4 ms·

This is not the story. The story is Roe v. Wade overturned due to heinous corruption of the US political process in favour of the religious right and free mark

by dools 4y ago

This is not the story. The story is Roe v. Wade overturned due to heinous corruption of the US political process in favour of the religious right and free market libertarians.

concordDance 4y ago
Roe v. Wade was a corruption of the political progress (and I say this as a non-american pro-abortionist). If you want to have a law on abortion make an actual law.
- krapp 4y ago
  I mean, SCOTUS said otherwise for fifty years. They decide what is and isn't legitimate and it was fair play until last year. I agree with you in principle but AFAIK "actual laws" have never been necessary when the SCOTUS has declared a Constitutional right. Individual states don't need to codify a right to keep and bear arms, or freedom of speech or religion, nor can they choose to re-enable slavery or segregation, because those have all been decided at a higher level.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Yes, but a caveat by SCOTUS has the lifetime of a given group of justices. If you want that law to be effectively immortal, it needs to be implemented through the legislature, not backdoored through judicial fiat. "Legislating from the bench" is considered poor form in legal circles for a reason.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    SCOTUS has said plenty of stupid things (e.g. Dred Scott). Laws are the right way to do things. And it's somewhat unclear to me why this should be a federal issue at all... isn't murder a state issue?
    - krapp 4y ago
      >And it's somewhat unclear to me why this should be a federal issue at all... isn't murder a state issue? That's an odd framing for a self-described "pro-abortionist" to use, but no, obviously federal law against murder exists[0]. But of course the question of whether or not abortion is a matter of murder, fundamental bodily autonomy or both is a quagmire not worth getting into. Not that it's relevant to Roe v. Wade, or its appeal, because that rested on the question of the existence of a fundamental right to privacy and stare decisis. I mean, read the dissenting opinions on Dobbs[1]. I think a good case is made there as to why this shouldn't be an issue left to the states, and why Roe wasn't repealed because it was bad law, but because the court was stacked with ideologues who were opposed to Roe for religious reasons. You should be at least as angry about that as Roe itself, if not more so because that represents a far more egregious corruption of the system, but I suspect you aren't. [0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111 [1]https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/read-supreme-court-dissent-opinion-on-roe-v-wade-pdf-00042264 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/read-supreme-court-...
- mch82 4y ago
  The Constitution grants rights by default. Laws are only needed to remove rights. > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
nilmask 4y ago
Safeguarding the privacy of a user's personal information is a technological problem that should be solved through the development and correct usage of cryptographic primitives that secure that data.
- dools 4y ago
  I completely disagree. If you're trying to subvert the political/legal process through innovation then you're only accelerating the path to dystopia.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- salawat 4y ago
  Wrong. It's a people problem. Any technological measure capable of reliably recovering information will be utilized or forced to be tapped by law enforcement. The problem is the law. The solution is not tech. The solution is changing the law. The cryptographic primitive approach is an elitist wet dream. The moment you employ it in enough sketchy contexts, then it itself will be seen as evidence of criminal doing. The UK/Europe has already been sniffing in that direction w.r.t possession of heavily encrypted phone handsets/telephony systems.
krapp 4y ago
That's not even the story. The story is Roe v. Wade was overturned due to the US political process working exactly as it as designed to, with the religious right telegraphing their play for decades, and progressives doing nothing about it except trying to fundraise on the aftermath.
- projektfu 4y ago
  That's not entirely true. They also bought candles and tote bags. More seriously, there has been substantial opposition to the anti-abortion long game but it's not easy to secure abortion rights in Nebraska from NY without federal law. But Roe made securing abortion federally a little moot and maybe not the hill a slim majority wants to die on when they have other priorities. Then they didn't get justices to retire when they could be replaced, although it's questionable that would have been allowed to happen anyway. Bad strategy but not complete inaction. They have been trying to oppose laws in states but gerrymandering means that the Right gets unfairly more representation in those states like Georgia.

