6 ms·

The problem with this legal OCD is that in the meantime, people suffer. This isn't a codebase refactor, this is people's lives. Pulling this ruling before you

The problem with this legal OCD is that in the meantime, people suffer. This isn't a codebase refactor, this is people's lives. Pulling this ruling before you have "what the people want" in place is like deleting a feature you plan on rebuilding later before you actually rebuild it. Nobody in their right mind thinks that's a good idea in any other context, so why would it make sense here?

bushbaba 4y ago
You’re assuming the rest of the country shares your views. A large portion of America views abortion as murder. I do NOT share that viewpoint. But we are a republic. And the Supreme Court doesn’t issue law, that’s Congress’s responsibility. What this represents is not a code refactor but a Change to a comment in the code base on what a function does.
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  The point is if you believe this to not be up to the Supreme Court to decide, then you don't believe it's up to the Supreme Court to undo until the people have decided. The Supreme Court didn't issue a law here, they changed their interpretation of a decision they had made 50 years prior, for no reason at all except that the composition of the court had changed. That's like hiring a new guy and his first action is to remove an entire technology that was propping up your infrastructure, because it wasn't being stored in the "correct" VCS.
  - hossbeast 4y ago
    That is actually a great analogy
  - bushbaba 4y ago
    Say a supreme court 50 years ago interpreted the constitution that woman did not have a right to vote. Then today the court ruled, the constitution doesn't actually state anything of the sort and overturns that past judgment. In that case would you want the court to instead state, well a decision 50 years ago was made. So we wont change it. The US Congress needs to pass a law explicitly granting woman the right to vote. Such-as with say Minor v. Happersett, "Court held that, while women are no less citizens than men are, citizenship does not confer a right to vote, and therefore state laws barring women from voting are constitutionally valid" A good court in a Democratic government must be objective in interpretation of law . And the system is such that it is the US Congress's responsibility to pass law.
    - TameAntelope 4y ago
      A vote to prohibit women from voting isn’t analogous because it’s restrictive, not permissive. There is zero legitimate reason for this to be reversed now, compared to after it’s been codified in the legislature. But all of this is a silly distraction. The real reason has nothing at all to do with what the court’s role should be, and everything to do with the religion of the people currently serving on the court. To keep the tech analogies going, it’s like a new tech lead deleting the web app code because be doesn’t believe in monorepos, but saying it’s a security issue.
      - portpecos 4y ago
        > The real reason has nothing at all to do with what the court’s role should be, and everything to do with the religion of the people currently serving on the court. You’re inferring that the court made it’s decision on a religious reason, and you’re entitled to your inference. So here’s my inference, as an atheist conservative. No the Supreme Court did not overturn the case for religious reasons. They overturned it exactly for the reasons they stated: “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives”
      - bmelton 4y ago
        > compared to after it’s been codified in the legislature The legitimate reason it is reversed _now_ is that it is _now_ when the matter is before them in the court of law that conflicts with Roe in a way that is hard to reconcile against precedent. If your complaint is that it hasn't been codified into law by the legislature since 1973 (and you're right -- it hasn't) that is not the fault of the judicial branch, rather the legislative. To borrow from your analogy, it's more like a repository deprecating its code, watching everybody for years claim that "they're going to delete this any minute now" and nobody stepping to the plate to take over as maintainer.
        TameAntelope 4y ago
        "It's not their fault" What? That brings exactly zero people the help they need. When your action is the proximate cause of the revocation of freedom from 165m people, it's definitely 'your fault'." This may not have been a great way to keep women safe forever, but today was not the day it needed fixing.
  - bushbaba 4y ago
    The analogy is flawed as the codebase is to laws. And the supreme court didn't change any law. Instead this would be like the new guy coming in and stating, "Wow that codebase actually mutates objects and the commentary of it being non-modifying to its parameters isn't valid."
  - Aunche 4y ago
    > That's like hiring a new guy and his first action is to remove an entire technology That isn't a good analogy. A better analogy is the security team modifying ACLs that allow them push changes. It may be a destructive change, but it's outside of scope of the security team.
    - TameAntelope 4y ago
      How about a new customer support director deleting your Postgres instance backing your main SaaS product because it's hosted on a server in their cage? Shouldn't have been in the CS datacenter, so screw the customers and the business as a whole who relied on that system, right?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- joshstrange 4y ago
  > You’re assuming the rest of the country shares your views. A large portion of America views abortion as murder. Except the vast majority do support abortion. I really don't care what "a large portion" of America thinks, the majority thinks it should be a right but due to the way we cast votes for presidents we have the minority picking supreme court seats and thus giving us this decision.
- halostatue 4y ago
  A relatively small portion (under 30%, IIRC), and most of those don’t actually oppose abortion qua abortion, they just don’t want Those People to have access to it. (Many vocal opponents to abortion rights have quietly sought abortions on their family’s or mistresses behalf.)
- ehsankia 4y ago
  > A large portion of America views abortion as murder. That is not true, they are a very loud minority. Most polling puts people who really care about banning abortion (in the ways it is being done right now) at below 20%. The reason it is not passing legislation is because the Senate (which is required) is not a democratic institution. A state like Wyoming has 65x more voting power than a state like California. Current the Senate sits at 50/50 yet one side represents 40M more citizens than the other.
