4 ms·

saying "SCOTUS didn't ban abortion" is at best useless semantic formality and at worst plain incorrect a number of state have laws that the automatically make

by ausbah 4y ago

saying "SCOTUS didn't ban abortion" is at best useless semantic formality and at worst plain incorrect a number of state have laws that the automatically make abortion illegal as soon as Roe was overturned, those are now enacted. furthermore, the case behind this ruling was dealing with a state law the effectively outlawed abortions, despite previous precedent ruling against it. this rule is simply enabling such behavior indirectly. this allows gives the green light for abortion to be targeted at the federal level, something which Republicans will be happy to do ASAP to ignore the context of the surrounding case, and political motivations / backgrounds of the ruling justices is just ignorant. something like half of all states have now effectively illegal abortion

softcactus 4y ago
The HN crowd never fails to surprise me. For all of the great discussions about software on here, threads like this one reek of ignorance of civics and history. The de facto outcome of this ruling is abortion banned in red states. It's clearly partisan hackery when we have: 1. A court full of Federalist Society members 2. A court full of Catholics (staunchly pro-life) 3. Who are using the old argument of "states rights" Three has historically been how the conservative minority defends its regressive legislation. They use the filibuster to prevent Federal legislation, then impose their will on minority groups within their state which has no filibuster. Anyone who has read about the history of the US should know this.
- pcj-github 4y ago
  Agree 100%
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- portpecos 4y ago
  It’s almost as if the liberals didn’t even read this part the current court’s opinion. “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”
  - softcactus 4y ago
    > It’s almost as if the liberals didn’t even read this part the current court’s opinion. See the section in my comment about "states rights". I read the decision in its entirety and it was full of flaws from my perspective (I am not a lawyer). It's clear however that this is an ideological ruling. Also, I'm skeptical of the intellectual consistency of anyone's arguments when they mention "the libs".
    - pyronik19 4y ago
      It's clear the original Roe v Wade was an ideological ruling. It was motivated reasoning. It's just being undone. I support first trimester abortions. Now go pass those laws in the states via the legislative process where it belongs.
      - softcactus 4y ago
        I agree that the original ruling was ideological, but in the real world the enemy of good is perfect. How many people will suffer in the meantime because of this? How many women in red states will undergo back alley procedures to terminate their pregnancy? Truth be told I really don't care about the intellectual consistency of upholding or overturning Roe, I care about the real world impact it will have on people. It's not abstract, these are real people's lives. Also that's before even getting into the structure of our federal system and explaining how "states rights" have almost always been a tool for upholding regressive legislature that is unpopular at the national level, due to the fact that a filibuster-proof supermajority is required to reign in the states, meanwhile a dissenting minority within the states has no similar recourse. Why do you think most of the progress in civil rights post-1964 has been accomplished through the Supreme Court? It's because southern and rural states are impossible to reign in with congress. This is why the Federalist Society went through the Supreme Court, because it's technically legal and technically how our government is supposed to work. But the end result is them harming people just like you and me.
      - drekk 4y ago
        I guess the Civil War was morally wrong—we should have left the issue of slavery up to the legislative process
teakettle42 4y ago
It’s neither a semantic formality nor incorrect. The Supreme Court returned the question to the legislative branch. That’s it. I happen to think abortion should be legal. I also think it’s pretty clear that, when one side believes abortion to be a totally unrestricted right despite never appearing in the constitution, while simultaneously arguing for severely restricting and even eliminating a specifically enumerated right to bear arms, that they’re operating in complete bad faith, and don’t really care about the constitution except when convenient. Change needs to be secured by convincing others of its necessity, not by appealing to authority to force others to behave or believe what you think they should. The courts have been abused as an end-run around democratic change for too long now. I’m glad to see a serious bit of legislation from the bench rolled back. This will force people to talk to each other. To convince each other. To work together. That’s ultimately a healthier outcome, even if things are a little worse while we figure things out.
- lovich 4y ago
  > …when one side believes abortion to be a totally unrestricted right despite never appearing in the constitution… Bud there’s a whole amendment about how if it’s not mentioned in the constitution it’s assumed you have the right. > This will force people to talk to each other. To convince each other. To work together. That’s ultimately a healthier outcome, even if things are a little worse while we figure things out. What part of this ruling makes that outcome happen?
  - wilsonnb3 4y ago
    > Bud there’s a whole amendment about how if it’s not mentioned in the constitution it’s assumed you have the right. That is not what the 9th amendment says. It just says that the Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically laying out some rights does not mean that you lack all rights not laid out explicitly. So no, it is not assumed that you have a right if it is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is just explicitly stated that you may have that right. The 10th amendment then kicks all of those rights to the states rather than the federal government.
    - 4y ago

