3 ms·

The Supreme Court’s Role in the Degradation of U.S. Democracy

3 points by hkhn 4y ago

Bostonian 4y ago
The Constitution is silent on abortion, and until Roe v. Wade (1973), few people thought that it contained a right to abortion. The Supreme Court returning this issue to state legislatures is a strengthening of U.S. democracy. Similarly, the EPA decision requires far-reaching regulations to be created by the democratically elected Congress, not government agencies.
- jleyank 4y ago
  But it also forbids laws that regulate or promulgate religion, of which the abortion decision is based on. The constitution also specifically mentions a well regulated militia and unless all gun owners/fanatics are members they’re not in agreement with the founders intent. Something being instantly banned by half the country without resorting to, say, a referendum, doesn’t smack of democracy. There are other political movements that come to mind that better describe it.
  - Bostonian 4y ago
    The states where abortion is restricted have laws passed by legislatures, and voters can replace those legislatures. The vast majority of issues are not settled by referenda.
  - verdverm 4y ago
    The United States is a republic with distributed decision and rule making, mostly. The last century has seen a movement towards centralization and BigGov, much like all of society. Also, the second amendment is about more than a militia. Think back to that time and how necessary a gun was for survival generally, a.k.a. hunting and protecting one's self and property. The abortion issue is not about religion, it is about when life starts and people have different beliefs on that. It's probably an unsolvable problem because some don't want to listen to the science in this case?
    - jleyank 4y ago
      What is the science you refer to re: abortion? When the fetus is able to survive outside the mother? When fertilization occurs? At what time in between? I would think the non-religious argument is that "when the fetus is viable on its own outside the womb". This has moved backwards some number of weeks as medicine has improved, but I would think it's somewhere in the 6th month? And most of people's beliefs about things like when life starts are formed by or based on religion. And in the states currently banning abortion there does not seem to be any effort to actually keep pre- or post-birth children alive. It's limited to "you can't actively terminate a pregnancy/life, but it's ok to let it die by apathy".
      - verdverm 4y ago
        Viability outside the womb is typically later than consciousness begins, emotions develop, awareness of surroundings starts, and pain is felt. There is certainly an overlap with animal consciousness and our sentiments towards animal cruelty that I rarely see contributed to the context of these conversations. Point is that the world will never agree on a single answer, and so having a single rule for everyone doesn't make sense either. > I would think the non-religious argument is that "when the fetus is viable on its own outside the womb"/ and you would be wrong, because within the non-religious group, you get the full spectrum of opinions. You still seem attached to the idea that this is a religious debate, it is not. Complicate that with someone who believes life begins at conception, but still also supports pro-choice, something of a libertarian point of view. I know religious people, who believe life starts at conception, yet more than one who has had an abortion despite this. Life is messy, complicated, and full of hypocrisy.

3 points by hkhn 4y ago

The Constitution is silent on abortion, and until Roe v. Wade (1973), few people thought that it contained a right to abortion. The Supreme Court returning this issue to state legislatures is a strengthening of U.S. democracy. Similarly, the EPA decision requires far-reaching regulations to be created by the democratically elected Congress, not government agencies.

jleyank 4y ago
But it also forbids laws that regulate or promulgate religion, of which the abortion decision is based on. The constitution also specifically mentions a well regulated militia and unless all gun owners/fanatics are members they’re not in agreement with the founders intent. Something being instantly banned by half the country without resorting to, say, a referendum, doesn’t smack of democracy. There are other political movements that come to mind that better describe it.
- Bostonian 4y ago
  The states where abortion is restricted have laws passed by legislatures, and voters can replace those legislatures. The vast majority of issues are not settled by referenda.
- verdverm 4y ago
  The United States is a republic with distributed decision and rule making, mostly. The last century has seen a movement towards centralization and BigGov, much like all of society. Also, the second amendment is about more than a militia. Think back to that time and how necessary a gun was for survival generally, a.k.a. hunting and protecting one's self and property. The abortion issue is not about religion, it is about when life starts and people have different beliefs on that. It's probably an unsolvable problem because some don't want to listen to the science in this case?
  - jleyank 4y ago
    What is the science you refer to re: abortion? When the fetus is able to survive outside the mother? When fertilization occurs? At what time in between? I would think the non-religious argument is that "when the fetus is viable on its own outside the womb". This has moved backwards some number of weeks as medicine has improved, but I would think it's somewhere in the 6th month? And most of people's beliefs about things like when life starts are formed by or based on religion. And in the states currently banning abortion there does not seem to be any effort to actually keep pre- or post-birth children alive. It's limited to "you can't actively terminate a pregnancy/life, but it's ok to let it die by apathy".
    - verdverm 4y ago
      Viability outside the womb is typically later than consciousness begins, emotions develop, awareness of surroundings starts, and pain is felt. There is certainly an overlap with animal consciousness and our sentiments towards animal cruelty that I rarely see contributed to the context of these conversations. Point is that the world will never agree on a single answer, and so having a single rule for everyone doesn't make sense either. > I would think the non-religious argument is that "when the fetus is viable on its own outside the womb"/ and you would be wrong, because within the non-religious group, you get the full spectrum of opinions. You still seem attached to the idea that this is a religious debate, it is not. Complicate that with someone who believes life begins at conception, but still also supports pro-choice, something of a libertarian point of view. I know religious people, who believe life starts at conception, yet more than one who has had an abortion despite this. Life is messy, complicated, and full of hypocrisy.