  - bushbaba 4y ago
    20% is a large portion of the USA. That's 1 out of every 5 Americans.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - t-writescode 4y ago
      If 80% of the USA wanted marijuana legalized, does that mean the 20% that say 'no' should keep it blocked?
      - bushbaba 4y ago
        There's been no ruling that Abortion is un-constitutional. The 80% has the full ability to elect representatives to pass a law on the matter at the state or federal level.
        t-writescode 4y ago
        See, you're saying this, but with effective gerrymandering and friends, a collection of low-population states have successfully broken the democratic process by having a majority of power while being in the minority.
        inkblotuniverse 4y ago
- KallDrexx 4y ago
  > You’re assuming the rest of the country shares your views. A large portion of America views abortion as murder. Is this backed up by data or your personal view? Because every piece of data that I've seen is that only ~30% of americans support a ban of abortion, while the large majority are in favor for it being legal.
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    Only ~34% of Americans voted for Joe Biden (51.3% on a turnout of 66%). 30% is a “large portion of America”, is it not? It may not be a majority, but it’s enough to be a majority in some states.
- ta988 4y ago
  This is not true. This change, in a single day, the lives of millions. So it caused a change in behavior of the legislative system. It is not a let discuss this and change it so it reflects the views of the population. Look at the planned Parenthood that had to stop working today in some states. that's not the result of just changing a comment in code.
- deathanatos 4y ago
  > But we are a republic. And the Supreme Court doesn’t issue law, that’s Congress’s responsibility. Within the bounds of what is permitted by the Constitution. If you believe that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution, then laws are irrelevant, as this is outside the bounds of what law is permitted to be written.
  - mikevm 4y ago
    The Democrats were fine with mandating experimental COVID vaccines, but when it comes to abortion "bodily autonomy is a fundamental right". What a joke.
    - TameAntelope 4y ago
      Abortions aren't contagious, are you serious? Body autonomy means I don't have to catch a disease because other people are too selfish to get a vaccine that is only experimental in the same way air and water is experimental.
      - mikevm 4y ago
        > Abortions aren't contagious, are you serious? I never said they were. But if you're going to make an argument about bodily autonomy then how you can you be OK with forcing people getting a medical treatment they do not want? Vaccination protects you from the disease. Vaccinating a 3rd party does not, we've been over this already. The COVID vaccine was in fact experimental and it only received an "Emergency Use Authorization" by the FDA. How about you check some basic facts before you respond?
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      It's trivial to flip this on its head: The Republicans fought tooth and nail against even simple mask mandates but now want to legislate what happens in a woman's uterus in the name of "protecting life"? What a joke.
      - mikevm 4y ago
- res0nat0r 4y ago
  > You’re assuming the rest of the country shares your views. 65% of the USA currently says that Roe v. Wade shouldn't be overturned.
theknocker 4y ago
kansface 4y ago
> Nobody in their right mind thinks that's a good idea in any other context, so why would it make sense here? We should give some deference to precedent, but the rule of law is paramount. Consider what the opposite of the rule of law really entails, or how hard won that victory was.
- softcactus 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott What is legal != what is just, ethical, or moral.
  - kansface 4y ago
    > What is legal != what is just, ethical, or moral. Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree. We can't organize society to run on what is just, ethical, or moral. We can only make laws based on our understanding of those things. Our understanding of morality changes over time. Where the law is unjust, we should change the law. Abandoning the rule law ends badly.
yieldcrv 4y ago
> The problem with this legal OCD is that in the meantime, people suffer. I am willing to empathize with the denial of service but thats it. Congress was the more appropriate federal authority to be a legislature, and failed to do so. In the absence of a federal law passed by Congress, state ones are the only ones that matter. The topic of how long the ruling lasted is a complete red herring, as this is not out of character for the court at all. I don’t feel like the convenience of having the court being so hard to overrule is a good enough reason for it to act as a superlegislature when convenient. I am the same way on this regarding all topics. On this specific topic, in the past I had tried to point out how odd Roe v Wade was with the court acting as a superlegislature but I quickly learned this was not a conversation people were willing to have as they couldnt separate the “camps” from the case(s) so I stopped bringing it up. I’m glad that this case forces the conversation.
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  So it's more important to you that common law not exist than it is for the Supreme Court to make rulings based on religious ideology? Are you really going to pretend not to understand why this ruling came now, when the religious right just so happened to be in charge of the Supreme Court, and not at any other time in the past 50 years?
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    I don’t feel like the convenience of having the court being so hard to overrule is a good enough reason for it to act as a superlegislature when convenient. I completely understand that only one party is willing to make that interpretation on this topic. I think it is noteworthy that “the religious right” did not act as a superlegislature itself, given the opportunity, and simply removed it back to Congress or the states when in the absence of a law from Congress. I observe that there are or were other ways to reach the outcome that the other party wants, that party has bungled all of those ways, and will likely continue to do so.
    - TameAntelope 4y ago

