59 ms·

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 bodi

• causi 4y ago
  This fight is not going to be over until the legislature formally defines what is and is not a person. I doubt that's going to happen because nobody wants to have that discussion.
  • car_analogy 4y ago
    There's a much better argument to legalizing abortion, that holds even if one considers fetuses as persons. In that just as one may not be forced to donate organs or even just blood to save someone else's life, by the same logic, one cannot be forced to bear a child. Of course this is an ethical, not legal argument, so I don't know how it would translate to US law.
    • maccolgan 4y ago
      We are talking about a mother, courts frequently force parents to act in the best interests of their children even if it's against the interests of the parents. A mother's child is not an alien unrelated in any way to the mother.
    • causi 4y ago
      In that just as one may not be forced to donate organs or even just blood to save someone else's life, by the same logic, one cannot be forced to bear a child. Speaking as a generally pro-abortion person, I don't think it's that black and white. When you agree to sustain someone's life, is taking away that sustainment murder? For example, if you reach out and stop someone from falling off a cliff but then choose to let go before they regain their balance, is that murder? I also don't see how to logically reconcile the idea that abortion isn't murder but letting a baby starve to death is. Either you have a responsibility towards human life you created or you don't.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • car_analogy 4y ago
        You and maccolgan raise good points - the parent-child relationship is not the same as any other. But I'm not sure when parental responsibilities should start. E.g. you said "When you agree to sustain someone's life" - but when one chooses abortion, presumably one never "agreed".
        • causi 4y ago
          but when one chooses abortion, presumably one never "agreed". I suppose that depends on your definition of agrees. If you know that sex creates babies you are agreeing to the baby as much as you are agreeing to an explosion when you light a firecracker.
          • car_analogy 4y ago
  • rafale 4y ago
    • drjasonharrison 4y ago
      And why would we need to define what a woman or a man is?! Why does what gender, or sex, or pronouns have with body autonomy, and treatment under the laws?
  • legutierr 4y ago
    I wouldn’t say nobody. Certain schools of Islam explicitly teach that “ensoulment” of the fetus occurs after 120 days, as per my limited understanding. This timeframe largely coincides with the beliefs of a significant majority of Americans (per recent surveys) that abortion should be legal until the first few weeks of the second trimester. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment#Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment#Islam
    • causi 4y ago
      I like the "until it can sustain itself" argument but the issue is that's a moving bar. Every time technology improves that time gets a little bit shorter. A hundred years ago a five month fetus had little chance of surviving. Now that survival rate is 85%. If we had the ability to instantly and painlessly teleport a week-old fetus into an artificial womb, would that be cause to ban all abortion? The only fully consistent argument I've heard is that a human mind is the definition of personhood and that parents should be able to terminate up until several months after birth, but that's pretty out there.
      • inkblotuniverse 4y ago
        I have some sympathy for the roman method.
    • disambiguation 4y ago
      If you wouldn't mind, could you please cite both of those claims.
  • seanp2k2 4y ago
    Given Citizens United no one should be able to terminate a corporation, as corporations are people.
    • zajio1am 4y ago
      Citizens United does not say that corporations are people, it just says people are not restricted on their rights if they create a corporation to exercise them together.
• kelnos 4y ago
  > my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court will show restraint towards political activism (in either direction) in general. Call it naive, but I'll wait and see. That is naive, given that we've already seen over the past several years that this has already been shown to be true. When the GOP is in power, new justices are appointed solely based on political appointment. Their qualifications as judges seem to be irrelevant, as long as they support the party platform. When the GOP controls the Senate, they invent "rules" around which president gets to earn confirmation, and then break their own "rules" when it suits them. > The same state rights that allow gun control [...] to be locally legalized before national concensus Look again: SCOTUS is getting more brazen in overturning state gun control laws. This is just a consequence of what I've said above: the politically-appointed justices loudly cry "states' rights!" when it suits their platform, and quietly ignore state sovereignty when it suits them. Consider also that the GOP has been even more loudly talking about legislation for a nationwide abortion ban. Same playbook: claim the removal of a federal law is a victory for states' rights, but then turn around and try to enact the opposite law at the federal level in order to block the states from making their own choice. > Now, the rural republican votes counting for more in the senate is a huge issue and threat to democracy that the US needs to figure out if it ever wants to represent the views of the people. This is the key issue. The US government will never reflect the will of the people as long as the Senate is composed as it is. Procedural garbage like the filibuster make the body even more ineffective and useless. My prediction here is that as soon as the GOP regains control of the Senate, once they get another taste of obstruction, they'll hypocritically kill the filibuster, despite all their current rhetoric around how it's essential to the Senate. > The jaded side of me says: vote in more moderates that are willing to strike compromises. The issue here is that what you are calling "hyperprogressive activists" are not really all that "hyper" anything when you consider the rest of the democratic world. A US "moderate" would be considered fairly conservative in many other Western democracies. When I talk to friends who are members of various minority groups about this, they dismiss more "center-left" candidates immediately: none of these candidates have the courage (or desire) to work on civil rights and equality. I absolutely agree with you that political polarization is at an all-time high, and most far-left/right politicians seem to be more interested in stoking outrage and provoking their opponents than in actually creating positive outcomes. I don't really know what the solution is. It's hard to just tell everyone, en masse, to just calm the fuck down and stop assuming anyone on the other side of the aisle is an evil demon who wants to destroy the others' way of life. I'm guilty of this sometimes myself, but I'm really trying to understand where some of these people are coming from. It's hard. It's really hard. > In the long run, history will have a dim view of this era of global polarization with all political sides to blame. I understand the sentiment here, and what drives it, but I think it's bad to ignore that there are differences between how the two sides act. They're both terrible, and have many terrible policy platforms, but I think it's worth considering that one party seems more interested in taking people's rights and equal treatment away (or denying "new" rights that should have been rights all along) than the other.
• ecommerceguy 4y ago
  >>Now, the rural republican votes counting for more in the senate is a huge issue and threat to democracy that the US needs to figure out if it ever wants to represent the views of the people The United States is a Republic not a democracy.
  • colinmhayes 4y ago
    Republics are democracies.
    • i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
      Historically no, unless you think only allowing landowners a vote is democracy
  • vkou 4y ago
    So was the USSR. So is the Russian federation. The words 'A republic, not a democracy' mean almost nothing.
  • manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > The United States is a Republic not a democracy. These are not mutually exclusive. The US is a republic and a democracy.
    • dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The US is a republic and a democracy. The United States is substantively an oligarchic republic that has the superficial form of a rather distorted democratic republic (and representative democracy) and which likes to rhetorically appeal to democratic ideology, particularly as the entire justification for the government having any legitimate authority at all. So, it isn’t a democracy, but it is entirely fair to criticize its failure to be one and insist that it ought to fix that proble, since its entire claim to legitimacy rests on it being a democracy as well as a republic.
      • manuelabeledo 4y ago
• tpoacher 4y ago
  I read a nice quote on linux fortunes the other day: "Democracy is the wishful notion that more then half of the population supports better than average opinions more than half of the time."
• fuzzer37 4y ago
• systemvoltage 4y ago
  Yes. I couldn’t imagine if a party had all 3 branches in control. So leaving more rights to states and not forcing them on the entire nation is going to be better. You can vote in your state for reps that support your cause. Don’t like it? Move elsewhere. People are doing exactly the same. Florida being one of the top states with influx of people from other states, specifically California.
  • troyvit 4y ago
    I think the Democrats have had that trifecta now and again. It's pretty great because they just mill around, argue a bunch, then collapse. I honestly don't get why Libertarians don't vote straight Democrat: it's a sure way to keep government out of peoples' lives due merely to their utter lack of discipline and cohesion.
    • surement 4y ago
      The only presidency that ended with less regulation in recent times was Reagan's. In general republican administrations are the ones who get less done (and "undo" less of what the opposition party has done).
      • systemvoltage 4y ago
        I’m changing my views on regulations and supply-side economics. I think this nation needs to kick start innovation and tech progress that was displayed in 1950-1970. That means, low taxes, control inflation, get budget in order and have a surplus even, stop spending and question the efficiency of the Gov (Do 2x from existing funding). Huge tax breaks for startups and small biz. No state income tax. It’s wishful thinking but I want Taiwan x Singapore x HongKong economic policies in the USA. Special economic zones like Shenzhen.
        • lanstin 4y ago
          Didn’t we have high taxes from 1950 to 1970 and massive government science military and education programs to do moon shots, stop the commie dominoes, and improve STEM education after Sputnik? And we had labor unions so your average job was enough to buy a home and send your kids to school if they wanted and maybe save enough for a boat when you started getting your pension? I mean there was segregation, anti black and LGTBQIA violence and lots of rape of women and children, but economically, it had taxes. And larger non-entitlement government spending.
