25 ms·

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 st

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.
- klyrs 4y ago
  > Your assertion is obviously ridiculous, traveling gay men will not be arrested simply for being gay. Your assertion is oblivious to the modern sensibilities of "Law and Order." Gay men will be arrested on "reasonable suspicion" of having had gay sex. And even when the suspicion is not found to be reasonable, there will be zero ramifications for the arresting officers.
  - Arrath 4y ago
    And their assets will be forfeit, seized by the arresting agency as aiding and abetting the sodomy. What a wonderful process.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    > Gay men will be arrested on "reasonable suspicion" of having had gay sex. "reasonable" in this case meaning "visiting the home of another gay man", let alone "living with one".
- gambiting 4y ago
  Are you like....completely unaware of recent(last century) history? Like....at all??? Gay people were being arrested on charges of sodomy all the time, even if they were never caught in the act.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    There is a conspicuous lack of education around modern civil rights movements. WW1 and WW2 suck the air out of the history classroom leaving room for little else. I was 35 years old when I first learned about the MOVE bombing[1] and this year years-old when I learned about the Three Articles[2] rules. Anyone else unaware of these until recently? If not, where did you learn about them? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing 2. https://www.history.com/news/stonewall-riots-lgbtq-drag-three-article-rule https://www.history.com/news/stonewall-riots-lgbtq-drag-thre...
    - heretogetout 4y ago
      Yeah, I am 95% neither of these were taught where I grew up (a lefty area in a solid lefty state).
jaywalk 4y ago
Nobody is enforcing social views on anybody. The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist, and today's decision corrected that. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg was on record saying that the decision was flawed! The real tragedy here is that it took 50 years for this egregiously bad ruling to be thrown out. And despite your fear mongering, today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not to invent rights.
- MattGrommes 4y ago
  There's no way to interpret the Constitution without "inventing rights" since time moves forward. The founders knew we had progress so they built in ways of accounting for that such as the 9th amendment. The problem only comes when people ignore progress and ignore the parts of the Constitution they don't agree with to dismantle rights they don't like.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    I think we just have different definitions of "inventing rights" because I pretty much agree with everything else you said.
- padjo 4y ago
  Thomas’s concurrence specifically says those precedents should be revisited.
- saghm 4y ago
  > today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned Thomas's opinion pretty specifically cited some of those other cases. It wasn't joined by all the others who voted with him, but then again, Kavanaugh claimed that Roe v. Wade was "settled law" during his confirmation hearing, which clearly doesn't seem to be what he's saying now. I'm not surprised that this is his real view, and I won't be in a few years if suddenly he also votes against some of those other rulings.
anigbrowl 4y ago
I think it would be wise to look beyond today's issues. Earlier this month in Egbert v Boule, the Supreme Court said you have no right to sue a federal employee or the agency for which they they work over violations of your 4th amendment rights, as long as the agency has a complaint procedure (operated by that same agency). Yesterday in Vega v. Tekoh they decided that you don't have a cause of action against a police officer who doesn't read you your rights (although such testimony remains inadmissible). In the months and years to co come, ultra-conservatives aim to eliminate birth control and install an overbearing theocratic government. They are not shy about saying so, nor are they a marginal fringe lacking influence. There was already one serious (albeit poorly executed) effort to interfere with the constitutional transfer of power. Conventional politics are very much over in the US.
- rayiner 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - shaftway 4y ago
    In Thomas' opinion he literally says that the supreme court should reconsider a number of cases including the one that prevents birth control bans. That makes me assume it'll come *before* the internment camps for brown people. (I can use tongue-in-cheek rhetoric too)
    - miohtama 4y ago
      Do internment camps come before or after segregating people of colour in buses and toilets?
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Let's hope you won't find out.
    - zinclozenge 4y ago
      I doubt there'll be internment camps. But deportations, canceling visas and green cards is something I expect if republicans are in power again.
cm2187 4y ago
How are small conservative states enforcing their social views on the majority? In states where there is a majority for abortion, abortition is legalised by law, not by court, i.e. the way it should be. It is in states where there is no majority for abortion that it is not. How is it not democratic? For things to be done at the federal level, it needs a broad consensus across the country, not a 51% majority where the 49% is dead against. The EU has similar safeguards where you need effectively 3 keys to enable a law (European parliament, European commission, and the Council), not a simple 51% majority. Nothing prevents you from legislatating at a state level, but if you want to impose your views on other states, it needs to be a broad consensus. What you seem to complain about is that voters in California cannot impose their social view on the inhabitants of Utah.
- light_hue_1 4y ago
  > What you seem to complain about is that voters in California cannot impose their social view on the inhabitants of Utah. What nonsense. This is not about state's rights. Just yesterday the Court decided that no, California doesn't have the right to restrict guns. That's the inhabitants of Utah imposing their social view on the acceptability of guns on the residents of California. It's about states rights when it comes to things you don't support, like abortion, and it's about the constitution and the rights it gives everyone, when it comes to things that you support, like the right for every nutjob to kill children with AR-15s. There is no logical reasoning behind these decisions aside from a vindictive, right-wing court, imposing its social will onto the entire country.
  - cm2187 4y ago
    Because there is an explicit provision on guns in the constitution. No mention of or allusion to abortion in the constitution. If the US wants to protect abortion through the constitution, they are free to do so. The US constitution has been amended many times. But that takes an even broader consensus.
    - inlined 4y ago
      The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia. The NYC ruling was pure judicial activism
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Trump won white women in both presidential elections, and Trump got to stamp the court with three justices. 98% of black women voted for Clinton. In 2016, 55% of voters were women, which trump won 47-44. By three points, which is a solid win in a presidential general election. So Trump won the largest voting race+gender demographic. https://www.statista.com/statistics/892859/women-support-overturning-roe-vs-wade-us-by-political-affiliation/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/892859/women-support-ove... For republican-leaning women (which will be white women based on the female black vote numbers), it is basically 50-50 in support/opposition for Roe V Wade. For Dem-leaning it is 85-15 roughly. Roe V Wade is the most important women's right won in the courts in the last 50 years, and women voted to overturn it effectively. Finally, this is the culmination of the liberal justices refusing to step down or retire. Ruth Baider Ginsburg is held up as a pinnacle of feminism, and yet her stubbornness to continue serving despite health problems and battles with cancer resulted in Trump getting a crucial third justice. The most stalwart feminist justice handed the overturn of Roe V Wade to a president with a known record for sexual impropriety if not outright assault. Obama sat on Merrick Garland. The baby boomer generation ushered in sexual freedom when it was their time to be young and free, and then shut the door on it in their old age crapping over all the other generations. What a world.