bushbaba 4y ago

You’re assuming the rest of the country shares your views. A large portion of America views abortion as murder. I do NOT share that viewpoint. But we are a republic. And the Supreme Court doesn’t issue law, that’s Congress’s responsibility. What this represents is not a code refactor but a Change to a comment in the code base on what a function does.

TameAntelope 4y ago
The point is if you believe this to not be up to the Supreme Court to decide, then you don't believe it's up to the Supreme Court to undo until the people have decided. The Supreme Court didn't issue a law here, they changed their interpretation of a decision they had made 50 years prior, for no reason at all except that the composition of the court had changed. That's like hiring a new guy and his first action is to remove an entire technology that was propping up your infrastructure, because it wasn't being stored in the "correct" VCS.
- hossbeast 4y ago
  That is actually a great analogy
- bushbaba 4y ago
  Say a supreme court 50 years ago interpreted the constitution that woman did not have a right to vote. Then today the court ruled, the constitution doesn't actually state anything of the sort and overturns that past judgment. In that case would you want the court to instead state, well a decision 50 years ago was made. So we wont change it. The US Congress needs to pass a law explicitly granting woman the right to vote. Such-as with say Minor v. Happersett, "Court held that, while women are no less citizens than men are, citizenship does not confer a right to vote, and therefore state laws barring women from voting are constitutionally valid" A good court in a Democratic government must be objective in interpretation of law . And the system is such that it is the US Congress's responsibility to pass law.
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    A vote to prohibit women from voting isn’t analogous because it’s restrictive, not permissive. There is zero legitimate reason for this to be reversed now, compared to after it’s been codified in the legislature. But all of this is a silly distraction. The real reason has nothing at all to do with what the court’s role should be, and everything to do with the religion of the people currently serving on the court. To keep the tech analogies going, it’s like a new tech lead deleting the web app code because be doesn’t believe in monorepos, but saying it’s a security issue.
    - portpecos 4y ago
      > The real reason has nothing at all to do with what the court’s role should be, and everything to do with the religion of the people currently serving on the court. You’re inferring that the court made it’s decision on a religious reason, and you’re entitled to your inference. So here’s my inference, as an atheist conservative. No the Supreme Court did not overturn the case for religious reasons. They overturned it exactly for the reasons they stated: “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives”
    - bmelton 4y ago
      > compared to after it’s been codified in the legislature The legitimate reason it is reversed _now_ is that it is _now_ when the matter is before them in the court of law that conflicts with Roe in a way that is hard to reconcile against precedent. If your complaint is that it hasn't been codified into law by the legislature since 1973 (and you're right -- it hasn't) that is not the fault of the judicial branch, rather the legislative. To borrow from your analogy, it's more like a repository deprecating its code, watching everybody for years claim that "they're going to delete this any minute now" and nobody stepping to the plate to take over as maintainer.
      - TameAntelope 4y ago
        "It's not their fault" What? That brings exactly zero people the help they need. When your action is the proximate cause of the revocation of freedom from 165m people, it's definitely 'your fault'." This may not have been a great way to keep women safe forever, but today was not the day it needed fixing.
- bushbaba 4y ago
  The analogy is flawed as the codebase is to laws. And the supreme court didn't change any law. Instead this would be like the new guy coming in and stating, "Wow that codebase actually mutates objects and the commentary of it being non-modifying to its parameters isn't valid."
- Aunche 4y ago
  > That's like hiring a new guy and his first action is to remove an entire technology That isn't a good analogy. A better analogy is the security team modifying ACLs that allow them push changes. It may be a destructive change, but it's outside of scope of the security team.
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    How about a new customer support director deleting your Postgres instance backing your main SaaS product because it's hosted on a server in their cage? Shouldn't have been in the CS datacenter, so screw the customers and the business as a whole who relied on that system, right?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