• ausbah 4y ago
  you can't say "figure it out democratically" with the Senate and electoral college saying "its the other branches problem" doesn't work either as SCOTUS is appointed by the undemocratic president and Senate
  • mc32 4y ago
    How is the presidency and senate undemocratic? If they are, it would be through the lens of direct democracy and I'm not sure direct democracy would result in significantly different politics.
    • jandrese 4y ago
      The issue the GP is referring to is how the way our electoral process is set up people with more land have more voice in government. In effect, if you are rural your vote is worth more. This is an extreme in the Senate where a single person's vote has 1.5% of the power of a person in a different state (California vs. Wyoming). And why do we give more voice to the rural vote? Sure they would be a minority otherwise, but so are left handed people and we don't give them more vote. Are they better informed politically than people who live in more densely populated areas? It doesn't really make much sense and I've never heard a argument stronger than "but then the cities would have a lot of political power" without explaining why that is a bad thing.
      • mc32 4y ago
        The electoral college has very seldom deviated from the popular vote. It's happened a handful of times, but not frequently. My point is that people who clamor "popular vote" don't always take into consideration what would happen if we implemented popular democracy. Interestingly, Japan is another country that gives the countryside political advantage and tax advantage.
        • colinmhayes 4y ago
          It's happened 2/6 times this century. That doesn't strike me as very seldom.
• chiefalchemist 4y ago
  > But, the Supreme Court should not be responsible for managing dysfunction in other branches of govt. And it's not. The underlying problem is most of voting public doesn't understand how the system works, and why. Repeated the language has been "The SC is making abortion illegal." That simply is not true. But with that falsely dumbed down "fact" ppl judge, form opinions, make noise, etc.
  • bushbaba 4y ago
    It’s been known for decades that roe v wade was a weak basis for abortion rights. The constitution does not have any law on abortion, and it’s Congress’s job to create federal laws.
    • chiefalchemist 4y ago
      Known? By the maasses? As based on the medias' narrative? That's not what's playing out.
    • tsimionescu 4y ago
      Rights do not stem from the Constitution - as the language of the constitution itself shows: they are natural rights, some of which are explicitly laid down in paper. The right to do what you will with your own body is a natural right, and can't be alienated by anything, not even the will of the majority.
      • biohacker85 4y ago
        Isn't this the crux of the conflict? Whether these "natural rights" are applicable to the "person" in the womb?
        • geekbird 4y ago
          Even if you swallow the argument that a fetus is a "person", you still have to temper the rights of the fetus who is a parasite on the mother, who is a living, breathing person with rights of her own, including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If a dead person can't be forced to give up organs without prior consent, a living woman should not be forced to provide life support (at a risk to her own life by the way) for a fetus. Just like I can't be forced to donate a kidney to another person, a woman should not be forced to donate blood, bone and full life support to a fetus. IOTW, it's literally a matter of competing rights to life. Carrying a pregnancy to term is a mortal risk. Certain pregnancies will kill the mother if not ended, and the fetus will never be viable. Other times the fetus is already dead, but since the law doesn't actually consider the fetus a person, it can't be removed due to abortion bans, and the woman is forced to carry a dead parasite and risk fatal sepsis. All of this should be left to the woman, her doctor, her circumstances and her conscience, not a bunch of old men in legislatures and courts.
• colinmhayes 4y ago
  > If the voting majority truly cares about access to abortion then we will hopefully see enough democratic traction to give them the mandate needed The problem is we have an electoral system that forces us into a two party system. One of those parties is beholden to religious ideologies. If any republican votes for abortion protection they will get primaried. So we end up in a situation where a healthy majority of the country wants some level of abortion rights, but because we need 60 senate votes it's impossible to implement.
  • SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    When Obama was running in 2008 he claimed to want to codify Roe as law his first day as office, and was elected with a super majority. Never once tried. This was not the only opportunity in the last 50 years. It’s not JUST about means, motive, opportunity. There has to be the desire to spend the political capital. I think it’s interesting no one in 50 years with all the majority make ups have put the effort in. I don’t speculate a reason other than it seems more expensive than the media might have me believe?
    • colinmhayes 4y ago
      What do you mean he never tried? How do you know that? Obama never had the votes to overcome the filibuster for abortion rights, he was struggling to even get the ACA passed. Why publicly focus on legislation that's impossible to pass, especially when it's already the law of the land?
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • BitwiseFool 4y ago
        >"especially when it's already the law of the land?" I believe Roe was the precedent of the land and not something explicitly codified into federal law.
        • 4y ago
• kdtsh 4y ago
  > 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 clever advocating for the devil. The devils have the best lawyers money can buy; all I can really suggest, as someone who is not American and not a woman, is that you advocate for human beings for a change.
  • orthecreedence 4y ago
    > All this ultimately demonstrates is how feeble rights - real, natural rights - are under the American conception of federal constitutional rights. Another devil's advocate here...the people advocating for outlawing abortion are also convinced it's a rights issue: the rights of the unborn child. This isn't an open and shut case. Granted, I think Roe v Wade struck a fairly nuanced balance and I also think this is a disastrous decision. It's unfortunate RBG didn't quit when she had the chance and also unfortunate the dems ran Abuela in 2016. This could have been avoided, along with 4 years of complete buffoonery and international embarassment. It sucks our one-party-with-two-factions system has one faction that's consistently spineless and lacking foresight.
    • tshaddox 4y ago
      > the people advocating for outlawing abortion are also convinced it's a rights issue: the rights of the unborn child. Then authority shouldn’t be given to the states, right? Presumably those people will be proposing a federal ban soon, right?
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • orthecreedence 4y ago
        > Presumably those people will be proposing a federal ban soon, right? Sure, that'd be a logical next step. The people who argue for states' rights are often doing so as a ruse to eventually exercise federal control. That said, I think it will end up like marijuana: illegal federally with a bunch of states who just don't give a fuck. In the end, it may only weaken the power the federal government holds, which at this point is a good thing because power has been concentrating more and more the past 100 years. I feel I have to reiterate though: this is still a disastrous outcome for a lot of people. I'm not happy about it. The conservative morons who "want the government out of their lives" but also continuously try to legislate people's bodies and sexuality have scored a real win, and I'm scared and upset for all the women in red states who have to live under their reign of hypocritical terror.
• r0s 4y ago
• vkou 4y ago
  This ruling will also let us democratically figure out whether sodomites should be jailed, whether interracial marriage should be banned, and whether contraception is legal. All of the prior court rulings on these topics stem from the principles that were overturned in this one. And then, two years later, after we democratically figure those questions out, we can flip-flop on them, because we voted in a new legislature.
  • CuriouslyC 4y ago
    • inlined 4y ago
      I agree with your sentiment, but immature name calling weakens the effectiveness of your position
  • paulmd 4y ago
    > And then, two years later, after we democratically figure those questions out, we can flip-flop on them, because we voted in a new legislature. Don't worry, SCOTUS won't let that happen. There's a pretty good chance they'll intervene in the next presidential election (unless a republican house takes it out of their hands), but either way they'll simply overturn any new laws they don't like. They're not burdened by any need for internal consistency - they'll rule in favor of Texas's abortion-bounty laws and rule against California's anti gun bounty laws, for example. Doesn't matter the logic is the same either way, they're not bound to any internal consistency or past logic, it's all about the will-to-power. This is actually a pretty noted characteristic of .... "alt-right" movements. > “Never believe [they] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [They] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” You? You have to make logically consistent legal arguments and follow the process, because you believe in the system. They believe in power. And they have power. Dangerous times indeed, but here we are overturning Roe v Wade. And criminalizing contraception, overturning gay marriage, and criminalizing homosexuality is up next - Thomas specifically calls out Griswold, Obergefell, and Lawrence as being on the chopping block.
• throwaway5752 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    I enjoyed GP is talking about hyperpolarization, and you come in saying that it’s all a conservative issue, using an “Atlantic” article as your source.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • theknocker 4y ago
  • kolanos 4y ago
    > Today 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican > The rise of ideological uniformity has been much more pronounced among those who are the most politically active. Today, almost four-in-ten (38%) politically engaged Democrats are consistent liberals, up from just 8% in 1994. The change among Republicans since then appears less dramatic – 33% express consistently conservative views, up from 23% in the midst of the 1994 “Republican Revolution.” But a decade ago, just 10% of politically engaged Republicans had across-the-board conservative attitudes. [0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-po...
