's very strange because it makes no sense, yet even in places with very well read people like HN you see it all the time. I certainly agree there is a lot of polarization in the world right now
- vmception 4y ago
  ok. what did you think about the rest of the post besides the topic sentence. have you read supreme court cases that people elevate to the importance of religious texts? if so, what did you think of them, if not have you weighed in on these topics before because that was the actual point.
  - tsol 4y ago
    Sorry, I agree with the rest of it. That part is just a pet peeve of mine so it distracted me-- but actually I do agree. I myself haven't read any detailed judgements by the Supreme Court, very few people do. I think people judge the outcome of these very consequential lethal decisions morally rather than based on their legal merits. In fact I doubt most people are equipped to judge cases on their lethal merits. At the end of the day if a badly supported law is passed that many people agree with, they'll go along with it. If a well supported law that people disagree with is passed, they'll complain until someone finds a problem with it no matter how minor or abstract. Many people don't understand that legality=/=morality, or they desperately want them to be the same
    - MatteoFrigo 4y ago
      FWIW, I would encourage you to read the leaked text. I have read a few opinions of the Supreme Court over the years. I have no specific background in law, and I am not even a native English speaker, but I have found them uniformly accessible to a layman. They use a dozen or so boilerplate latin expressions that you need to get used to, but they are otherwise fairly readable. The leaked text by Mr. Alito is a masterpiece of English prose and scholarship, in my opinion. In 90 pages or so, it explains the history of the issue and the legal theories that common-law judges have advanced since the 14th century. It analyzes the arguments in favor and against Roe and Wade. It also summarizes the legal handling of the issue in various US states. Irrespective of whether or not you agree with the conclusion, these opinions are one of the few pieces of contemporary literature worth reading. I myself am looking forward to the final form of this text (should the Court decide to uphold it) as well as all the dissenting opinions, which I expect to be of similarly high caliber.
      - vmception 4y ago
        I actually got a chuckle out of the 30 pages of statutes from places that are now US states and territories from 1850 till 1973. Thought it was odd and hurried to include Hawaii's 1850 statute. Since it was neither a territory or state then. Wish I knew a news source or discussion board that could find this stuff moderately entertaining, instead of looking for angles to discredit the entire institution.
spupe 4y ago
Are you suggesting that the average person should read Supreme Court decisions? And furthermore, are you implying that there are fundamental mistakes in the reasoning of Roe v Wade that emerged just now, 50 years later? Both seem unreasonable suggestions to me. It's akin to saying people should learn programming and read up on code/documentation if they want to have an opinion about Facebook.
- nullc 4y ago
  > Are you suggesting that the average person should read Supreme Court decisions? The country would be a better place if more people did. Supreme court decisions are phenomenally well written. They usually begin with a clear, short, and accessible statement of the case and the relevant principle(s) before they summarize their decision. I find that they describe the issues surrounding the cases with great compassion for all the major arguments. And the dissents are usually equally informative. Reading decisions has dramatically increased my appreciation of the nuance that goes into the decisions of the court and the operation of our country. Even for cases where I disagreed with the judgement with both before and after reading the decision, I gained a much greater perspective of alternative views. ... and a feeling that even when I strongly believe we're doing the wrong thing that we're trying so hard to do the right thing that eventually we'll get it right somehow. For several years I read at least the beginning of every decision and dissent -- there aren't that many. I stopped only because I became crunched for time, and I'm thankful that your post reminded me of this gap from my life now that I have the time to pick up the practice again.
  - spupe 4y ago
    I also find the American Supreme Court decisions to be surprisingly accessible, while in my and other countries there is a lot of obfuscation. That said, I'm not sure I have the same feeling as you reading some of these decisions. Law and its interpretation is obviously a political matter and always will be. For example, in the case at hand, it's just silly to pretend that after 50 years we have finally arrived at a great legal argument against abortions, which happens to coincide with the recent introduction of three more conservative judges (one of them illegitimately). It's just futile, in my view, to treat any of these decisions as if the people involved were trying really hard to achieve objective truth, rather than impress their prejudices in the most articulate way.