by ausbah 4y ago

softcactus 4y ago

The HN crowd never fails to surprise me. For all of the great discussions about software on here, threads like this one reek of ignorance of civics and history. The de facto outcome of this ruling is abortion banned in red states. It's clearly partisan hackery when we have: 1. A court full of Federalist Society members 2. A court full of Catholics (staunchly pro-life) 3. Who are using the old argument of "states rights" Three has historically been how the conservative minority defends its regressive legislation. They use the filibuster to prevent Federal legislation, then impose their will on minority groups within their state which has no filibuster. Anyone who has read about the history of the US should know this.

pcj-github 4y ago
Agree 100%
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
portpecos 4y ago
It’s almost as if the liberals didn’t even read this part the current court’s opinion. “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”
- softcactus 4y ago
  > It’s almost as if the liberals didn’t even read this part the current court’s opinion. See the section in my comment about "states rights". I read the decision in its entirety and it was full of flaws from my perspective (I am not a lawyer). It's clear however that this is an ideological ruling. Also, I'm skeptical of the intellectual consistency of anyone's arguments when they mention "the libs".
  - pyronik19 4y ago
    It's clear the original Roe v Wade was an ideological ruling. It was motivated reasoning. It's just being undone. I support first trimester abortions. Now go pass those laws in the states via the legislative process where it belongs.
    - softcactus 4y ago
      I agree that the original ruling was ideological, but in the real world the enemy of good is perfect. How many people will suffer in the meantime because of this? How many women in red states will undergo back alley procedures to terminate their pregnancy? Truth be told I really don't care about the intellectual consistency of upholding or overturning Roe, I care about the real world impact it will have on people. It's not abstract, these are real people's lives. Also that's before even getting into the structure of our federal system and explaining how "states rights" have almost always been a tool for upholding regressive legislature that is unpopular at the national level, due to the fact that a filibuster-proof supermajority is required to reign in the states, meanwhile a dissenting minority within the states has no similar recourse. Why do you think most of the progress in civil rights post-1964 has been accomplished through the Supreme Court? It's because southern and rural states are impossible to reign in with congress. This is why the Federalist Society went through the Supreme Court, because it's technically legal and technically how our government is supposed to work. But the end result is them harming people just like you and me.
    - drekk 4y ago
      I guess the Civil War was morally wrong—we should have left the issue of slavery up to the legislative process

teakettle42 4y ago

It’s neither a semantic formality nor incorrect. The Supreme Court returned the question to the legislative branch. That’s it. I happen to think abortion should be legal. I also think it’s pretty clear that, when one side believes abortion to be a totally unrestricted right despite never appearing in the constitution, while simultaneously arguing for severely restricting and even eliminating a specifically enumerated right to bear arms, that they’re operating in complete bad faith, and don’t really care about the constitution except when convenient. Change needs to be secured by convincing others of its necessity, not by appealing to authority to force others to behave or believe what you think they should. The courts have been abused as an end-run around democratic change for too long now. I’m glad to see a serious bit of legislation from the bench rolled back. This will force people to talk to each other. To convince each other. To work together. That’s ultimately a healthier outcome, even if things are a little worse while we figure things out.

lovich 4y ago
> …when one side believes abortion to be a totally unrestricted right despite never appearing in the constitution… Bud there’s a whole amendment about how if it’s not mentioned in the constitution it’s assumed you have the right. > This will force people to talk to each other. To convince each other. To work together. That’s ultimately a healthier outcome, even if things are a little worse while we figure things out. What part of this ruling makes that outcome happen?
- wilsonnb3 4y ago
  > Bud there’s a whole amendment about how if it’s not mentioned in the constitution it’s assumed you have the right. That is not what the 9th amendment says. It just says that the Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically laying out some rights does not mean that you lack all rights not laid out explicitly. So no, it is not assumed that you have a right if it is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is just explicitly stated that you may have that right. The 10th amendment then kicks all of those rights to the states rather than the federal government.
  - 4y ago