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • throwaway5752 4y ago
      Comparing median figures are useless, any statistician can see that immediately. It is completely symmetric to movement in the distribution in either group. It only tells us about relative movement between the distributions, not whether either side is moving relative to prior positions. Did you read the rest of it about the substantial difference at the fringe? Republican extremism exceeds Democratic extremism by 25-100% depending on the metric you look at. This is the difference between consistently-party aligned groups on both sides: * strongly negative view of the other party: R 15% greater than D (43% vs 38%) * important to live in a place where people share my views: R 40% more than D (50% vs 35%) * most close friends share my viewpoints: R 30% more than D (63% vs 49%) * would be unhappy if an immediate family member married someone of the other party: R 25% more than D (30% vs 23%) * opposing party policies jeopardize the nation's wellbeing: R 30% more than D (66% vs 50%) Conservatives are far more likely to not want diversity of thought around them, either "But far more liberals than conservatives think it is important that a community have racial and ethnic diversity (76% vs. 20%). At the same time, conservatives are more likely than liberals to attach importance to living in a place where many people share their religious faith (57% vs. 17% of liberals)." I would encourage people to look with their own eyes at the language in the dominant party of the 2nd most populous state in the country: https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-biden-presidential-gun-politics-united-states-b4260882260dfc913766b5304900d00b https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-biden-pres... It is so easy to say "A pox on both their houses" but it is incorrect, and you will miss a dire problem for the country in doing so. Greitens ad is one example of violent eliminationist rhethoric against party moderates in the Republican party: https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read/gop-takes-dark-turn-violent-images-enemy-rhetoric-rcna34493 https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read/gop-takes-... - this is a major state and a leading candidate, not a fringe one. The Buffalo mass-shooting was direc caused by replacement theory anger, which is widely believed by Republicans (70%, https://www.splcenter.org/news/2022/06/01/poll-finds-support-great-replacement-hard-right-ideas https://www.splcenter.org/news/2022/06/01/poll-finds-support...). I don't know if you will be believe me, but people should get active or make fallback plans to emigrate or leave. This isn't a drill.
• mattnewton 4y ago
  Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority- and it will not stop here. Other things the Supreme Court has blocked state law using the same logic as roe v Wade (due process of the 14th amendment[0]) on are blocking contraception bans (grisewald), overturning anti-sodomy laws (lawrence), and giving equal protection to gay marriage (obergafel). Several states still have laws on the books banning those things and there could easily be a situation in 4 years where gay couples, legally married in California, are arrested for sodomy after the border to Texas when traveling. There are already laws on the books seeking to do this for abortion providers or people seeking abortions. This is a small minority that just needs 51% of voter turnout in a particular state (or not even that in a heavily gerrymandered one), and they can control the lives of anyone living in or even traveling through an entire region of the US with apparently very little federal protection (and certainly no representation for the travelers) This ruling is disastrous and shows the capriciousness of the current court in interpreting precedent to mean whatever is popular with their party. The 14th can amendment be limited but the second cannot, the first can mean infinite money in politics but the 5th does not mean Miranda warnings are required anymore. Edit -[0] this link is not hypothetical, Thomas’s solo concurring opinion calls these cases out by name to be reconsidered by the court in light of this recent decision, and shows members of the court are absolutely interested in returning these to the realm of the states.
  • the_lonely_road 4y ago
    Are they having sex at the border of Texas? They should probably be arrested for that. Your assertion is obviously ridiculous, traveling gay men will not be arrested simply for being gay. It’s the young gay men trapped in the state we should be concerned about. It’s really not just as easy as moving to whatever you state has the laws you like as most of us are trapped by the locality where our support networks are.
    • mattnewton 4y ago
      That is definitely a bigger problem, but the original poster seemed already ready to write those people off when talking about the impact of poor red state women as a sacrifice for a democratic process. I am arguing that doesn’t give the gay couple traveling through any democratic rights and absolutely does restrict their rights. The abortion bans in Texas has ample precedent for criminalizing behavior that occurred in other states. Sodomy laws also have a history of selective enforcement specifically to persecute gay people.
• runarberg 4y ago
  The elected representatives of the Democratic party is overwhelmingly moderate. There are a handful of conservative democrats and equally many progressive democrats. Progressive democrats have been loosing as many primaries as they win, but overwhelmingly they are not up for election, instead a moderate democrat is the default choice. The same can not be said about the Republican Party. This is not a both sides issue. Polarization is happening on the right wing in the American Party system, and the right wing alone.
• stefan_ 4y ago
  In every other democracy, voting laws and systems that mean individual votes are unequal (and even more absurd, the popular vote keeps losing) are of course unconstitutional and dealt with by the Supreme Court. How else could it be; guaranteeing one person one vote is the basis of democracy. That's before we get to other design flaws like "winner takes all", which of course neither possible winner out of a guaranteed 2 is ever going to change.
• underyx 4y ago
  > Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court will show restraint towards political activism (in either direction) in general. Call it naive, but I'll wait and see. > States rights has always been a double edged sword. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The same state rights that allow gun control and homosexuality to be locally legalized before national concensus; also now lead to abortion legislation being a state issue. You're a day too late to hold this position, the supreme court struck down New York's attempt to regulate open carry yesterday. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/supreme-court-ny-open-carry-gun-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/supreme-court-ny-open-...
  • SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    Your understanding of what happened yesterday is extremely poor. The Supreme Court did not strike down New York‘s ability to regulate open carry at all. They struck down the states ability to withhold concealed carry permits to anyone who does not provide a sufficient reason for application. Turns out you don’t actually need to provide a reason for civil rights. The NYPD since being sued over this has been found guilty in corruption cases of withholding permits to people who weren’t donors, connected, celebrities, elite. No one reasonable should think you need to prove to the NYPD why you need your rights. “May Issue” is now dead. “Shall Issue” is still fine, and open carry laws have not changed at all. It should be noted, that New York had at least three opportunities in court to not appeal decisions they lost, and prevent it from going to the Supreme Court. Back when this case started the state of New York had assumed that Hillary would win and going all the way up to supreme court would be fine. When they lost the second circuit, they had offered the NYRPA concessions, they were reject, and had to appeal the decision making it go to supreme court. This was ALL the state of New York’s arrogance. And now NJ, MD, HI and others are surely pissed. As to “needs” and “rights”. Hawaii since 2016 has issued approximately four concealed carry permits to citizens. They must be renewed every year. and you cannot leave your home county with the gun. This has been an obvious violation of rights and is soon to change.
    • jaywalk 4y ago
      Thank you for spelling out the facts. I don't think a lot of people realized what was really going on with all this May Issue nonsense. It was pure corruption, and completely antithetical to the Constitution. I personally believe that Constitutional/permitless carry is the only way it should be, but getting rid of May Issue is a great step in the right direction.
• dragonwriter 4y ago
  > States rights has always been a double edged sword No, “states rights”, in the US, has only ever been invoked for state-sanctioned repression. There is no other edge. (Both sides of the tighter/looser federalism argument can be viewed as double-edged, but “states rights” has a very particular history.)
  • InTheArena 4y ago
    The reason you didn't have slavery in the north (and thus a north to fight the south in the civil war) was because of states' rights. California changed the environmental law of the land - because of states' rights. It goes both ways. There is nothing intrinsically good nor bad with it. It's part of how the system is designed to operate.
    • rat87 4y ago
      There may be nothing intrinsically bad but it tends to be associated with bad ideas and cause bad outcomes.
    • dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The reason you didn’t have slavery in the north (and thus a north to fight the south in the civil war) was because of states’ rights. No, it wasn’t. “States rights” is a later pro-slavery slogan. It is not and never has been the same thing as loose federalism. And there were, in fact, slaves in the North until it was abolished nationally (in more states at the time of the Revolution than at the time of the Civil War, and even fewer at the end of the Civil War, but the last three states where slavery existed until terminated by the 13th Amendment were Kentucky, Delaware, and New Jersey.)
      • InTheArena 4y ago
        This is not true. States versus Federalism has been an argument since the first presidency with Hamilton, Adams, and Washington stacked up against Madison and Jefferson. The reason that states existed at all in the north - despite states having laws forbidding it - was because of the supreme court.
• jackmott42 4y ago
  I miss the crazed jesus Republicans. There is no Jesus anymore.
• wollsmoth 4y ago
  I do hope that this will motivate us to get some amendments passed to codify some of the rights that we've gained from court rulings. I hope this turns into blowback against the Republicans but I think there's a long road. I guess people just don't believe things will get "that bad" and now we'll see.
