6 ms·

The Court is a counterbalance against the tyranny of the majority. It's specifically, intentionally undemocratic.

bandyaboot 4y ago
That worked well before it became just another body of partisan zealots. Now we have the tyranny of whichever partisan zealots have a run a good dumb luck.
yeahNo88 4y ago
Tyranny of a religious minority it is then! I’ve taken to defining nihilism as being so dedicated to an ephemera and philosophy, harm to real people is ignored. This decision gives states to impact interstate business. It controls what doctors and patients can discuss. So it goes a good long way to squashing other rights in deference to pudding brains traditions. They chose not with logic but delusion. Figurative identity preferences are being leveraged to directly control human agency. I don’t owe coddling anyone else’s sensibilities. There is no greater good. And I hope this society collapses around us and reminds the majority how meaningless their personal self image is to others.
jquery 4y ago
“Tyranny of the minority” is even worse and that’s what we are seeing now. This Court isn’t upholding minority rights against the State, it’s doing the reverse, taking away rights from minorities (poor women without easy access to travel to another state if necessary). We have six jurists with an extremist legal view called “originalism” which is “let’s imagine I’m a white male in 1800, what would I think about X”. The first Supreme Court decision to mention originalism was in 1994, when Scalia dissented because he thought juveniles should be executed.
- JasonFruit 4y ago
  There are people who would dispute whether there's a helpless minority whose rights are being protected by this Court's decision. You can disagree on the resolution, but don't handwave away the almost unique conflict of rights abortion presents between the bodily autonomy of the mother and the right to life of the child. You'll convince nobody by proceeding so dishonestly. I'm not about to dignify such an obvious bad-faith argument as is represented by your parody of originalism.
  - mike00632 4y ago
    You see a woman as an incubator of a "child" that has a right to life. This is biologically wrong and the fact that so many people share this view is an indictment of America's failed education system.
    - overrun11 4y ago
      Even serious pro-choice scholars concede that a fetus is biologically a human life e.g., Peter Singer. If your argument is that a child is definitional not unborn then that is a semantic argument of no moral relevance.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    So what you are saying is that there is a huge gray area between a clump of cells and a child being born? Maybe even that pregnancy starts out nearly 100% a bodily autonomy issue and culminates in the life of a child? Sounds like a good argument against allowing late term abortions, and a good argument against banning them outright.
    - JasonFruit 4y ago
      That's a possible view, though not my own. I personally think it is going to remain contentious until, technologically, we can remove the conflict of rights by allowing the child to come to term outside the mother's body. It would be hard to support a right to kill the child when it could mature with no additional inconvenience to the mother.
      - jquery 4y ago
        My wife had a successful, “uncomplicated” pregnancy and has permanent lifelong physical and mental damage from it. Not that this is anyone’s business, but apparently I have to share this private information because of all the extreme ignorance out there. It’s hard to believe there is such ignorance out there that pregnancy isn’t even considered an inconvenience by some men, let alone a life threatening event. If I can object to my corpse being used for organ donation to save lives, a woman should be able to object to her organs being used to support the extreme demands of a growing fetus. But now we are in the odd situation of corpses having more bodily autonomy rights than women.
coldpie 4y ago
> The Court is a counterbalance against the tyranny of the majority. This is like an 8th grade textbook understanding of US government. It doesn't actually work that way.
- JasonFruit 4y ago
  Whether right or wrong, they have definitely provided a counterbalance against democracy. The Court has stood for what it believes are the rights of people who are unable to participate in democracy because they have not yet been born. They are, in the eyes of democracy, a minority of zero, though they number almost a million per year. Whether or not you or I agree with them, they have acted as a check on democracy.
  - PretzelPirate 4y ago
    A “monitory of zero” clearly has no need to be protected by a legal system. Just like we don’t legislate that you can’t kill plants for the sake of the plant, a fetus spends up to 18 weeks in a non-sentient state where it has no subjective experience. It doesn’t need protection since a non-sentient being can’t suffer. Edit: it’s also worth mentioning that many abortions happen at the zygote or embryo stage, before there is even a fetus.
colinmhayes 4y ago
Now we have tyranny of the political minority. So much better.