- esyir 4y ago
  For the record, Ginsburg thought that Roe vs Wade was a mistake, for this exact reason. Momentum was lost to get actually good legislation in, and the vulnerable Roe vs Wade was put in instead.
  - Beltiras 4y ago
    This court will never say a federal law allowing abortion is constitutional. Thomas is 74 and Alito is 72. A lot of stars need to align so that anything can be done about this. The lone thing I see changing the calculus is if women in red states stage a mass protest by actually moving to blue states in massive numbers.
    - junofan 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
> Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) Provide the source and the question that was asked on it. The majority of Americans think it should be up to the states, whether the state is for or against
- mattnewton 4y ago
  CNN reported the number has never been above 36% for “should roe v wade be overturned” https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/06/24/politics/americans-roe-v-wade-polling/index.html https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/06/24/politics/americans-roe-v-... Gallup puts the number of legal under all cases at 35% of Americans and legal under some conditions at 50%. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Trigger laws in places like Oklahoma make it illegal in basically all cases after fertilization. Texas law is going to let Texans sue people for providing or getting abortions out of state. Framing this as a states rights issue didn’t work for slavery, segregation, gay rights, etc and it won’t work for women’s reproductive rights either.
  - i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
    > CNN reported the number has never been above 36% for “should roe v wade be overturned” the poll said "completely overturned", which is the more radical position. roe v wade being completely overturned is not the same as "delegating to the states" per your original comment, because the federal protection could be weakened to only support specific cases or require an earlier termination which would leave more room for state laws. You're framing the issue in a way that's misleading, because while the majority of americans oppose completely overturning roe, another majority could support weakening roe or limiting it to specific cases
    - Bud 4y ago
      Could you please at least do two minutes of research before coming in here with this take, using a brand-new burner junk account no less? This is the most polled issue in American politics and has been for half a century. We know with certainty that a large majority of the public supports abortion rights. We don't need to talk about what "another majority could support". That theory has been shot down thousands of times over the last 50 years.
devmor 4y ago
- mattnewton 4y ago
  Arguing against states rights is the argument for slavery that lead to the civil war? I am confused.
- dang 4y ago
  Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. We want curious conversation here. If you would please review the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and make your substantive points thoughtfully, we'd be grateful.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
mcguire 4y ago
"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)." One odd thing about this is that there is another case with the same 14th amendment reasoning which no one seems to be discussing: Loving v. Virginia (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395). I wonder if that's because Clarence and Ginni Thomas have been committing miscegenation for years?
- morelisp 4y ago
  > I wonder if that's because Clarence and Ginni Thomas have been committing miscegenation for years? Please, I'm eating. Besides, there's no evidence of this.
  - jyounker 4y ago
    Do you mean no evidence of his motivation, or no evidence that they've been committing miscegenation?
    - morelisp 4y ago
      The latter, but if I'm wrong please don't link to it.
      - hirako2000 4y ago
        You have problems eating thinking of "`races` mixing" ? What about this: the entire humanity is, that is all specimen, including yourself, is the outcome of in and outbreeding between countless ethnies, groups of different skin colors, cultures and even religion/folklore followers. If you have a digesting problem with this, we may just call it nature but your comment is what could put many not at ease. That being said, I would at least guess we agree on the ruling that it gets us closer to nature and some commonly accepted ethic with regards to human life and procreation.
rayiner 4y ago
> I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority- and it will not stop here It depends on how you define "this." Polls that ask "do you support Roe v. Wade are useless because it's a legal decision and the public doesn't necessarily understand its legal effect. More granular polls show that the public is on both sides of Roe. Most Americans support some sort of abortion right, but most Americans also think that right should be narrower than Roe: https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-us-supreme-court-abortion-religion-health-2c569aa7934233af8e00bef4520a8fa8 https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-us-supreme-court-abort.... In particular, 2/3s of Americans think that second trimester abortions should be generally illegal, but under Roe's trimester framework, there is a nationwide right to elective abortions in the second trimester. > 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 difference is not the Court's "capriciousness" but instead the text of the Second Amendment, which specifically addresses the "right to bear arms," versus the text of the 14th amendment, which says absolutely nothing about "privacy" or "abortion" or anything of the sort. It's disingenuous beyond belief to try and make a false equivalency between an expressly enumerated right written into the Constitution 233 years ago, with one divined from "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitutional text in the mid-20th century.
- mattnewton 4y ago
  > It depends on how you define "this." Polls that ask "do you support Roe v. Wade are useless because it's a legal decision and the public doesn't necessarily understand its legal effect. More granular polls show that the public is on both sides of Roe. None of this supports that the 14th amendment’s right to privacy under the due process clause doesn’t exist though? > It's disingenuous beyond belief to try and make a false equivalency between an expressly enumerated right written into the Constitution 233 years ago, with one divined from "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitutional text in the mid-20th century. Sure, we can ignore the well regulated militia clause as meaningless, everyone seems to. Then, to pick another example of capriciousness, my understanding is that this court ruled in Egbert v. Boule and that the explicit right against unreasonable search and seizure in the 4th amendment should actually be interpreted that there is no right to sue the government for redress of these violations, only the complaint processes that government agencies provide to decide the unreasonableness for themselves. There is another 233 year old amendment being so narrowly interpreted to slowly defang it while another “shall not be infringed”
lr4444lr 4y ago