  • inlined 4y ago
    With the current Supreme Court the literal text of the constitution doesn’t matter. For example, the text of the second amendment is pretty clear that the right to bear arms is in the pursuit of a well regulated militia. Our militia has since been regulated into the national guard. The second amendment is nothing more than a constitutional right to enlist in the national guard, but it’s used to promote/codify extreme ideologies.
    • wollsmoth 4y ago
      Well, that may be clear to you. I don't think either of us are constitutional scholars but I think if we really want some meaningful gun control we should replace the 2nd amendment with something clearer.
    • Clubber 4y ago
      >Our militia has since been regulated into the national guard. The national guard is controlled by the government, it's not a militia. The last 20+ years or so it's pretty much regular army. Along a similar line, do you think a free press would be free if the government was the one who decided who was press and who wasn't?
    • monocasa 4y ago
      I say this as a lefty: the US defines the militia as essientially including every able bodied man. Since it was written before the 14th amendment, it probably would be interpreted now as every adult. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 In fact the first weapon ban to hit SCOTUS, US v Miller, hinged on the fact that sawed off shotguns had no military application, which was legal basis allowing them to be banned. The court at the time considered bans of military weapons unconstitutional.
• ryanbrunner 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • confidantlake 4y ago
    Very well said. Democrats reminds me of Eddard Stark from Game of Thrones, always doing the honorable thing and getting outmaneuver by people who don't play fair.
• unethical_ban 4y ago
  FIRST: If SCOTUS should stay out of big, divisive cultural decisions, then they should do it point-forward and not by hopping right back in the fray. SECOND: Abortion is seen as a fundamental right for womens' health, and there are many documented reasons for getting abortion that are not merely "convenience". There are things which should not be prohibited by the democratic process, since they are human rights. THIRD: There is no scientific basis for restricting abortion; I would place a large bet that more than 95% of people who are against abortion rights base their opinion on faith-based teachings. FOURTH: We need to abolish the two party system via *ballot reform* and move to Ranked-Choice or approval voting. This will weaken the two parties, allow citizens to vote /for/ someone rather than against, and will be a more accurate gauge of popular sentiment.
  • mountainriver 4y ago
    I guess the Supreme Court shouldn’t have ruled on segregation then. Also most anti-abortion people I talk to have more developed views than just faith based. There is actually no scientific argument for abortion
    • Jotra7 4y ago
    • generj 4y ago
      Except of course for all the medically necessary abortions which are extremely scientifically justified. This decision will almost certainly kill thousands of women annually.
      • inlined 4y ago
        And we have representatives who are literally pro-death. Some have said no exception for ectopic pregnancies and some have clearly stated that there is no exception for the life of the mother.
        • 4y ago
• gonehome 4y ago
  While I personally have strong pro-choice views I think this was correctly decided for the reasons you state. Abortion is a case where there is genuine disagreement among the public and at its core exists a genuine moral question. Most partisans talk past each other, but the core of it is about the rights of the unborn and at which point that becomes relevant. It's different because of this from gay rights and contraception which don't have this other element in question (for contraception specifically those against abortion because of rights of the fetus should be in favor of easier access). It's also why European laws around this are more strict, Denmark allows abortion without cause up to 12 weeks and with cause after.[0] It's better for these questions to be decided by states and democratic process than SCOTUS - the latter which we've seen cause extreme polarization. If you hold the view that the fetus at some point is a life with rights than the political activism here is consistent. Where this occurs I think is a legitimate question (big difference between zygote and day before birth). There is a lot of bad faith, sloppy reasoning, and motivated reasoning arguing here from partisans across the board. There are also real tradeoffs and young women will be the most harmed in states with bans because they have the least autonomy, but I can at least understand the strongest arguments from the other side [1]. Something like the laws in Denmark being passed at the congressional level is probably the desirable compromise outcome. At the moment at least SCOTUS thinks states cannot ban the ability to travel to a different state for abortions, the ability to exit is important. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark [1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/s/3ELrPerFTSo75WnrH/p/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b https://www.lesswrong.com/s/3ELrPerFTSo75WnrH/p/PeSzc9JTBxha...
  • SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    Excellent post and well reasoned. I agree that the root of the issue here is one that will never have a definite answer. Germany has roughly the same laws as Denmark, and now after this decision many states will continue to have the same abortion laws they have had for the last 50 years, many will have on par with Europe, and some will outright ban. There is no making everyone happy, but 50 options that are easier to change seem like a compromise to a binary split that will always be under attack.
    • 4y ago
• newfonewhodis 4y ago
  I won't make ad hominem attacks here but it's clear that you're privileged enough to not be impacted by this SC decision if you: 1. Resolve to both-sideism 2. Think we need more moderates (lol) 3. Think progress is the default if you just give it enough time
• throw0101a 4y ago
  > The sad part of democracy is that it aims to represent the views of the voting majority. Except in the US where it is the rule of the minority: * https://www.vox.com/2018/9/12/17850980/democracy-tyranny-minority-mob-rule-james-madison https://www.vox.com/2018/9/12/17850980/democracy-tyranny-min... * https://harpers.org/archive/2017/03/tyranny-of-the-minority/ https://harpers.org/archive/2017/03/tyranny-of-the-minority/ * https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/guest-commentary/os-op-senate-filibuster-tyranny-by-minority-20211030-5djn77hosvenljdn4lafqkd2vq-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/guest-commentary/os-... * https://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/the-tyranny-of-the-minority-020178 https://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/the-tyranny-of-the-mi...
• klyrs 4y ago
  > The sad part of democracy is that it aims to represent the views of the voting majority. No, not this "democracy." The supermajority of supreme court justices were mostly seated by presidents who lost the popular vote. This ruling is incredibly unpopular among citizens of the US, but the court is also pro-gerrymandering, so the unpopularity is unlikely to have any real impact on elections. The country is rapidly hurtling towards religious authoritarianism, and the checks and balances to prevent that have largely been dismantled.
  • i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
    > but the court is also pro-gerrymandering See the redistricting of North Carolina > so the unpopularity is unlikely to have any real impact on elections Or maybe it isn't as unpopular as you think? > The country is rapidly hurtling towards religious authoritarianism, and the checks and balances to prevent that have largely been dismantled. Yes of course, because religious authoritarianism == allowing democratically elected state officials to determine their own state laws If anything is authoritarian, it's the insistence on the court creating federal "laws" where there is no majority in congress. If you want abortion protection, pass it through congress
    • stjohnswarts 4y ago
      The GOP now has in place in several red/swing states legislatures that are ready to overrule electoral college votes determined by the popular vote and handing it over to those determined by republican legislatures. Lots of states have promoted Big Lie proponents to the highest election positions in their states, they now have a 6-3 super majority SCOTUS who will back up these decisions in the next Presidential election. Once that happens authoritarian Trumpists will take power because they have control of the military via Presidential power. If you can't see that then you've been living under a rock. That's when the American experiment fails.
• saghm 4y ago
  > States rights has always been a double edged sword. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The same state rights that allow gun control and homosexuality to be locally legalized before national concensus; also now lead to abortion legislation being a state issue. Except when the same court in the same week strikes down a state law that makes it marginally more effort to carry a concealed weapon in public.
  • wl 4y ago
    That is a egregious misrepresentation of the law struck down in NYSRPA v. Bruen. In New York City, it was effectively impossible to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public unless one had connections and influence in the police department. Whether or not that is desirable from a policy perspective, it was far more than "marginally more effort" to obtain the permit.
    • saghm 4y ago
      > In New York City, it was effectively impossible to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public unless one had connections and influence in the police department. Did the law actually require connections, or was the law being applied unfairly? If the latter, the correct solution would be to force the law be applied fairly, not just throw out the entire law. Of course, the people who complain about "activist judges" are fine with judges legislating from the bench as long when it's in a way that furthers their agenda...
      • chmod600 4y ago
        "If the latter, the correct solution would be to force the law be applied fairly..." That's essentially what Bruen decided. NYC required arbitrary permission from a person rather than just meeting the requirements and following a written process. It also required a special need, distinguishable from the general public; where "special" was left to interpretation. In one county in California, it was even worse, where it was widely known that the way to get permits was to donate to the sheriff's campaign or furnish the sheriff's office with cool tech and perks. After Bruen, there still can be a licensing process, but it must be written, and available to everyone who follows the process. Maybe it will be a two-hour safety seminar and some fingerprinting, or maybe it will be a 3 week tactical training course and a blood sample. Frankly, the decision itself to strike the law was correct, regardless of your political affiliation. It's also fairly low impact... no mass shooter or gangster bothers with a permit anyway (certainly not the racist Buffalo shooter, who wasn't deterred by lack of a permit). Other problems like suicide are entirely unaffected. The impact comes from the opinion, which sets precedent for how all other firearm laws will be evaluated. If you believe that government should really be in charge of guns, then you aren't going to like it.
