5 ms·

When you’re trying to make the argument that privacy is fundamentally important, you can strengthen your argument by respecting other people’s privacy. These j

by drooby 4y ago

When you’re trying to make the argument that privacy is fundamentally important, you can strengthen your argument by respecting other people’s privacy. These judges have opinions about interpretations of written law. If you want your views and beliefs codified into law, contact your representatives, not the judges - which is how it should have dealt with in the first place - as described by the opinion. Personal attacks/threats on judges is a saddening sight for the health of our democracy.

bergenty 4y ago
- sn0w_crash 4y ago
  Lumping In the Supreme Court justices with the Jan 6th mob is irresponsible at best, and intentionally dishonest at worst. Surely you can’t seriously think this.
  - olliej 4y ago
    You mean the one whose wife was literally part of it? Or the ones appointed by the people who attempted to violently overthrow the government?
  - CmdrLoskene 4y ago
    You haven't been paying attention, I see. Ginni Thomas was in on the January 6th plot, and it strains credulity to believe Clarence Thomas didn't have his fingers in that pie along with her.
olliej 4y ago
Do you really think these judges (that lied under oath during their confirmation, and made absolute nonsense claims in their decision) won’t immediately override any federal legislation as states rights? They have already made the EPA, CRA, etc as close to meaningless as possible.
ninth_ant 4y ago
You are lying to yourself if you believe this is an issue of law interpretation. It cannot be a coincidence that justices vote with cultural and party lines with great consistency. Judges are put in place as political weapons to achieve specific results. In this case, deployed to control women. Your advice for them to sit down, be quiet, and mind their manners is quaint and ineffective.
jasonlaramburu 4y ago
>When you’re trying to make the argument that privacy is fundamentally important, you can strengthen your argument by respecting other people’s privacy. Why is the converse not true as well? If one believes the constitution does not protect the right to individual privacy, then don't expect it.
- yucky 4y ago
  That's not what the ruling was though. And it makes sense. "If" a fetus is a viable human at some point, then claiming privacy when ending its life wouldn't pass muster any more than privately killing someone in your basement would. It's not a matter of privacy. Privacy has nothing to do with it, which was their point. Roe was always on shaky ground and it's surprising it took 50 years to get overturned. Meanwhile, these issues can and should be solved through legislation, not cutesy legal arguments in front of judges.
CmdrLoskene 4y ago
I don't see what they're so mad about. There's no enumerated right of privacy in the Constitution, after all, and it's not deeply rooted in our history and traditions, so they have nothing to complain about. (Alito's words, not mine)
IceMetalPunk 4y ago
"These judges have ruled that privacy is not important enough to be guaranteed. Therefore, no good will come of showing them the dangers of a lack of privacy." This is called a proof by contradiction. You strengthen the argument that "privacy is important" by assuming it's not, then showing how that leads to contradictory (or, in this less formal scenario, undesirable) results. That then supports the argument that privacy is important. And as it creates personal and emotional investments for the judges making these decisions, it's one of the most effective ways to do so. People rarely listen to reason and logic unless they're professional STEM folks discussing STEM topics (and sometimes not even then). People often listen to personal consequences of their decisions. Am I saying it's right that they were doxxed? No. But it certainly is a sound and effective argument against the judges' decision, and perhaps might be the lesser of two evils here if it actually motivates them to rethink their belief that privacy isn't/shouldn't be legally protected in the US.
- AinderS 4y ago
  > These judges have ruled that privacy is not important enough to be guaranteed. You fundamentally misunderstand the role of judges. They do not rule on how important different values are - they rule on what the written law means.
  - johng 4y ago
    I agree with this... and my understanding of their logic is that it was never a federal issue and should have been a state issue the whole time. Now, I personally feel the states should ALSO say that it is none of their business and treat it as such. That would be the proper way. So I agree with their ruling, but I also agree that unfortunately the states are going to have their own laws. I much prefer this over the government controlling the entire country via this method. The whole idea of statehood is that people of that state vote on the direction of the state. You then move around the US to find a state that is more aligned with your values. Just my 2c.
    - IceMetalPunk 4y ago

by drooby 4y ago

bergenty 4y ago

sn0w_crash 4y ago
Lumping In the Supreme Court justices with the Jan 6th mob is irresponsible at best, and intentionally dishonest at worst. Surely you can’t seriously think this.
- olliej 4y ago
  You mean the one whose wife was literally part of it? Or the ones appointed by the people who attempted to violently overthrow the government?
- CmdrLoskene 4y ago
  You haven't been paying attention, I see. Ginni Thomas was in on the January 6th plot, and it strains credulity to believe Clarence Thomas didn't have his fingers in that pie along with her.

olliej 4y ago

Do you really think these judges (that lied under oath during their confirmation, and made absolute nonsense claims in their decision) won’t immediately override any federal legislation as states rights? They have already made the EPA, CRA, etc as close to meaningless as possible.

ninth_ant 4y ago

You are lying to yourself if you believe this is an issue of law interpretation. It cannot be a coincidence that justices vote with cultural and party lines with great consistency. Judges are put in place as political weapons to achieve specific results. In this case, deployed to control women. Your advice for them to sit down, be quiet, and mind their manners is quaint and ineffective.

jasonlaramburu 4y ago

>When you’re trying to make the argument that privacy is fundamentally important, you can strengthen your argument by respecting other people’s privacy. Why is the converse not true as well? If one believes the constitution does not protect the right to individual privacy, then don't expect it.

yucky 4y ago
That's not what the ruling was though. And it makes sense. "If" a fetus is a viable human at some point, then claiming privacy when ending its life wouldn't pass muster any more than privately killing someone in your basement would. It's not a matter of privacy. Privacy has nothing to do with it, which was their point. Roe was always on shaky ground and it's surprising it took 50 years to get overturned. Meanwhile, these issues can and should be solved through legislation, not cutesy legal arguments in front of judges.

CmdrLoskene 4y ago

I don't see what they're so mad about. There's no enumerated right of privacy in the Constitution, after all, and it's not deeply rooted in our history and traditions, so they have nothing to complain about. (Alito's words, not mine)

IceMetalPunk 4y ago

"These judges have ruled that privacy is not important enough to be guaranteed. Therefore, no good will come of showing them the dangers of a lack of privacy." This is called a proof by contradiction. You strengthen the argument that "privacy is important" by assuming it's not, then showing how that leads to contradictory (or, in this less formal scenario, undesirable) results. That then supports the argument that privacy is important. And as it creates personal and emotional investments for the judges making these decisions, it's one of the most effective ways to do so. People rarely listen to reason and logic unless they're professional STEM folks discussing STEM topics (and sometimes not even then). People often listen to personal consequences of their decisions. Am I saying it's right that they were doxxed? No. But it certainly is a sound and effective argument against the judges' decision, and perhaps might be the lesser of two evils here if it actually motivates them to rethink their belief that privacy isn't/shouldn't be legally protected in the US.

AinderS 4y ago
> These judges have ruled that privacy is not important enough to be guaranteed. You fundamentally misunderstand the role of judges. They do not rule on how important different values are - they rule on what the written law means.
- johng 4y ago
  I agree with this... and my understanding of their logic is that it was never a federal issue and should have been a state issue the whole time. Now, I personally feel the states should ALSO say that it is none of their business and treat it as such. That would be the proper way. So I agree with their ruling, but I also agree that unfortunately the states are going to have their own laws. I much prefer this over the government controlling the entire country via this method. The whole idea of statehood is that people of that state vote on the direction of the state. You then move around the US to find a state that is more aligned with your values. Just my 2c.
  - IceMetalPunk 4y ago