So, aren't you reinforcing his point, that the court is not a reliable place to make law? Today's decision is exactly that: the court acknowledging that its prior decision was an overstep in its power.
- Bud 4y ago
  No, it's not. The Court has "acknowledged" no such thing. This court will use its power however it wants. It recognizes absolutely no concept about "overstepping". It will do what it wants. That has been made abundantly clear.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> 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). Also, non-discrimination in public schooling, with mandatory integration (Brown) but even before integration was understood to be essential (Plessy, permitting “separate but equal” education.) Without substantive due process, state public education which is separate by race and makes no pretense of equality would be fine. Also, the incorporation of much of the Bill of Rights as applicable against the states, as a whole. Substantive due process is enormous, and Thomas has explicitly stated that the entire jurisprudence in that domain should be uprooted in his concurrence on Dobbs. (Ironically, this includes the applicability of the 2nd Amendment to the State.)
chmod600 4y ago
"This is a small minority that just needs 51% of voter turnout" I'm unclear what definition of "minority" you are using here. That sounds like a majority to me. Comparing with poll numbers is not an apples-to-apples comparison. A lot of polls are highly motivated to support a particular outcome, but when you look into the details and ask questions a number of different ways, you get a more complex picture. For instance, if you ask "how long should elective abortions be legal?" you may get an answer that seems to contradict "do you support Roe?". And then if you start to define "elective" (or even use different words) you might get a different answer still. I'm not saying which one is the "right" question to ask, but I am saying that it's not reasonable to reject actual vote totals in a free and fair election.
- mattnewton 4y ago
  > I'm unclear what definition of "minority" you are using here. That sounds like a majority to me. It is a majority of a smaller area but the minority of the larger area. Majority of a gerrymandered district for state representation. Majority of a purple state senate race, or one that has winner take all electoral vote allocation, as most do. And of course, majority in Texas when the views held there are a minority for the overall country but they still pass laws letting people bring charges in Texas courts for abortions, even performed outside of Texas by people without representation in Texas state legislature, though I have some hope that this is a bridge too far even for the current partisan 6-3 court. No reason they wouldn’t allow it here while saying it couldn’t be used as precedent as many members for the current court argued in Bush v Gore.
sanedigital 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". That's not true, only 26% of Americans support abortion in almost all cases. Most support some sort of restriction. This ruling forces the States to determine what those restrictions are. This is an extremely complicated and nuanced cultural issue. The debate that's happening now is one that was cut short by Roe—one that the rest of the West has had. Few other countries allow abortion with "no restrictions". States should be allowed to decide, individually, where they want to draw the line. I'll add that this is in no way an endorsement of an anti-choice position. But there's no way to view this as "a minority enforcing social views on the majority." The primary civic problem in this country is the neutering of our State and Federal legislatures. The Courts should not be legislating. The Executive should not be legislating. Force our Representatives to do their damn jobs.
- mattnewton 4y ago
  > The primary civic problem in this country is the neutering of our State and Federal legislatures. The Courts should not be legislating. The Executive should not be legislating. Force our Representatives to do their damn jobs. This is just another symptom of the disease of the disproportional representation everywhere in our systems, most importantly the senate. The senate confirmed (or in the case of Garland, refused to confirm) these justices, and the senate refuses to pass laws the majority of Americans want. > But there's no way to view this as "a minority enforcing social views on the majority." How can you interpret the Texas law as anything but? This decision and those laws are all the product of concerted and focused lobbying and maneuvering by conservative Christian groups that make up a minority of Americans.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    Claims about disproportional representation are almost always based on presidential election results, ignoring the midterm elections, even though the midterms are equally important for the Senate. The 2014 election shouldn't be ignored, because it explains why Garland wasn't confirmed and Trump's appointments were. That year, Republicans won the popular vote by a margin of almost 6%, and won 9 seats in the Senate. That election gave them control of the Senate until 2020, and that outcome was representative of the popular vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_States_elections
pclmulqdq 4y ago
It's important to note that most Americans don't agree on letting the states enforce this because abortion is a particularly sore issue for everyone. Pro life people believe abortion is literally murder, and therefore, no state should allow it. Pro choice people believe that banning abortion is oppression, and therefore, no state should be allowed to ban it. That kind of suggests that the states are the right place to handle the issue.
- mattnewton 4y ago
  As I wrote elsewhere, states rights has long been the motte of all kinds of minority social opinions in the Bailey. The broad consensus is being held hostage by a minority in some state legislatures, and in the senate, and has now trickled into a 6-3 Supreme Court with lifetime appointments of comparatively young justices.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    As I understand it, the "correct" position that is held by the majority of Americans is that we should have safe, widely-available abortions up to about 12-16 weeks. That's how it is in Europe. Right now, we have two parties full of nutjobs: one party wants state-subsidized free abortions available up to point of birth, and the other party wants to completely ban them. The reasonable group has left the building.
dbingham 4y ago
It's important to note that 4 of the 9 justices on the court, and 4 of the 6 who voted in favor of this decision were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote. Literally appointed by minority governments.
- mattnewton 4y ago
  To say nothing of the M. Garland nomination defeated by shameless parliamentary tricks, simply refusing to bring it to a vote while rushing ACB’s nomination through in the last year of the Trump presidency.
smegger001 4y ago
while less than 30% support it, I wouldn't be surprised if the share of that 30% vote more than the other 70%. remember something like only 35% of eligible adults vote in midterm election. apathy toward our civic duty is killing our country just as much as radical polarization.
snapplebobapple 4y ago
One member since it is a Solo opinion. Also all those other cases have a real right to privacy aspect to them because they involve acts between consenting adults. There Isaac point in pregnancy where an abortion ceases to be an act between consenting adults and instead becomes a conspiracy to kill a minor and where that point is needs to be legislated rather than conjured out of thin air by the judiciary. I say this as someone who is a big fan of abortions (they have killed so many future criminals if skewed the crime stats, which is awesome.) because I am an even bigger fan of the constitution.
Chris2048 4y ago
> I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority Can you clarify what social view is being enforced on the majority?