joshstrange 4y ago
> You’re assuming the rest of the country shares your views. A large portion of America views abortion as murder. Except the vast majority do support abortion. I really don't care what "a large portion" of America thinks, the majority thinks it should be a right but due to the way we cast votes for presidents we have the minority picking supreme court seats and thus giving us this decision.
halostatue 4y ago
A relatively small portion (under 30%, IIRC), and most of those don’t actually oppose abortion qua abortion, they just don’t want Those People to have access to it. (Many vocal opponents to abortion rights have quietly sought abortions on their family’s or mistresses behalf.)
ehsankia 4y ago
> A large portion of America views abortion as murder. That is not true, they are a very loud minority. Most polling puts people who really care about banning abortion (in the ways it is being done right now) at below 20%. The reason it is not passing legislation is because the Senate (which is required) is not a democratic institution. A state like Wyoming has 65x more voting power than a state like California. Current the Senate sits at 50/50 yet one side represents 40M more citizens than the other.
- bushbaba 4y ago
  20% is a large portion of the USA. That's 1 out of every 5 Americans.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - t-writescode 4y ago
    If 80% of the USA wanted marijuana legalized, does that mean the 20% that say 'no' should keep it blocked?
    - bushbaba 4y ago
      There's been no ruling that Abortion is un-constitutional. The 80% has the full ability to elect representatives to pass a law on the matter at the state or federal level.
      - t-writescode 4y ago
        See, you're saying this, but with effective gerrymandering and friends, a collection of low-population states have successfully broken the democratic process by having a majority of power while being in the minority.
        inkblotuniverse 4y ago
KallDrexx 4y ago
> You’re assuming the rest of the country shares your views. A large portion of America views abortion as murder. Is this backed up by data or your personal view? Because every piece of data that I've seen is that only ~30% of americans support a ban of abortion, while the large majority are in favor for it being legal.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  Only ~34% of Americans voted for Joe Biden (51.3% on a turnout of 66%). 30% is a “large portion of America”, is it not? It may not be a majority, but it’s enough to be a majority in some states.
ta988 4y ago
This is not true. This change, in a single day, the lives of millions. So it caused a change in behavior of the legislative system. It is not a let discuss this and change it so it reflects the views of the population. Look at the planned Parenthood that had to stop working today in some states. that's not the result of just changing a comment in code.
deathanatos 4y ago
> But we are a republic. And the Supreme Court doesn’t issue law, that’s Congress’s responsibility. Within the bounds of what is permitted by the Constitution. If you believe that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution, then laws are irrelevant, as this is outside the bounds of what law is permitted to be written.
- mikevm 4y ago
  The Democrats were fine with mandating experimental COVID vaccines, but when it comes to abortion "bodily autonomy is a fundamental right". What a joke.
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    Abortions aren't contagious, are you serious? Body autonomy means I don't have to catch a disease because other people are too selfish to get a vaccine that is only experimental in the same way air and water is experimental.
    - mikevm 4y ago
      > Abortions aren't contagious, are you serious? I never said they were. But if you're going to make an argument about bodily autonomy then how you can you be OK with forcing people getting a medical treatment they do not want? Vaccination protects you from the disease. Vaccinating a 3rd party does not, we've been over this already. The COVID vaccine was in fact experimental and it only received an "Emergency Use Authorization" by the FDA. How about you check some basic facts before you respond?
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    It's trivial to flip this on its head: The Republicans fought tooth and nail against even simple mask mandates but now want to legislate what happens in a woman's uterus in the name of "protecting life"? What a joke.
    - mikevm 4y ago
res0nat0r 4y ago
> You’re assuming the rest of the country shares your views. 65% of the USA currently says that Roe v. Wade shouldn't be overturned.