• dukeofdoom 4y ago
  There are non religious, anti abortion arguments. I've read some version of these before. They have shifted public opinion I believe more than religious arguments. I've read some version of these before, but there are probably others I'm skipping. To summarize: - We need those babies to offset huge demographic changes in the US population. Not enough babies are being born to offset the aging population. - Women having abortions earlier in life, and having babies later, is negatively affecting the health of the next generation. Autism, Downs and other diseases are all linked to the age of the mother. - Abortion advocates do themselves no favours by advocating for abortion almost up to the moment of brith. Its about public opinion, and the opinion on when a baby becomes viable has shift due to science. Babies can survive outside the womb much earlier. -Abortion takes out about 600,000+ babies per year in the US. About 40% of all US abortions are from African American communities. Whether you think this is good or bad, depends if you view abortion to be a good or bad thing. A lot of racists eugenists are hating this decision. So they're not happy with this either. So abortion can be viewed as racist policy because its end effect is killing so many black babies.
  • InTheArena 4y ago
    The abortion maximalist position, as well as the pro-life maximalist positions, do no one any good here. Someone in Mississippi came up with the idea of grabbing what by all appearances is a pretty mainstream European law, and applying it - and waiting for the inevitable lawsuit and overreach. And abortion has absolutely had significant impacts on racism - but that racism pre-dates abortion.
  • lostdog 4y ago
    Then why is no one doing anything to support babies if we want so many? Here's how to incentivise having children: - Remove fear of healthcare costs. All children can use Medicare. Cover pregnancy too. - Stop worries about schools. Bring all schools up to an acceptable level. Hire teachers at underperforming schools until the number of adults is high enough to handle extreme bad behavior and give every child a shot at a decent classroom experience. - Paid leave. Make it feasible to have a kid in your 20s without tanking your career. Have it come from social security, so you don't have to plan your pregnancy around which company you want to work for. - Fix housing costs. Make it easy to afford a nice house in your 20s, so having a kid doesn't feel like adding to an ongoing disaster. The list of things you could do to encourage having kids goes on and on. Of course you could just force pregnancies on the unwilling instead, if that's the kind of person you want to be.
• andrewclunn 4y ago
  And the top comment goes to... a progressive pretending he can represent "the other side" while constantly taking side shots at them and stating that and why he doesn't agree with them... all with empty rhetorical gestures towards "moderates" and "compromise." Yep that sounds like hacker news to me: as little information and as much inoffensive pandering as possible.
• altcognito 4y ago
  > The sad part of democracy is that it aims to represent the views of the voting majority. As you said, the Judiciary is the least democratic, the nominations came from Presidents whom were elected by a minority of voters and confirmed by the Senate, using a minority of the voting populace of the country (because, slavery essentially) It's awful all around.
• afavour 4y ago
  > If the voting majority truly cares about access to abortion then we will hopefully see enough democratic traction to give them the mandate needed. I’m sorry but this feels entirely divorced from reality. The nature of the senate, the continued erosion of voting rights… we’re not going to see democratic traction in a system that actively opposes it.
  • nfw2 4y ago
    Perhaps what they meant is that it could gain democratic traction within the states where abortions are restricted.
• standardUser 4y ago
  The court's view on the 2nd amendment is so wildly, outrageously out of line with the Founder's intentions, and the actual text of the law, that any hope of "restraint towards political activism" is beyond futile.
  • Der_Einzige 4y ago
    At the time of the founders private ownership of cannons was legal, which was the most powerful weapon at the time. Framers likely would have claimed that private citizens should be able to own working tanks (gun and all). They believed in a monopoly of violence solely predicated on the ability to muster an army, not on bans of certain types of weapons. But maybe we shouldn't give a fk about framers intent. That's where the real debate should be on...
    • jyounker 4y ago
      You seem to be overlooking that "well organized militia" clause.
      • seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        Isn't that supposed to just be flavor text? In other words, we should take the constitution literally, except for that part of the second amendment, just ignore that.
• focusedone 4y ago
  I don't even know if you and I agree on political issues, but I'd vote for you.
• anigbrowl 4y ago
  The jaded side of me says: vote in more moderates that are willing to strike compromises Suppose I come along and assault you, you defend yourself, and then someone comes along and tells you that you are as much to blame as the person who assaulted you. Are they accurate, or just squeamish? Moderates generally lack any firm convictions or anchoring principles beyond maintaining equanimity, and so contribute mightily to shifting of overton windows and ethical drift, where increasingly flawed outcomes are excused in the name of avoiding controversy. Consider the the atrocities perpetrated pursuant to the Iraq war, for which nobody but the very lowest ranks (and only a few of them) have ever been held accountable. I respect my ideological enemies more than this panglossian excuse-making. At least those people stand for something.
  • mancerayder 4y ago
    > Moderates generally lack any firm convictions or anchoring principles beyond maintaining equanimity That's one way to put it. Here's another to think about: moderates lack rigid principles and avoid ideological convictions. People on the extremes of both sides have a tendency to "paint." They paint the opposing view as monsters, and they paint people with independent views as "lacking convictions." It is not accurate.
    • anigbrowl 4y ago
      By no means am I arguing that those at the extremes are always right. I'm saying that if you have no other principles than 'compromise' then you will simply let yourself be pulled around by the most powerful force in a go-along-to-get-along fashion. Moderates are simply conflict averse and don't consider that there is anything worth fighting for, ever. Unscrupulous extremists rely on them as a strategic buffer, because they are easy to manipulate. Neville Chamberlain was a moderate.
      • mancerayder 4y ago
        "conflict averse" and "easy to manipulate" are personality traits. Pretty subjective and not useful for (adult) discourse. There's a way to think of political "moderates" as a political science category. An example of a moderate position would be, supporting a free market economy but a wide social security system. An example of the other (economic) extremes are laissez-faire and socialism. You're successfully proving my point from the comment above: you're painting folks who don't share your views. This does you a disservice as you can't possibly understand the arguments. There are many, many ways in which a person can be a Moderate or a particular topic can have a moderate viewpoint. The cure for this affliction (of imagining your opponents and creating personifications in your head) is to diversify your conversational and reading sources.
• rvz 4y ago
  It looks like either we will have a January 6th like raid on the SCOTUS or a total collapse of the United States at this point and end up with a civil war with a second republic. Hopefully that won't possibly happen. But we'll see in 2024.
  • inlined 4y ago
    I personally think it’s time for a new form of government. I just hope it can be done without bloodshed.
  • MrMan 4y ago
    I will bet you a lot of money no such raid on the Supreme Court occurs, unless you mean a street protest with signs and public speakers to be a "raid"
• glogla 4y ago
  > I'll be the begrudging devils advocate I'm reading this comment, and many others, and I am in awe, just how utterly heartless and soulless people are on Hacker News.
  • MrMan 4y ago
    HN definitely shows a vile, callous and selfish side of humanity
  • jdgoesmarching 4y ago
    This corner of the internet combines very little empathy with enough technical acumen to believe their biases are grounded in logic. Social issues here are just abstract intellectual exercises that are extremely disconnected from the reality of how people’s lives are affected. I’m not sure why I clicked this thread, these responses were predictably awful.
• xxEightyxx 4y ago
  Their decision may be right through the lens of the initial ruling some 50 years ago, and perhaps through the acknowledgement of this being a divisive issue. However, it is at best hypocrisy of the court itself, and at worst, a devastating blow to one of the worlds worst healthcare systems. This ruling in particular has be viewed through a wider scope, and not just the narrow lens of "people are divisive". Their recent ruling interfering with New York states own policy on concealed carries best represents the courts hypocrisy - if a state makes a ruling and has a certain level of autonomy and power to do so, why is the SC overruling them here when its nearly just as divisive as abortion? Additionally - the ruling is made within a very narrow scope, against common scientific and healthcare advice. It's also likely the ruling was made with strong bias and in bad favor as many of the justices themselves are not duly qualified to sit on the bench which they sit, and the ruling subsequently falls in line with a serious of previously strongly conservative rulings that defy prior precedent and the SC's own interpretation of autonomy, law, and previous rulings. There is really no way to justify their ruling. Polarization is a bit of mysterious character because we see a very strong, radical right wing forcing changes down to the county level in terms of gerrymandering, up to the level of presidential cabinet where federal crimes were committed without any consequence. We don't hear of Democrats who, after losing a race complain of fraud and refuse to accept the results. That's a very Republican thing to do. So, polarization is mysterious because there is a fast growing anti-intellectual, religious radicalism spirit and a fairly unchanged "populist" left wing. I.e. the left is mostly unchanged from 20 years ago, whereas the right has gone through a sharp and dramatic change in the same period.