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.
klyrs 4y ago
> Your assertion is obviously ridiculous, traveling gay men will not be arrested simply for being gay. Your assertion is oblivious to the modern sensibilities of "Law and Order." Gay men will be arrested on "reasonable suspicion" of having had gay sex. And even when the suspicion is not found to be reasonable, there will be zero ramifications for the arresting officers.
- Arrath 4y ago
  And their assets will be forfeit, seized by the arresting agency as aiding and abetting the sodomy. What a wonderful process.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  > Gay men will be arrested on "reasonable suspicion" of having had gay sex. "reasonable" in this case meaning "visiting the home of another gay man", let alone "living with one".
gambiting 4y ago
Are you like....completely unaware of recent(last century) history? Like....at all??? Gay people were being arrested on charges of sodomy all the time, even if they were never caught in the act.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  There is a conspicuous lack of education around modern civil rights movements. WW1 and WW2 suck the air out of the history classroom leaving room for little else. I was 35 years old when I first learned about the MOVE bombing[1] and this year years-old when I learned about the Three Articles[2] rules. Anyone else unaware of these until recently? If not, where did you learn about them? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing 2. https://www.history.com/news/stonewall-riots-lgbtq-drag-three-article-rule https://www.history.com/news/stonewall-riots-lgbtq-drag-thre...
  - heretogetout 4y ago
    Yeah, I am 95% neither of these were taught where I grew up (a lefty area in a solid lefty state).

