5 ms·
> The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not to invent rights. This. All this controversy could end right now by simple having congress...
by 908B64B197 4y ago
> The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not to invent rights.
This.
All this controversy could end right now by simple having congress... pass a law.
That's what they are supposed (and paid) to do. Maybe if they spent less time trading stocks...
- ajross 4y agoSigh, not this. The bill of rights explicitly says that there are other rights not enumerated in the constitution that exist and (presumably) need to be enforced. The whole idea of Strict Construction flies right in the face of the obvious text of the ninth amendment. Really, why is the ninth amendment even there if it's supposed to be ignored?
- rufus_foreman 4y agoWho is ignoring it? The court explained in great detail why the right to abortion is not an unenumerated right.
- ajross 4y agoNo, they actually did exactly the opposite. They had to splice in a paragraph explaining how, despite all the logic in the piece seemingly being applicable to any such Strict Constructionalist argument, they really, really don't mean it and this is "only" about abortion, because... reasons, basically. It's like they put a pinkie swear into the opinion because they knew the ants nest they were stepping in. What we actually saw was the end of stare decisis. Any excuse is good enough now. For almost three hundred years, the court only overruled itself in areas of overwhelming public consensus. Now? It's just politics, man.
- rufus_foreman 4y agoSorry dude, that's not how it went down. Roe v. Wade was originally decided on politics, man.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ajross 4y agoNot really. Roe was one of a bunch of decisions of that era making findings of "civil rights". In particular, and libertarians like to forget this part, the core finding is actually based on the fourth amendment, and it says that no matter how firm it may believe the moral argument may be, the government doesn't have the right to decide for someone what medical procedures should be possible within her own body. I genuinely don't understand all the HN libertarians lining up on the site of Government Power here. This is absolutely a libertarian issue. Is it just knee-jerk tribalism? Have you guys all decided you don't really care so much about individual rights? Or is it just that you don't have a uterus and are disinclined to align yourself with those who do?
- rufus_foreman 4y agoUs guys? I'm not a libertarian. Go find a libertarian to argue with. Abortion is murder, life in prison for violators, no exceptions.
- morelisp 4y agoAll the libertarians have become nrx tradcath dominionists since ca. 2015, try to keep up.
- Beltiras 4y agoAnd pray do tell how you think such legislation would fare against a challenge before the SCOTUS?
- jaywalk 4y agoI'm going to assume that you believe they'd throw it out, so I will ask you what part of today's decision leads you to believe that?
- Beltiras 4y agoThey want this to be up to the states. Federal legislation encroaches on the "laboratories of democracy".
- jaywalk 4y agoWell since there is no federal statute on it, and the Constitution doesn't assign it to the federal government, it goes back to the states. That's how everything works, by default. There's nothing in the ruling that I'm aware of that would prevent Congress from passing a law on it. But I haven't read the whole ruling, and I'm certainly not an expert. So I'm open to being shown otherwise.
- Beltiras 4y agoAny legislation passed by congress will get challenged by the states that want to restrict abortion. This court will side with the state challenging the federal law.