• Der_Einzige 4y ago
  History will NOT have a dim view of the left. Thomas Paine, an example of a radical leftists in his own time by the standards of his day, is extremely well regarded today despite dying in relative obscurity and relative poverty. It's the radical right wing that history will take a dim view on. The left can be secure in their control of posterity.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • screye 4y ago
    For the most part history does have a dim view of the mainstream leftist movements (socialists and communists) from the 20th century. I don't know much about Paine, but trends are pretty clear. (Right-wing populists have a similarly spotty record, but that just proves my point of a dim view of both sides in this era)
• cortesoft 4y ago
  So much of our constitution is designed to protect us from the abuse of the majority. The idea that the majority should be able to dictate everything is NOT what democracy means. Mob rule is scary, and the framers knew that a government that is solely dictated by the will of the majority is ripe for abuse of the minority. So we have all sorts of restrictions on what the majority is allowed to do. I feel like people have this view today that whatever the majority says is how things should be. That is not justice.
  • kzrdude 4y ago
    And it is also not democracy. (Adding to your last sentence)
• ineedasername 4y ago
  >The same state rights that allow gun control and homosexuality to be locally legalized before national concensus; also now lead to abortion legislation being a state issue. There is some irony to this statement as the Supreme Court just the other day released a ruling that denied a state this ability with regards to gun control laws.
• 49531 4y ago
  > My personal opinion is that polarization has pushed both sides to be completely antagonistic towards each other. This opinion is about as uninformed as it can be. Currently the US is run by "moderate" Democrats, and extremist Republicans; the Right cries wolf every time the moderates do anything, and the moderates capitulate. If we look at American politics through your lens it makes zero sense. We no longer live in a democracy and haven't really since 1978 with Buckley v. Valeo; increased by the recent supreme court decision in favor of Senator Cruz. There's a strong disconnect between what voters want and what happens in the halls of power, and it is increasing. The reality is that if you can donate to a senator enough you get "democracy". Not to be too hyperbolic, but for the average person we really do live in a plutocracy.
  • president 4y ago
    Both sides believe they are the moderates and the other are the radicals. Until you zoom out and stop playing tribal politics, you will realize both sides are batshit insane and nothing really matters except being civil to one another and trying to connect with others in ways other than politics.
    • DFHippie 4y ago
      Connecting with others in civil ways is great. The two sides are not equivalent, though. "Batshit" left opinion: people should be able to require others to address them with novel pronouns. "Batshit" right opinion: liberals should be rounded up and shot (or the South was the noble side of the Civil War or segregation should be legal or Old Testament should be the law of the land, etc.). These are not in the same neighborhood of crazy, and this is setting aside the prevalence of the respective opinions and the political power of those who espouse them. Trump endorses the overthrow of democracy. Biden doesn't. Promoting the both-sides falsehood could help bring the sides together, but it amounts to letting the looters keep their loot to stop the rioting.
      • president 4y ago
        Batshit left opinion: pro-choice conservatives should be killed. Believe me, I've heard dozens of variations on both sides. The difference is the left is overwhelming supported by all of our cultural institutions so there is a bias against the right across the board. EDIT: As expected, my centrist and realist take that advocates for both sides coming together gets a downvote. I wonder which side that came from :)
• greyhair 4y ago
  Amen. I posted similar in a shorter form. The ineffectual legislative branch has ceded power to both the Executive and the Judicial over the last fifty to sixty years. Until the legislative branch stands up, this won't be resolved.
• SubiculumCode 4y ago
  in general I think state rights lowers division, as a federal system is winner-take-all while a State system can be live or let live. of course the issue is when States violate Constitutional rights and hide behind State rights. however, diminishing States rights in favor of Federal rights ultimately has the same risks, i.e. let the lesson of Trump scare the hell out of us.
• chimprich 4y ago
  > It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. Speaking as an outsider on American politics, it seems to me that it won't be figured out democratically. If it was done democratically, on a nationwide vote, abortion would easily stay legal. What will actually happen is that the decision will be referred to states, where government is elected on small turnouts, in gerrymandered divisions, heavily influenced by untrue TV propaganda funded by billionaires, and in many cases elected based on supposed economic reasons, not any moral ones. The effective result is that vulnerable young women will be forced to carry unwanted babies to term at the cost of great suffering to themselves and the resultant children. > with all political sides to blame. I can only see one side to blame here.
  • wilsonnb3 4y ago
    As far as I am aware, every state in the US has a democratic government. > If it was done democratically, on a nationwide vote, abortion would easily stay legal. Direct democracy is not the only form of democracy. It has many problems.
    • noasaservice 4y ago
      What is a democracy called when: 1. legislative lines for the state and federal areas look like a kindergardner drawing squigglies 2. When many states do everything they can to find reasons to disqualify valid voters 3. When felons are not legally able to vote, even after their time is served 4. When massive amounts of money come in from republican businesses to significantly sway elections 5. When massive lies and half-truths are put out in the media thanks to the massive money That just doesn't look like a democracy. What it is? I don't know.
      • abarwick 4y ago
        Exactly. It sounds faux-romantic to wane about democracy and the power of voting, but when the systems that support this system have been perverted over the course of decades, it becomes a horror story. Democracy as it has been thought of is dead (in the U.S.).
• president 4y ago
  > My personal opinion is that polarization has pushed both sides to be completely antagonistic towards each other. Nobody in power is trying to put an end to it. In fact, media and institutions are trying to push the anger and divide further. I think most people realize this and this is why there are so many conspiracies out there as to why things have gotten this bad. In my opinion, it's too late. Corruption of society of this level CANNOT be fixed. In a perfect world, everyone would chill out and realize they are fighting over what is essentially first world problems. But people have become trained to the point of abandoning reasoning, common sense, and good faith to prop up their tribes. We now have an entire generation that thinks this is all normal. It won't end well and this is exactly what our enemies wanted.
• zht 4y ago
  "both sides"... sigh... one side is calling the other side pedophile child groomers sex trafficking children in the basement of pizza parlours....
• iandanforth 4y ago
  Democracy is great but hundreds of thousands of the impacted can't vote.
• throwaway23234 4y ago
  Set up a website that lets you buy these people a round-trip plane ticket to CA. That gets around both issues. If the doctor says there's no baby, then no money.
• bastawhiz 4y ago
  > The jaded side of me says: vote in more moderates that are willing to strike compromises How do you compromise on issues like same sex marriage? It's pretty binary: gay people have the same rights as straight people, or they don't. With Justice Thomas's suggestion to relitigate Obergefell, this is exactly where we stand.
  • stjohnswarts 4y ago
    Thomas is champing at the bit to overturn gay marriage, civil rights, and other civil liberty guarantees. He has indicated as much in his writings.
• mise_en_place 4y ago
  The Constitution is a negative rights document, meaning that it enumerates all the actions that the federal government cannot do to you. The Supreme Court should not be in the business of legislating, as you mention it should be the Congress that legislates. The Constitution is clear on what the judiciary is meant to do, review if an existing law or executive action is in violation of the Constitution. Anything else is a gross overreach of power.
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The Constitution is a negative rights document, meaning that it enumerates all the actions that the federal government cannot do to you. No, the Constitution is an affirmative powers document first and foremost; it enumerates all the things the federal government can do. The amendments (and a very few provisions of the base Constitution) include some negative rights as well, some directly applicable against the federal government, some against the State governments (and some of the former have been found to be implicitly included in some of the latter, though that is fairly explicitly under attack right now.)
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• akhmatova 4y ago
  If the voting majority truly cares about access to abortion then we will hopefully see enough democratic traction to give them the mandate needed. The problem with this reasoning is that the democratic process has been successfully gerrymandered in many states to a point where "the voting majority " is longer in a position to truly decide. I get the foundational point you're trying to make (about states' rights having value), at least as a concept. But if you're of the belief that "if the voting majority truly cares" then over time the situation will mostly right itself -- and millions of women of all income levels (not just the poor) will not have to suffer the direst of consequences, while you sit back and wait for your prediction to come true -- you are very tragically mistaken. But, the Supreme Court should not be responsible for managing dysfunction in other branches of govt. Simply put, you are imputing a motive to the 1973 Court that wasn't there. The 1973 decision was made on foundational grounds (having to do with a certain constitutional amendment which, something tells me, you also believe very strongly in the value of), and in view of competing interests. You can question the wisdom of the decision all you like, but the idea that it was handed down to "manage the dysfunction of other branches of govt" is supported neither by the factual history of the case -- nor by the Court's own writings at the time the decision was made.