jaywalk 4y ago

Nobody is enforcing social views on anybody. The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist, and today's decision corrected that. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg was on record saying that the decision was flawed! The real tragedy here is that it took 50 years for this egregiously bad ruling to be thrown out. And despite your fear mongering, today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not to invent rights.

MattGrommes 4y ago
There's no way to interpret the Constitution without "inventing rights" since time moves forward. The founders knew we had progress so they built in ways of accounting for that such as the 9th amendment. The problem only comes when people ignore progress and ignore the parts of the Constitution they don't agree with to dismantle rights they don't like.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  I think we just have different definitions of "inventing rights" because I pretty much agree with everything else you said.
padjo 4y ago
Thomas’s concurrence specifically says those precedents should be revisited.
saghm 4y ago
> today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned Thomas's opinion pretty specifically cited some of those other cases. It wasn't joined by all the others who voted with him, but then again, Kavanaugh claimed that Roe v. Wade was "settled law" during his confirmation hearing, which clearly doesn't seem to be what he's saying now. I'm not surprised that this is his real view, and I won't be in a few years if suddenly he also votes against some of those other rulings.

anigbrowl 4y ago

I think it would be wise to look beyond today's issues. Earlier this month in Egbert v Boule, the Supreme Court said you have no right to sue a federal employee or the agency for which they they work over violations of your 4th amendment rights, as long as the agency has a complaint procedure (operated by that same agency). Yesterday in Vega v. Tekoh they decided that you don't have a cause of action against a police officer who doesn't read you your rights (although such testimony remains inadmissible). In the months and years to co come, ultra-conservatives aim to eliminate birth control and install an overbearing theocratic government. They are not shy about saying so, nor are they a marginal fringe lacking influence. There was already one serious (albeit poorly executed) effort to interfere with the constitutional transfer of power. Conventional politics are very much over in the US.

rayiner 4y ago
[flagged]
- shaftway 4y ago
  In Thomas' opinion he literally says that the supreme court should reconsider a number of cases including the one that prevents birth control bans. That makes me assume it'll come *before* the internment camps for brown people. (I can use tongue-in-cheek rhetoric too)
  - miohtama 4y ago
    Do internment camps come before or after segregating people of colour in buses and toilets?
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Let's hope you won't find out.
  - zinclozenge 4y ago
    I doubt there'll be internment camps. But deportations, canceling visas and green cards is something I expect if republicans are in power again.

cm2187 4y ago

How are small conservative states enforcing their social views on the majority? In states where there is a majority for abortion, abortition is legalised by law, not by court, i.e. the way it should be. It is in states where there is no majority for abortion that it is not. How is it not democratic? For things to be done at the federal level, it needs a broad consensus across the country, not a 51% majority where the 49% is dead against. The EU has similar safeguards where you need effectively 3 keys to enable a law (European parliament, European commission, and the Council), not a simple 51% majority. Nothing prevents you from legislatating at a state level, but if you want to impose your views on other states, it needs to be a broad consensus. What you seem to complain about is that voters in California cannot impose their social view on the inhabitants of Utah.