by dools 4y ago

This is not the story. The story is Roe v. Wade overturned due to heinous corruption of the US political process in favour of the religious right and free market libertarians.

concordDance 4y ago

Roe v. Wade was a corruption of the political progress (and I say this as a non-american pro-abortionist). If you want to have a law on abortion make an actual law.

krapp 4y ago
I mean, SCOTUS said otherwise for fifty years. They decide what is and isn't legitimate and it was fair play until last year. I agree with you in principle but AFAIK "actual laws" have never been necessary when the SCOTUS has declared a Constitutional right. Individual states don't need to codify a right to keep and bear arms, or freedom of speech or religion, nor can they choose to re-enable slavery or segregation, because those have all been decided at a higher level.
- salawat 4y ago
  Yes, but a caveat by SCOTUS has the lifetime of a given group of justices. If you want that law to be effectively immortal, it needs to be implemented through the legislature, not backdoored through judicial fiat. "Legislating from the bench" is considered poor form in legal circles for a reason.
- concordDance 4y ago
  SCOTUS has said plenty of stupid things (e.g. Dred Scott). Laws are the right way to do things. And it's somewhat unclear to me why this should be a federal issue at all... isn't murder a state issue?
  - krapp 4y ago
    >And it's somewhat unclear to me why this should be a federal issue at all... isn't murder a state issue? That's an odd framing for a self-described "pro-abortionist" to use, but no, obviously federal law against murder exists[0]. But of course the question of whether or not abortion is a matter of murder, fundamental bodily autonomy or both is a quagmire not worth getting into. Not that it's relevant to Roe v. Wade, or its appeal, because that rested on the question of the existence of a fundamental right to privacy and stare decisis. I mean, read the dissenting opinions on Dobbs[1]. I think a good case is made there as to why this shouldn't be an issue left to the states, and why Roe wasn't repealed because it was bad law, but because the court was stacked with ideologues who were opposed to Roe for religious reasons. You should be at least as angry about that as Roe itself, if not more so because that represents a far more egregious corruption of the system, but I suspect you aren't. [0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111 [1]https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/read-supreme-court-dissent-opinion-on-roe-v-wade-pdf-00042264 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/read-supreme-court-...
mch82 4y ago
The Constitution grants rights by default. Laws are only needed to remove rights. > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

nilmask 4y ago

Safeguarding the privacy of a user's personal information is a technological problem that should be solved through the development and correct usage of cryptographic primitives that secure that data.

dools 4y ago
I completely disagree. If you're trying to subvert the political/legal process through innovation then you're only accelerating the path to dystopia.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
salawat 4y ago
Wrong. It's a people problem. Any technological measure capable of reliably recovering information will be utilized or forced to be tapped by law enforcement. The problem is the law. The solution is not tech. The solution is changing the law. The cryptographic primitive approach is an elitist wet dream. The moment you employ it in enough sketchy contexts, then it itself will be seen as evidence of criminal doing. The UK/Europe has already been sniffing in that direction w.r.t possession of heavily encrypted phone handsets/telephony systems.

krapp 4y ago

That's not even the story. The story is Roe v. Wade was overturned due to the US political process working exactly as it as designed to, with the religious right telegraphing their play for decades, and progressives doing nothing about it except trying to fundraise on the aftermath.

projektfu 4y ago
That's not entirely true. They also bought candles and tote bags. More seriously, there has been substantial opposition to the anti-abortion long game but it's not easy to secure abortion rights in Nebraska from NY without federal law. But Roe made securing abortion federally a little moot and maybe not the hill a slim majority wants to die on when they have other priorities. Then they didn't get justices to retire when they could be replaced, although it's questionable that would have been allowed to happen anyway. Bad strategy but not complete inaction. They have been trying to oppose laws in states but gerrymandering means that the Right gets unfairly more representation in those states like Georgia.