3 ms·

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

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.
      - bmelton 4y ago
        It also by itself does not restrict anyone from the help that they need. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to care for the reproductive health of the American people. Of the federal government, that would either be the job of the executive or the legislature, depending on your preferred view of the executive branch.
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]

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.
    - bmelton 4y ago
      It also by itself does not restrict anyone from the help that they need. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to care for the reproductive health of the American people. Of the federal government, that would either be the job of the executive or the legislature, depending on your preferred view of the executive branch.

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]