light_hue_1 4y ago
> What you seem to complain about is that voters in California cannot impose their social view on the inhabitants of Utah. What nonsense. This is not about state's rights. Just yesterday the Court decided that no, California doesn't have the right to restrict guns. That's the inhabitants of Utah imposing their social view on the acceptability of guns on the residents of California. It's about states rights when it comes to things you don't support, like abortion, and it's about the constitution and the rights it gives everyone, when it comes to things that you support, like the right for every nutjob to kill children with AR-15s. There is no logical reasoning behind these decisions aside from a vindictive, right-wing court, imposing its social will onto the entire country.
- cm2187 4y ago
  Because there is an explicit provision on guns in the constitution. No mention of or allusion to abortion in the constitution. If the US wants to protect abortion through the constitution, they are free to do so. The US constitution has been amended many times. But that takes an even broader consensus.
  - inlined 4y ago
    The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia. The NYC ruling was pure judicial activism

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

Trump won white women in both presidential elections, and Trump got to stamp the court with three justices. 98% of black women voted for Clinton. In 2016, 55% of voters were women, which trump won 47-44. By three points, which is a solid win in a presidential general election. So Trump won the largest voting race+gender demographic. https://www.statista.com/statistics/892859/women-support-overturning-roe-vs-wade-us-by-political-affiliation/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/892859/women-support-ove... For republican-leaning women (which will be white women based on the female black vote numbers), it is basically 50-50 in support/opposition for Roe V Wade. For Dem-leaning it is 85-15 roughly. Roe V Wade is the most important women's right won in the courts in the last 50 years, and women voted to overturn it effectively. Finally, this is the culmination of the liberal justices refusing to step down or retire. Ruth Baider Ginsburg is held up as a pinnacle of feminism, and yet her stubbornness to continue serving despite health problems and battles with cancer resulted in Trump getting a crucial third justice. The most stalwart feminist justice handed the overturn of Roe V Wade to a president with a known record for sexual impropriety if not outright assault. Obama sat on Merrick Garland. The baby boomer generation ushered in sexual freedom when it was their time to be young and free, and then shut the door on it in their old age crapping over all the other generations. What a world.

esyir 4y ago
For the record, Ginsburg thought that Roe vs Wade was a mistake, for this exact reason. Momentum was lost to get actually good legislation in, and the vulnerable Roe vs Wade was put in instead.
- Beltiras 4y ago
  This court will never say a federal law allowing abortion is constitutional. Thomas is 74 and Alito is 72. A lot of stars need to align so that anything can be done about this. The lone thing I see changing the calculus is if women in red states stage a mass protest by actually moving to blue states in massive numbers.
  - junofan 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago

> Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) Provide the source and the question that was asked on it. The majority of Americans think it should be up to the states, whether the state is for or against

mattnewton 4y ago
CNN reported the number has never been above 36% for “should roe v wade be overturned” https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/06/24/politics/americans-roe-v-wade-polling/index.html https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/06/24/politics/americans-roe-v-... Gallup puts the number of legal under all cases at 35% of Americans and legal under some conditions at 50%. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Trigger laws in places like Oklahoma make it illegal in basically all cases after fertilization. Texas law is going to let Texans sue people for providing or getting abortions out of state. Framing this as a states rights issue didn’t work for slavery, segregation, gay rights, etc and it won’t work for women’s reproductive rights either.
- i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
  > CNN reported the number has never been above 36% for “should roe v wade be overturned” the poll said "completely overturned", which is the more radical position. roe v wade being completely overturned is not the same as "delegating to the states" per your original comment, because the federal protection could be weakened to only support specific cases or require an earlier termination which would leave more room for state laws. You're framing the issue in a way that's misleading, because while the majority of americans oppose completely overturning roe, another majority could support weakening roe or limiting it to specific cases
  - Bud 4y ago
    Could you please at least do two minutes of research before coming in here with this take, using a brand-new burner junk account no less? This is the most polled issue in American politics and has been for half a century. We know with certainty that a large majority of the public supports abortion rights. We don't need to talk about what "another majority could support". That theory has been shot down thousands of times over the last 50 years.

devmor 4y ago

mattnewton 4y ago
Arguing against states rights is the argument for slavery that lead to the civil war? I am confused.
dang 4y ago
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. We want curious conversation here. If you would please review the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and make your substantive points thoughtfully, we'd be grateful.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

mcguire 4y ago

"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)." One odd thing about this is that there is another case with the same 14th amendment reasoning which no one seems to be discussing: Loving v. Virginia (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395). I wonder if that's because Clarence and Ginni Thomas have been committing miscegenation for years?