• btilly 4y ago
  Your argument is an excellent argument against the Supreme Court having originally decided Roe v. Wade the way that they did. It is not an argument for overturning it now. Our country is based on rule of law. And a lot of that body of law is established by a body of past precedent. These precedents extend back nearly 1000 years, and are part of a web of what is called Common Law. The Supreme Court's unique authority and main job is continuing to add to and clarify that precedent. What the Supreme Court is doing now is overturning long-established precedent. Originalism can be used to overturn virtually any past precedent you don't like. It is hard to overstate how much. Let me quote one of the current supreme court justices on the topic (see https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi for the full context): Adherence to originalism arguably requires, for example, the dismantling of the administrative state, the invalidation of paper money, and the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. Originalists have been pressed to either acknowledge that their theory could generate major disruption or identify a principled exception to their insistence that judges are bound to enforce the Constitution’s original public meaning. Her solution to this is: No one is likely to ask the Supreme Court to rethink arguably nonoriginalist decisions like the constitutionality of the Social Security Administration, paper money, or segregated public schools—and if anyone did ask, the Court would deny certiorari. In other words, the limit on how much of the fabric of current law the current court can dismantle is to be found in the restraint of the justices in being willing to avoid hard questions, and not in the reasoning process that they apply to their decisions. But these things tend to be a slippery slope. The more of our rule of law that they undermine, the more that they will come to see it as reasonable to undermine more rule of law. And the more chaos that they create, the less willing everyone else will be to go along with what they said.
• dragonwriter 4y ago
  > I’ll be the begrudging devils advocate Did the Devil somehow run out of enthusiastic advocates? Because it doesn’t seem that way, on this issue or more generally.
• jmyeet 4y ago
  Nothing that happened today has anything to do with democracy. The Republicans have successfully infiltrated state legislatures, gerrymandered and some states now are effectively under one-party rule. Take Wisconsin [1] as an example: > Back in 2018, Republicans lost the popular vote in the state Senate races by 52.3 percent to 46.9 percent, yet gained two seats for a 19-14 majority. In the state Assembly, they lost the popular vote 53.0 to 44.8, yet lost only one seat to retain a 63-36 supermajority This gerymandering also affects Congressional maps. And the Senate [2]? > ... the Senate will be split 50-50, but the Democratic half will represent 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half. In the wake of 2020, red states have passed laws like Arizona [3] that will allow the legislature or appointed officgials to overturn election results. And on top of all that one side conspired to "steal" the Supreme Court by sitting on Obama's nomination for almost a year and then later rushing their own replacement in the last month before an election. And every Supreme Court justice appointed in the last 10 years has said on the record that Roe v. Wade was a super-precedent. And today they voted to overturn. They lied. They all lied. This isn't a "both sides" issue. This is the rise of white Christian fascism vs the feckless controlled opposition party. "Bothsidesing" is both a logical fallacy and intellectually lazy (if not outright dishonest). It's like looking at Kristallnacht and saying "well both sides are at fault". There is no "both sides" here. The myth of the "far left" just shows how normalized right-wing propaganda has become. There are lilke maybe 4 progressive members of Congress while on the other side Nazi propaganda is openly pushed [4] and QAnon conspiracies are rampant in the Republican party, which may go as far as including Clarence Thomas and his wife who may well have conspired to overthrow the government. When people say "far left" or "hyperprogressive" they really means "trans rights". Not wanting to murder trans people doesn't make you a radical leftist. Please open your eyes and stop this nonsense about bothsidesing and polarization. [1]: https://theweek.com/republicans/1008820/wisconsins-1-party-rule-is-what-the-gop-wants-everywhere https://theweek.com/republicans/1008820/wisconsins-1-party-r... [2]: https://www.vox.com/2020/11/6/21550979/senate-malapportionment-20-million-democrats-republicans-supreme-court https://www.vox.com/2020/11/6/21550979/senate-malapportionme... [3]: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/591597-arizona-bill-would-allow-legislature-to-overturn-election-results/ https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/591597-arizona-bill... [4]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/us/tucker-carlson-gop-republican-party.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/us/tucker-carlson-gop-rep...
• mlazos 4y ago
  At face value, all sides are not to blame. A president who lost the popular vote got to appoint THREE justices to this court and literally got a list of candidates from the religious right. This is the minority imposing their will on the majority, plain and simple.
  • kernal 4y ago
    No, all sides are not to blame. The USA is a Constitutional Republic so your comment regarding the popular vote is irrelevant. The popular vote is not used to elect a president in the USA and never will be. Additionally, the seditious person you're advocating for is the source of the Russia collusion rumors that the left steam media ran with for 3 years.
• workshirt 4y ago
  > My personal opinion is that polarization has pushed both sides to be completely antagonistic towards each other. 'Own the libs, fuck the deplorables', no compromise. The jaded side of me says: vote in more moderates that are willing to strike compromises. Crazed jesus Republicans and hyperprogressive activists are terrible people to put into national office. They gain power by antagonizing and being unhelpful roadblocks for change, all while asking for the most stubbornly impossible outcomes. This take is completely divorced from reality. "Moderates" are the roadblocks. "Moderates" already have the system they want and love re-litigating culture war issues like this, because it makes it easier to continue roadblocking. Give me one example of a "hyperprogressive activists" blocking something that needed to get done, and I will give you a laundry list of "moderates" actors blocking ensuring no progress gets made in this country. Progressives don't even say "deplorables" that came from "moderate" HRC. "Crazed jesus Republicans" I would say this classification bisects several groups with in the republicans, however they seems to be affective at driving change given the post we are commenting on.
• osigurdson 4y ago
  I see the courts as more of a low pass filter for a democracy. If you elect right or left wing governments for a sufficient number of terms, you will end up with a left or right leaning court.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• jmull 4y ago
  > It is good for...such dividing issues be figured out democratically. By that logic it would be good to get rid of the bill of rights, the other constitutional amendments, and most of the rest of the constitution. Still sound good to you?
• fisherjeff 4y ago
  > You can't have your cake and eat it too Actually I’m not sure this is 100% true. One option is to, say, only appoint SCOTUS judges that have an extremely broad reading of the Constitution on things you like, and a very narrow, textual reading on things you don’t. Hypothetically, of course.
• dfxm12 4y ago
  If the voting majority truly cares about access to abortion then we will hopefully see enough democratic traction to give them the mandate needed. They do [0]. We haven't. 'Own the libs, fuck the deplorables', no compromise. I'm tired of this false equivalence. Let's not forget that each of the recently appointed justices that voted down Roe V Wade lied to congress before they were approved for the supreme court, saying that they wouldn't. How can one truly compromise with people who aren't honest in the first place? What is even the compromise here? Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others? The vast majority of Dems are the moderates and have acted in good faith, as you're suggesting, for decades and have nothing to show for it. The Overton window has been moving right for what seems like my entire lifetime. 0 - https://news.gallup.com/poll/393275/steady-americans-not-roe-wade-overturned.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/393275/steady-americans-not-roe...
  • dbsmith83 4y ago
    You actually believe that the right lies, but the left generally acts in good faith? That's...cute. Your lifetime must not be very long. Both parties are full of dishonest slimeballs. If you only see one side of it, you are being tricked
    • dfxm12 4y ago
      Conservatives are straight up reactionary, and are putting people's rights back decades, using any means necessary. For all of the mainstream Dems' failures in executing the will of their constituents, they aren't doing anything close to that. If you see these things as equal, you should try to put the snark aside and engage the world in an honest way.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • dbsmith83 4y ago
        No offense, but I think you need to engage a history book and some other news sources to break out of your bubble. The only difference is that one party is more aligned and recently successful than the other.
• swayvil 4y ago
  In a world where marketing/propaganda is a thing, created by whoever owns the medium, etc. Does democracy really exist?
• tikiman163 4y ago
  The Supreme Court Justice who wrote the court's opinion on this issue just publicly stated he believes the Supreme Court should reconsider all of its prior procedural decisions, including Gay Mairage, legalized gay relationships, contraception and privacy in sexual or relationship matters. You don't get to claim you're potentially naive, you're outright ignoring what they've publicly declared they intend to do. This isn't a group of well reasoned individuals removing power from the court, they're just doing whatever they hell they want to make the laws reflect their own religious beliefs. Fuck this country, the only thing we're the best at is pretending we're the best.
