7 ms·

This is simply a matter of law. The justification for Roe Vs Wade doesn't hold water, it never did, it asserts a right to privacy that apparently only applies i

This is simply a matter of law. The justification for Roe Vs Wade doesn't hold water, it never did, it asserts a right to privacy that apparently only applies in the specific case of abortion and not in warrantless surveillance or any other matter. It was a legal fiction.

thomastjeffery 4y ago
> it asserts a right to privacy that apparently only applies in the specific case of abortion False.
avs733 4y ago
Oh not this nonsense again. If this were true than it would be easy for the current court to write an alternative opinion upholding the right as a liberty interest. They didn’t because the argument you are repeating is wrong, as well as made in bad faith to undermine obviously correct legal analysis. You are a victim of propaganda and it makes me sad.
- dang 4y ago
  Your comments in this thread have been breaking the site guidelines. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make your substantive points thoughtfully, as they request? That means without name-calling, personal attack, and flamewar—especially religious flamewar, which you've been crossing into elsewhere. For example, your second sentence here would have been fine on its own, or as the nucleus of a more thoughtful comment. The other sentences are the ones that break the guidelines. I understand that on a fraught topic like this, it can be next to impossible not to write such things. But then one should edit them out. That's what I do, or try to. Edit: it looks like your comment history contains a fair bit of ideological battle. Please make sure you're not using HN primarily for that, because that's the line at which we ban accounts (regardless of which ideology is being battled, or battled for). https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
krapp 4y ago
"Simply a matter of law" is a meaningless statement. All rights, including Constitutional rights and the laws which support them, are legal fictions. Roe v. Wade held water simply because the Supreme Court decided it did, until today when the Supreme Court decided it didn't.
voisin 4y ago
Maybe the answer is that there shouldn’t be warrantless surveillance?
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Legal trickery and wordplay like the kind used in Roe Vs. Wade is what enables it.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Here is another one that thinks laws could be written in a programming language and are simple IF_ELSE clauses
camgunz 4y ago
It's the 4th Amendment. Justice Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut: > "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." If your counterargument is "the word privacy isn't in the Constitution", my rejoinder is "neither is 'assault rifle'".
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Why is this right to privacy exclusive to activities around reproduction? Where else do you enjoy this implied right of privacy? Why not quote the direct text that provides this right to privacy if it's so clear and obvious?
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    It's also part of the 9th amendment. The point is that the courts ruled that people have an implicit right to privacy within their own home. That's literally why it exists, because it was to directly counter people who take the constitution at face value as being the ONLY rights it gives.
    - pkulak 4y ago
      But I can be prohibited from doing all sorts of things in my own home.
      - camgunz 4y ago
        The Court's job is to balance your right to privacy with the state's interests. Let's say you're running a meth lab: meth is very bad for people, it's hard to cook it safely and you might grievously harm others in your house or those nearby. Therefore, if law enforcement has probable cause to enter your home (e.g. they have an informant who's provided evidence), they can obtain a warrant for the express purpose of ascertaining whether or not you have a meth lab. If you don't have a meth lab but you are smoking weed (in a State where that's not legal), they can't arrest you, because that's not what the warrant is for. Hooray 4th Amendment!
monocasa 4y ago
It's not just abortion, there's tons of case law around the implied right to privacy in the constitution.
helloooooooo 4y ago
And this reasoning also applies to same sex marriage, and inter-racial marriage. And guess what? SCOTUS is now gunning for both. Congratulations America, welcome to the 1960s

thomastjeffery 4y ago

> it asserts a right to privacy that apparently only applies in the specific case of abortion False.

avs733 4y ago

Oh not this nonsense again. If this were true than it would be easy for the current court to write an alternative opinion upholding the right as a liberty interest. They didn’t because the argument you are repeating is wrong, as well as made in bad faith to undermine obviously correct legal analysis. You are a victim of propaganda and it makes me sad.

dang 4y ago
Your comments in this thread have been breaking the site guidelines. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make your substantive points thoughtfully, as they request? That means without name-calling, personal attack, and flamewar—especially religious flamewar, which you've been crossing into elsewhere. For example, your second sentence here would have been fine on its own, or as the nucleus of a more thoughtful comment. The other sentences are the ones that break the guidelines. I understand that on a fraught topic like this, it can be next to impossible not to write such things. But then one should edit them out. That's what I do, or try to. Edit: it looks like your comment history contains a fair bit of ideological battle. Please make sure you're not using HN primarily for that, because that's the line at which we ban accounts (regardless of which ideology is being battled, or battled for). https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

krapp 4y ago

"Simply a matter of law" is a meaningless statement. All rights, including Constitutional rights and the laws which support them, are legal fictions. Roe v. Wade held water simply because the Supreme Court decided it did, until today when the Supreme Court decided it didn't.

voisin 4y ago

Maybe the answer is that there shouldn’t be warrantless surveillance?

willcipriano 4y ago
Legal trickery and wordplay like the kind used in Roe Vs. Wade is what enables it.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Here is another one that thinks laws could be written in a programming language and are simple IF_ELSE clauses

camgunz 4y ago

It's the 4th Amendment. Justice Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut: > "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." If your counterargument is "the word privacy isn't in the Constitution", my rejoinder is "neither is 'assault rifle'".

willcipriano 4y ago
Why is this right to privacy exclusive to activities around reproduction? Where else do you enjoy this implied right of privacy? Why not quote the direct text that provides this right to privacy if it's so clear and obvious?
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  It's also part of the 9th amendment. The point is that the courts ruled that people have an implicit right to privacy within their own home. That's literally why it exists, because it was to directly counter people who take the constitution at face value as being the ONLY rights it gives.
  - pkulak 4y ago
    But I can be prohibited from doing all sorts of things in my own home.
    - camgunz 4y ago
      The Court's job is to balance your right to privacy with the state's interests. Let's say you're running a meth lab: meth is very bad for people, it's hard to cook it safely and you might grievously harm others in your house or those nearby. Therefore, if law enforcement has probable cause to enter your home (e.g. they have an informant who's provided evidence), they can obtain a warrant for the express purpose of ascertaining whether or not you have a meth lab. If you don't have a meth lab but you are smoking weed (in a State where that's not legal), they can't arrest you, because that's not what the warrant is for. Hooray 4th Amendment!

monocasa 4y ago

It's not just abortion, there's tons of case law around the implied right to privacy in the constitution.

helloooooooo 4y ago

And this reasoning also applies to same sex marriage, and inter-racial marriage. And guess what? SCOTUS is now gunning for both. Congratulations America, welcome to the 1960s