tsol 4y ago

>that most people have not read their religious texts. What do you think qualifies you to judge if most Hindus have not read the Rig Veda, most sikhs have not read the Adi Granth, most Muslims have not read the Quran, most jews have not read the Torah, etc for every religion? I find people take the experience they have with one particular religion around them, and then paint all religious people the same way. It's very strange because it makes no sense, yet even in places with very well read people like HN you see it all the time. I certainly agree there is a lot of polarization in the world right now

vmception 4y ago
ok. what did you think about the rest of the post besides the topic sentence. have you read supreme court cases that people elevate to the importance of religious texts? if so, what did you think of them, if not have you weighed in on these topics before because that was the actual point.
- tsol 4y ago
  Sorry, I agree with the rest of it. That part is just a pet peeve of mine so it distracted me-- but actually I do agree. I myself haven't read any detailed judgements by the Supreme Court, very few people do. I think people judge the outcome of these very consequential lethal decisions morally rather than based on their legal merits. In fact I doubt most people are equipped to judge cases on their lethal merits. At the end of the day if a badly supported law is passed that many people agree with, they'll go along with it. If a well supported law that people disagree with is passed, they'll complain until someone finds a problem with it no matter how minor or abstract. Many people don't understand that legality=/=morality, or they desperately want them to be the same
  - MatteoFrigo 4y ago
    FWIW, I would encourage you to read the leaked text. I have read a few opinions of the Supreme Court over the years. I have no specific background in law, and I am not even a native English speaker, but I have found them uniformly accessible to a layman. They use a dozen or so boilerplate latin expressions that you need to get used to, but they are otherwise fairly readable. The leaked text by Mr. Alito is a masterpiece of English prose and scholarship, in my opinion. In 90 pages or so, it explains the history of the issue and the legal theories that common-law judges have advanced since the 14th century. It analyzes the arguments in favor and against Roe and Wade. It also summarizes the legal handling of the issue in various US states. Irrespective of whether or not you agree with the conclusion, these opinions are one of the few pieces of contemporary literature worth reading. I myself am looking forward to the final form of this text (should the Court decide to uphold it) as well as all the dissenting opinions, which I expect to be of similarly high caliber.
    - vmception 4y ago
      I actually got a chuckle out of the 30 pages of statutes from places that are now US states and territories from 1850 till 1973. Thought it was odd and hurried to include Hawaii's 1850 statute. Since it was neither a territory or state then. Wish I knew a news source or discussion board that could find this stuff moderately entertaining, instead of looking for angles to discredit the entire institution.

spupe 4y ago

Are you suggesting that the average person should read Supreme Court decisions? And furthermore, are you implying that there are fundamental mistakes in the reasoning of Roe v Wade that emerged just now, 50 years later? Both seem unreasonable suggestions to me. It's akin to saying people should learn programming and read up on code/documentation if they want to have an opinion about Facebook.

nullc 4y ago
> Are you suggesting that the average person should read Supreme Court decisions? The country would be a better place if more people did. Supreme court decisions are phenomenally well written. They usually begin with a clear, short, and accessible statement of the case and the relevant principle(s) before they summarize their decision. I find that they describe the issues surrounding the cases with great compassion for all the major arguments. And the dissents are usually equally informative. Reading decisions has dramatically increased my appreciation of the nuance that goes into the decisions of the court and the operation of our country. Even for cases where I disagreed with the judgement with both before and after reading the decision, I gained a much greater perspective of alternative views. ... and a feeling that even when I strongly believe we're doing the wrong thing that we're trying so hard to do the right thing that eventually we'll get it right somehow. For several years I read at least the beginning of every decision and dissent -- there aren't that many. I stopped only because I became crunched for time, and I'm thankful that your post reminded me of this gap from my life now that I have the time to pick up the practice again.
- spupe 4y ago
  I also find the American Supreme Court decisions to be surprisingly accessible, while in my and other countries there is a lot of obfuscation. That said, I'm not sure I have the same feeling as you reading some of these decisions. Law and its interpretation is obviously a political matter and always will be. For example, in the case at hand, it's just silly to pretend that after 50 years we have finally arrived at a great legal argument against abortions, which happens to coincide with the recent introduction of three more conservative judges (one of them illegitimately). It's just futile, in my view, to treat any of these decisions as if the people involved were trying really hard to achieve objective truth, rather than impress their prejudices in the most articulate way.