5 ms·

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 actu

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.
      - TameAntelope 4y ago
        It is absolutely the job of the Supreme Court to care for the entire health of the American people, there is literally no other reason for the body to exist other than to maximally enable Americans' life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness. If the Supreme Court cannot do this, it should not exist.
        torstenvl 4y ago
        At no time in the history of the United States has that been anywhere near the purpose of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's one and only purpose is to exercise the judicial power of the United States in cases or controversies before it, with original jurisdiction as specifically enumerated in Article III, Marbury v. Madison, and with appellate jurisdiction with regard to all other cases. It exists to referee the non-violent resolution of a subset of emotionally charged disputes through a functioning legal system. It does not exist to ensure that one side or the other wins.

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.
    - TameAntelope 4y ago
      It is absolutely the job of the Supreme Court to care for the entire health of the American people, there is literally no other reason for the body to exist other than to maximally enable Americans' life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness. If the Supreme Court cannot do this, it should not exist.
      - torstenvl 4y ago
        At no time in the history of the United States has that been anywhere near the purpose of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's one and only purpose is to exercise the judicial power of the United States in cases or controversies before it, with original jurisdiction as specifically enumerated in Article III, Marbury v. Madison, and with appellate jurisdiction with regard to all other cases. It exists to referee the non-violent resolution of a subset of emotionally charged disputes through a functioning legal system. It does not exist to ensure that one side or the other wins.