morelisp 4y ago
> I wonder if that's because Clarence and Ginni Thomas have been committing miscegenation for years? Please, I'm eating. Besides, there's no evidence of this.
- jyounker 4y ago
  Do you mean no evidence of his motivation, or no evidence that they've been committing miscegenation?
  - morelisp 4y ago
    The latter, but if I'm wrong please don't link to it.
    - hirako2000 4y ago
      You have problems eating thinking of "`races` mixing" ? What about this: the entire humanity is, that is all specimen, including yourself, is the outcome of in and outbreeding between countless ethnies, groups of different skin colors, cultures and even religion/folklore followers. If you have a digesting problem with this, we may just call it nature but your comment is what could put many not at ease. That being said, I would at least guess we agree on the ruling that it gets us closer to nature and some commonly accepted ethic with regards to human life and procreation.

rayiner 4y ago

> I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority- and it will not stop here It depends on how you define "this." Polls that ask "do you support Roe v. Wade are useless because it's a legal decision and the public doesn't necessarily understand its legal effect. More granular polls show that the public is on both sides of Roe. Most Americans support some sort of abortion right, but most Americans also think that right should be narrower than Roe: https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-us-supreme-court-abortion-religion-health-2c569aa7934233af8e00bef4520a8fa8 https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-us-supreme-court-abort.... In particular, 2/3s of Americans think that second trimester abortions should be generally illegal, but under Roe's trimester framework, there is a nationwide right to elective abortions in the second trimester. > 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 difference is not the Court's "capriciousness" but instead the text of the Second Amendment, which specifically addresses the "right to bear arms," versus the text of the 14th amendment, which says absolutely nothing about "privacy" or "abortion" or anything of the sort. It's disingenuous beyond belief to try and make a false equivalency between an expressly enumerated right written into the Constitution 233 years ago, with one divined from "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitutional text in the mid-20th century.

mattnewton 4y ago
> It depends on how you define "this." Polls that ask "do you support Roe v. Wade are useless because it's a legal decision and the public doesn't necessarily understand its legal effect. More granular polls show that the public is on both sides of Roe. None of this supports that the 14th amendment’s right to privacy under the due process clause doesn’t exist though? > It's disingenuous beyond belief to try and make a false equivalency between an expressly enumerated right written into the Constitution 233 years ago, with one divined from "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitutional text in the mid-20th century. Sure, we can ignore the well regulated militia clause as meaningless, everyone seems to. Then, to pick another example of capriciousness, my understanding is that this court ruled in Egbert v. Boule and that the explicit right against unreasonable search and seizure in the 4th amendment should actually be interpreted that there is no right to sue the government for redress of these violations, only the complaint processes that government agencies provide to decide the unreasonableness for themselves. There is another 233 year old amendment being so narrowly interpreted to slowly defang it while another “shall not be infringed”

lr4444lr 4y ago

So, aren't you reinforcing his point, that the court is not a reliable place to make law? Today's decision is exactly that: the court acknowledging that its prior decision was an overstep in its power.

Bud 4y ago
No, it's not. The Court has "acknowledged" no such thing. This court will use its power however it wants. It recognizes absolutely no concept about "overstepping". It will do what it wants. That has been made abundantly clear.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> 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). Also, non-discrimination in public schooling, with mandatory integration (Brown) but even before integration was understood to be essential (Plessy, permitting “separate but equal” education.) Without substantive due process, state public education which is separate by race and makes no pretense of equality would be fine. Also, the incorporation of much of the Bill of Rights as applicable against the states, as a whole. Substantive due process is enormous, and Thomas has explicitly stated that the entire jurisprudence in that domain should be uprooted in his concurrence on Dobbs. (Ironically, this includes the applicability of the 2nd Amendment to the State.)

chmod600 4y ago

"This is a small minority that just needs 51% of voter turnout" I'm unclear what definition of "minority" you are using here. That sounds like a majority to me. Comparing with poll numbers is not an apples-to-apples comparison. A lot of polls are highly motivated to support a particular outcome, but when you look into the details and ask questions a number of different ways, you get a more complex picture. For instance, if you ask "how long should elective abortions be legal?" you may get an answer that seems to contradict "do you support Roe?". And then if you start to define "elective" (or even use different words) you might get a different answer still. I'm not saying which one is the "right" question to ask, but I am saying that it's not reasonable to reject actual vote totals in a free and fair election.