theknocker 4y ago

kansface 4y ago

> Nobody in their right mind thinks that's a good idea in any other context, so why would it make sense here? We should give some deference to precedent, but the rule of law is paramount. Consider what the opposite of the rule of law really entails, or how hard won that victory was.

softcactus 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott What is legal != what is just, ethical, or moral.
- kansface 4y ago
  > What is legal != what is just, ethical, or moral. Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree. We can't organize society to run on what is just, ethical, or moral. We can only make laws based on our understanding of those things. Our understanding of morality changes over time. Where the law is unjust, we should change the law. Abandoning the rule law ends badly.

yieldcrv 4y ago

> The problem with this legal OCD is that in the meantime, people suffer. I am willing to empathize with the denial of service but thats it. Congress was the more appropriate federal authority to be a legislature, and failed to do so. In the absence of a federal law passed by Congress, state ones are the only ones that matter. The topic of how long the ruling lasted is a complete red herring, as this is not out of character for the court at all. I don’t feel like the convenience of having the court being so hard to overrule is a good enough reason for it to act as a superlegislature when convenient. I am the same way on this regarding all topics. On this specific topic, in the past I had tried to point out how odd Roe v Wade was with the court acting as a superlegislature but I quickly learned this was not a conversation people were willing to have as they couldnt separate the “camps” from the case(s) so I stopped bringing it up. I’m glad that this case forces the conversation.

TameAntelope 4y ago
So it's more important to you that common law not exist than it is for the Supreme Court to make rulings based on religious ideology? Are you really going to pretend not to understand why this ruling came now, when the religious right just so happened to be in charge of the Supreme Court, and not at any other time in the past 50 years?
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  I don’t feel like the convenience of having the court being so hard to overrule is a good enough reason for it to act as a superlegislature when convenient. I completely understand that only one party is willing to make that interpretation on this topic. I think it is noteworthy that “the religious right” did not act as a superlegislature itself, given the opportunity, and simply removed it back to Congress or the states when in the absence of a law from Congress. I observe that there are or were other ways to reach the outcome that the other party wants, that party has bungled all of those ways, and will likely continue to do so.
  - TameAntelope 4y ago