That worked well before it became just another body of partisan zealots. Now we have the tyranny of whichever partisan zealots have a run a good dumb luck.

yeahNo88 4y ago

Tyranny of a religious minority it is then! I’ve taken to defining nihilism as being so dedicated to an ephemera and philosophy, harm to real people is ignored. This decision gives states to impact interstate business. It controls what doctors and patients can discuss. So it goes a good long way to squashing other rights in deference to pudding brains traditions. They chose not with logic but delusion. Figurative identity preferences are being leveraged to directly control human agency. I don’t owe coddling anyone else’s sensibilities. There is no greater good. And I hope this society collapses around us and reminds the majority how meaningless their personal self image is to others.

jquery 4y ago

“Tyranny of the minority” is even worse and that’s what we are seeing now. This Court isn’t upholding minority rights against the State, it’s doing the reverse, taking away rights from minorities (poor women without easy access to travel to another state if necessary). We have six jurists with an extremist legal view called “originalism” which is “let’s imagine I’m a white male in 1800, what would I think about X”. The first Supreme Court decision to mention originalism was in 1994, when Scalia dissented because he thought juveniles should be executed.

JasonFruit 4y ago
There are people who would dispute whether there's a helpless minority whose rights are being protected by this Court's decision. You can disagree on the resolution, but don't handwave away the almost unique conflict of rights abortion presents between the bodily autonomy of the mother and the right to life of the child. You'll convince nobody by proceeding so dishonestly. I'm not about to dignify such an obvious bad-faith argument as is represented by your parody of originalism.
- mike00632 4y ago
  You see a woman as an incubator of a "child" that has a right to life. This is biologically wrong and the fact that so many people share this view is an indictment of America's failed education system.
  - overrun11 4y ago
    Even serious pro-choice scholars concede that a fetus is biologically a human life e.g., Peter Singer. If your argument is that a child is definitional not unborn then that is a semantic argument of no moral relevance.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  So what you are saying is that there is a huge gray area between a clump of cells and a child being born? Maybe even that pregnancy starts out nearly 100% a bodily autonomy issue and culminates in the life of a child? Sounds like a good argument against allowing late term abortions, and a good argument against banning them outright.
  - JasonFruit 4y ago
    That's a possible view, though not my own. I personally think it is going to remain contentious until, technologically, we can remove the conflict of rights by allowing the child to come to term outside the mother's body. It would be hard to support a right to kill the child when it could mature with no additional inconvenience to the mother.
    - jquery 4y ago
      My wife had a successful, “uncomplicated” pregnancy and has permanent lifelong physical and mental damage from it. Not that this is anyone’s business, but apparently I have to share this private information because of all the extreme ignorance out there. It’s hard to believe there is such ignorance out there that pregnancy isn’t even considered an inconvenience by some men, let alone a life threatening event. If I can object to my corpse being used for organ donation to save lives, a woman should be able to object to her organs being used to support the extreme demands of a growing fetus. But now we are in the odd situation of corpses having more bodily autonomy rights than women.

coldpie 4y ago

> The Court is a counterbalance against the tyranny of the majority. This is like an 8th grade textbook understanding of US government. It doesn't actually work that way.

JasonFruit 4y ago
Whether right or wrong, they have definitely provided a counterbalance against democracy. The Court has stood for what it believes are the rights of people who are unable to participate in democracy because they have not yet been born. They are, in the eyes of democracy, a minority of zero, though they number almost a million per year. Whether or not you or I agree with them, they have acted as a check on democracy.
- PretzelPirate 4y ago
  A “monitory of zero” clearly has no need to be protected by a legal system. Just like we don’t legislate that you can’t kill plants for the sake of the plant, a fetus spends up to 18 weeks in a non-sentient state where it has no subjective experience. It doesn’t need protection since a non-sentient being can’t suffer. Edit: it’s also worth mentioning that many abortions happen at the zygote or embryo stage, before there is even a fetus.

colinmhayes 4y ago

Now we have tyranny of the political minority. So much better.