mattnewton 4y ago
> I'm unclear what definition of "minority" you are using here. That sounds like a majority to me. It is a majority of a smaller area but the minority of the larger area. Majority of a gerrymandered district for state representation. Majority of a purple state senate race, or one that has winner take all electoral vote allocation, as most do. And of course, majority in Texas when the views held there are a minority for the overall country but they still pass laws letting people bring charges in Texas courts for abortions, even performed outside of Texas by people without representation in Texas state legislature, though I have some hope that this is a bridge too far even for the current partisan 6-3 court. No reason they wouldn’t allow it here while saying it couldn’t be used as precedent as many members for the current court argued in Bush v Gore.

sanedigital 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". That's not true, only 26% of Americans support abortion in almost all cases. Most support some sort of restriction. This ruling forces the States to determine what those restrictions are. This is an extremely complicated and nuanced cultural issue. The debate that's happening now is one that was cut short by Roe—one that the rest of the West has had. Few other countries allow abortion with "no restrictions". States should be allowed to decide, individually, where they want to draw the line. I'll add that this is in no way an endorsement of an anti-choice position. But there's no way to view this as "a minority enforcing social views on the majority." The primary civic problem in this country is the neutering of our State and Federal legislatures. The Courts should not be legislating. The Executive should not be legislating. Force our Representatives to do their damn jobs.

mattnewton 4y ago
> The primary civic problem in this country is the neutering of our State and Federal legislatures. The Courts should not be legislating. The Executive should not be legislating. Force our Representatives to do their damn jobs. This is just another symptom of the disease of the disproportional representation everywhere in our systems, most importantly the senate. The senate confirmed (or in the case of Garland, refused to confirm) these justices, and the senate refuses to pass laws the majority of Americans want. > But there's no way to view this as "a minority enforcing social views on the majority." How can you interpret the Texas law as anything but? This decision and those laws are all the product of concerted and focused lobbying and maneuvering by conservative Christian groups that make up a minority of Americans.
- leereeves 4y ago
  Claims about disproportional representation are almost always based on presidential election results, ignoring the midterm elections, even though the midterms are equally important for the Senate. The 2014 election shouldn't be ignored, because it explains why Garland wasn't confirmed and Trump's appointments were. That year, Republicans won the popular vote by a margin of almost 6%, and won 9 seats in the Senate. That election gave them control of the Senate until 2020, and that outcome was representative of the popular vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_States_elections

pclmulqdq 4y ago

It's important to note that most Americans don't agree on letting the states enforce this because abortion is a particularly sore issue for everyone. Pro life people believe abortion is literally murder, and therefore, no state should allow it. Pro choice people believe that banning abortion is oppression, and therefore, no state should be allowed to ban it. That kind of suggests that the states are the right place to handle the issue.

mattnewton 4y ago
As I wrote elsewhere, states rights has long been the motte of all kinds of minority social opinions in the Bailey. The broad consensus is being held hostage by a minority in some state legislatures, and in the senate, and has now trickled into a 6-3 Supreme Court with lifetime appointments of comparatively young justices.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  As I understand it, the "correct" position that is held by the majority of Americans is that we should have safe, widely-available abortions up to about 12-16 weeks. That's how it is in Europe. Right now, we have two parties full of nutjobs: one party wants state-subsidized free abortions available up to point of birth, and the other party wants to completely ban them. The reasonable group has left the building.

dbingham 4y ago

It's important to note that 4 of the 9 justices on the court, and 4 of the 6 who voted in favor of this decision were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote. Literally appointed by minority governments.

mattnewton 4y ago
To say nothing of the M. Garland nomination defeated by shameless parliamentary tricks, simply refusing to bring it to a vote while rushing ACB’s nomination through in the last year of the Trump presidency.

smegger001 4y ago

while less than 30% support it, I wouldn't be surprised if the share of that 30% vote more than the other 70%. remember something like only 35% of eligible adults vote in midterm election. apathy toward our civic duty is killing our country just as much as radical polarization.

snapplebobapple 4y ago

One member since it is a Solo opinion. Also all those other cases have a real right to privacy aspect to them because they involve acts between consenting adults. There Isaac point in pregnancy where an abortion ceases to be an act between consenting adults and instead becomes a conspiracy to kill a minor and where that point is needs to be legislated rather than conjured out of thin air by the judiciary. I say this as someone who is a big fan of abortions (they have killed so many future criminals if skewed the crime stats, which is awesome.) because I am an even bigger fan of the constitution.

Chris2048 4y ago

> I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority Can you clarify what social view is being enforced on the majority?