4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoAgree 100%
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- portpecos 4y agoIt’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 agoIt'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 agoI 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 agoI guess the Civil War was morally wrong—we should have left the issue of slavery up to the legislative process
- pyronik19 4y agoThere is a reason the maxim exists "Hard cases make bad case law". Of course slavery is wrong, and in fact rebellion to end slavery is more appropriate that case law to end it. That said abortion isn't slavery and its unclear which is morally superior. It's a question of balancing of rights between one human and another, no easy answer here.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deanCommie 4y agoAnd yet: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1102995474/supreme-court-opinion-guns https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1102995474/supreme-court-opin... How do you explain that?