• lumost 4y ago
  The game theory of this situation is bleak. If one side chooses hardliners, then the hardliners can pull the center closer to the hardline. In the past this worked out as most hardliners were hardlined on different topics. Now, the right has unified into a solid voting block that increasingly picks up all or nothing stances on most issues. If democrats elect moderates into such an environment, the center is hopelessly pulled to the right. If Republicans vote in a moderate, they still get pulled into voting with the majority. If you are a democrat, increasingly your only option is to vote in your own set of hardliners who will take all or nothing stances - as getting nothing done is better than the alternative. The anger in this decision is partially a sign of what's to come. The Supreme court is now vastly out of sync with the national population center - or their own precedent for the last ~70 years. Barring court reform, I'd expect that we're on the way to a constitutional crises where a state decides to overrule the supreme court's decision.
  • gpvos 4y ago
    How would a state overrule the supreme court's decision? What do you mean with that? If In understand correctly, abortion has been legalized by law in several states and forbidden in several others, neither of which conflicts with this decision. It is a shame that the USA hasn't been able to enact federal legislation on abortion in the past 50 years.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • lumost 4y ago
      Massachusetts just barred interstate extradition requests, and other interstate attempts to enforce abortion bans for patients who travel out of state for abortions. How long before that goes to the Supreme Court? There is zero chance that any elected or appointed official in Massachusetts blocks an abortion in Mass for any person regardless of residency. The court is now firmly playing in political topics which it is Ill-equipped to handle. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/24/supreme-court-abortion-ruling/#link-IIQUWHZFQJCFNG2WPD4X76Y35I https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/24/supreme-cou...
• ErrantX 4y ago
  Ultimately, I don't feel this is really about reproductive rights. It's part of a long term disenfranchisement of groups of individuals in a way which secures GOP electoral college votes. As you say, the power of rural Republican votes is significant and depopulating those areas of democratic votes is a significant part of the GOP strategy.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• themitigating 4y ago
  Why shouldn't slavery be up to the states?
• Salgat 4y ago
  Gerrymandering, the electoral college, and the senate ensures that it isn't a majority whose views are represented, but rather the distribution of voters in states/districts (disproportionate voting power) that influences who becomes our representatives. This is compounded with how flawed First past the post voting is.
• deeviant 4y ago
  You'll have to forgive me if I'm not feeling the "begrudging" nature of your statement. > Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court will show restraint towards political activism (in either direction) in general. Call it naive, but I'll wait and see. Your comment seems naive. It should be pretty obvious the us Supreme (Being) court is not going to show restraint towards political activism, they literally destroyed 50 years of American bodily freedom and struck up a massive victory for the gun lobby in a day. > The sad part of democracy is that it aims to represent the views of the voting majority. If the voting majority truly cares about access to abortion then we will hopefully see enough democratic traction to give them the mandate needed. American democracy doesn't represent the majority as gerrymandering has stolen the voice of our people, and guess what issue this court absolutely won't be addressing: voters rights. Because it should be absolutely clear right now that this court wants only one thing: to execute their political agenda without care or thought to the consequence of their actions. And the consequence will be dire indeed, American is already divided and this will be the final push to forever sever the left from the right, affecting creating two separate countries, not in law perhaps (yet) but certainly in spirit. In one stroke, the court has done more damage to our country than our enemies ever could.
• bsder 4y ago
  > 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.
• sumeno 4y ago
  > 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
• somewhereoutth 4y ago
  However only one side is hellbent on wrecking peoples' lives.
• evrydayhustling 4y ago
  > But, the Supreme Court should not be responsible for managing dysfunction in other branches of govt. This is the only statement in your take that I disagree with. In the checks and balances system, the supreme court is exactly supposed to protect the balance between federal, state, and individual rights. One consistent court might have protected gun rights and abortion rights this week. Another might have permitted restrictions on both. Instead we got gun rights and body control. The apolitical ship has sailed.
• libraryatnight 4y ago
  You're the problem. Seriously. I mean no disrespect. But people like you are thought-experimenting our rights away. The women in my country are less free than they were yesterday. You're playing rhetorical games and sympathizing. One party tried to over turn a free and fair election. You probably say "both sides" to that, too. One party is trying to ban teaching any sort of realistic depiction of slavery in our history. One party presses their way of life on the nation. Roe was decided based on a right to privacy. That benefited us all. We're all less free. You go ahead and wait and see. This luke warm, middling, "devils advocate" nonsense is the problem. It's why we'll gradually lose everything.
  • dbsmith83 4y ago
    Ah, just put anyone who disagrees with you into the "bad people box". You are the problem
    • streamlining 4y ago
    • libraryatnight 4y ago
      when your position robs people of their bodily autonomy you're not necessarily a bad person, but you have a bad and morally indefensible position and that's "the problem" people.
      • dbsmith83 4y ago
        Ah right, "morally indefensible". Except that people do defend it from a moral standpoint. Maybe not your moral standpoint, but a moral standpoint nonetheless. The fact that you are so blind as to be able to even see the other side of the issue just reaffirms my statement that you are the problem
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
• lumost 4y ago
  It's not tenable to hang your fundamental rights as an individual on a political process. While it only takes one decision to remove a right, preserving the right becomes a constant, grueling battle. These legal protections are the sin-qua non of a functional democracy.
• lasc4r 4y ago
  >But, the Supreme Court should not be responsible for managing dysfunction in other branches of govt. In a better system it shouldn't be, in the system we have really should be but isn't. I have little doubt Clarence is only a little less crazy than his wife. Republicans put these people into positions of immense power. They might not have known how much power at the time, but they put shitty people in power for shitty reasons and they can now totally own that failure. >Crazed jesus Republicans and hyperprogressive activists are terrible people to put into national office. Got some enlightened centrism at work here. I'm willing to entertain that the left is way too woke, but they aren't sending crazy people to congress my dude.
• jhaenchen 4y ago
  The Supreme Court has allowed gerrymandering and dark money, both of which serve to make the American government completely unbeholden to their constituents. There is no recourse in the legislative branch as long as elections are decided by who writes the map and who pays for the ads. And I’m not sure you don’t know that. I’m not sure that this ain’t a ploy. “States rights!” You say. “Solve it in the legislative!” You say. And when those efforts fail because the systems for choosing those representatives is rigged, what will you say? You will blame the voters. And all the whole more and more goes away and all the while you blame the voters.
• scotty79 4y ago
  > But, the Supreme Court should not be responsible for managing dysfunction in other branches of govt. Isn't it the whole purpose of its existence?
• jquery 4y ago
  > the Supreme Court should not be responsible for managing dysfunction in other branches of govt. Hard disagree here. The Supreme Court acting as a vehicle for rights the majority of the population thinks should be enshrined, but can’t due to Senate dysfunction, is what is preventing the USA from sliding into another civil war. The Constitution is an extremely buggy first draft and originalism is a sick joke. Abortion isn’t in the Constition? Of course not, it was written by men in the 1700s. Judicial review isn’t in the Constitution either.
• notacoward 4y ago
  > The same state rights that allow gun control and homosexuality to be locally legalized This is the same court that, just a few days ago, also denied New York's right to decide their own gun laws. Devolution might be great in theory if done consistently. What we actually have is a supreme court that will step in when it suits one minority faction and step out likewise, in both cases ignoring sound (often their own earlier selves') legal reasoning. That's not healthy. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that "leave it to the states" is a bit of a sham when states that want to ban abortion seek to punish those who travel out of state for it. (Much like the way that states with lax gun laws undermine the efforts of neighboring states that have voted and legislated otherwise.) The actual availability of abortion services to women in Texas, for example, is practically zero for many. Like it or not, the US is supposed to be one nation, but "full faith and credit" has - like supreme court decisions - become a one-way street favoring the minority. Wyoming ideology is affecting Colorado much more than vice versa, contrary to what the majority position is across the two, and that's starkly un-democratic.
• barfingclouds 4y ago
  This sounds all diplomatic and intellectual, but when a 16 year old gets a pregnancy from incest or rape, she’s totally screwed. I don’t think going towards the dark ages deserves this kind of “both sides” talk
• Friedduck 4y ago
  Democratically? I hope you’re kidding. This court doesn’t have the thinnest of veneers to hide behind. They have a pretty obvious agenda (e.g., Thomas’s concurring opinion) and show no deference to either precedent or the Constitution. We’re in uncharted waters here. I can’t think of a parallel in our short history where SCOTUS has shown such complete disregard for anything but their own political and religious beliefs. I think what’s getting lost in this is that Roe doesn’t just apply to abortion but the broader right to privacy. Others have pointed out the logical implications of what the government can and will do with these powers.