4 ms·

The job of the US Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution, not pass laws. "Interpreting" the Constitution and concluding that it contains a right to abo

The job of the US Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution, not pass laws. "Interpreting" the Constitution and concluding that it contains a right to abortion, when the constitution says nothing whatsoever about abortion, was an absurdly "creative" interpretation. The left was undermining the constitution long before Donald Trump started to do so.

tavavex 1y ago
The US Supreme Court has engaged in "creative interpretations" for a very, very long time, considering that amending the US constitution seems to be utterly impossible. There's been no meaningful changes in over half a century. So, the flawed system in the country has led to probably over a hundred years of picking apart largely arcane documents that are utterly disconnected from modern life in attempts to map brand new concepts and ideas to those old documents, no matter what. Hell, the current leading school of thought of conservative-aligned law is that interpreting the constitution should be done by imagining what people surely must've thought all those centuries ago. Oddly enough, doing so allows you to make those imaginary historical figures think in whatever way you like! So, "the left" hasn't done it first, it's a practice that's much older than Roe v. Wade. Just see all the fun games that have long been played with using the Commerce Clause. And besides, your equation isn't fair in the slightest, where one of your sides undeniably grants people rights (even if on shaky grounds), while the other consolidates power and takes those rights away. But oddly enough, only the transgressions of the left have been mercifully corrected by the court, while some other new developments are to be left undisturbed for the foreseeable future. I wonder why?
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  >amending the US constitution seems to be utterly impossible. Amending the US constitution is not supposed to be easy. You are supposed to accomplish most tasks through legislation. I see no reason why the legality of abortion should not be accomplished through legislation. In any case, the constitution has been amended 17 times, most recently in 1992. I don't see any slam-dunk amendments which are in need of ratification. If amendments aren't being ratified, maybe it's because we don't have broad consensus on changes which should be made. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. With regard to the rest of your comment, you appear to be responding to something I didn't write. I didn't claim all transgressions were equivalent in magnitude, nor that "new developments" should be "left undisturbed". I think Trump is generally a terrible president. However, I see ways in which the left laid the foundations for Trump's transgressions by undermining the social contract in the US in a lot of different ways, and I want to persuade people that maintaining the social contract is inherently valuable in and of itself, the same way maintaining cooperation in an iterated prisoner's dilemma is valuable.
  - tavavex 1y ago
    It should definitely be difficult, the bar for changing a constitution is high in almost any functioning democracy. However, would you agree that it shouldn't be impossible either? Given that over a third of the currently standing amendments have all been passed in the same year the document was written, it seems undeniable that the rate has slowed dramatically, and the expansion of the country combined with the culture surrounding the constitution has effectively locked it. I wasn't talking directly about abortion, it just frustrates me to no end that the #1 method for passing major legislation (especially anything concerning rights of any kind) today isn't rational examination of the situation and lawmaking to support the best outcome, but having a partisan court wrangle an old constitution into the shape most appealing to them. No justifications are needed, since the way the American public is taught, the US founders are almost demigods who foresaw every permutation of history centuries into the future, so any explanation that leans on their writing, no matter how contrived, is correct. (Though, the difficulty of even passing laws is something I also noted, but omitted from the original comment. Why haven't they just passed abortion rights into law for those 50 or so years? Why is the judicial branch the main arm of enacting changes for the current changes, with the legislature largely choosing to do increasingly fewer things as time goes on?) Sorry about my snarky last paragraph - the last sentence of your original comment read as partisan for me, because the unspoken implication in it, at least to my ear, was that Trump's administration was the first on the right to meaningfully engage in judicial games (after the left had been doing it for a long time), and therefore that they're getting their fair comeuppance and making the score even.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
      >would you agree that it shouldn't be impossible either? I agree it shouldn't be impossible. >Given that over a third of the currently standing amendments have all been passed in the same year the document was written I don't think that's a fair comparison since those initial "amendments" are more like changes to the first draft, and didn't go through the usual amendment process. >I wasn't talking directly about abortion, it just frustrates me to no end that the #1 method for passing major legislation (especially anything concerning rights of any kind) today isn't rational examination of the situation and lawmaking to support the best outcome, but having a partisan court wrangle an old constitution into the shape most appealing to them. Agreed. Although, in some ways the Supreme Court is actually our least dysfunctional branch of government right now. So, could be worse? >the US founders are almost demigods They aren't demigods. But they were wildly successful in both creating a lasting, successful democracy, and popularizing the idea of democracy worldwide. It's hard to argue with results. (Keep in mind that right before the US Constitution was written, the union was on the verge of falling apart, and the main objective was simply to stabilize it.) My [non-expert!] view is something like: The founders' thinking about democracy was more lucid than, say, 90% of conversations about democracy today, but less lucid than, say, the top 1% of conversations about democracy today. I expect if we attempted to rewrite the constitution from scratch, we would get a worse result, since the rewrite would be dominated by the 90% of conversations that are less lucid. (For example, many people think the President should be chosen based on the popular vote instead of the electoral college, and neglect several important advantages the electoral college has which make it a superior method in my view.) As a concrete illustration of the "90% of conversations are less lucid" point: Voting systems theorists generally agree that ranked choice voting is inferior to plurality voting, but state ballot initiatives to replace plurality with ranked choice tend to fail. I expect if we rewrote the constitution, decisions would get made in this sort of manner. Perhaps one could handpick a team of experts to write a constitution that's actually better, but that would lack democratic legitimacy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ultimately, the path to improving the constitution lies in small-scale trial runs of better methods, and educating the public about e.g. the advantages of ranked choice over plurality. >Why haven't they just passed abortion rights into law for those 50 or so years? They have done so, in many states. (I'm very pro-federalism.) >Sorry about my snarky last paragraph Apology accepted, respect!
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  I think you are unnecessarily dismissive about the past and its lessons. Human nature and nature of power hasn't changed that much since the 18th century. In Continental Europe, the tradition is even longer and students of law start by studying Ancient Roman law, precisely in order to understand on which principles modern laws are built.
standardUser 1y ago
I said "nothing's ever over" when it comes to human rights, I did not say please offer me a dimwit's assessment of the role of the Supreme Court.

tavavex 1y ago

The US Supreme Court has engaged in "creative interpretations" for a very, very long time, considering that amending the US constitution seems to be utterly impossible. There's been no meaningful changes in over half a century. So, the flawed system in the country has led to probably over a hundred years of picking apart largely arcane documents that are utterly disconnected from modern life in attempts to map brand new concepts and ideas to those old documents, no matter what. Hell, the current leading school of thought of conservative-aligned law is that interpreting the constitution should be done by imagining what people surely must've thought all those centuries ago. Oddly enough, doing so allows you to make those imaginary historical figures think in whatever way you like! So, "the left" hasn't done it first, it's a practice that's much older than Roe v. Wade. Just see all the fun games that have long been played with using the Commerce Clause. And besides, your equation isn't fair in the slightest, where one of your sides undeniably grants people rights (even if on shaky grounds), while the other consolidates power and takes those rights away. But oddly enough, only the transgressions of the left have been mercifully corrected by the court, while some other new developments are to be left undisturbed for the foreseeable future. I wonder why?

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
>amending the US constitution seems to be utterly impossible. Amending the US constitution is not supposed to be easy. You are supposed to accomplish most tasks through legislation. I see no reason why the legality of abortion should not be accomplished through legislation. In any case, the constitution has been amended 17 times, most recently in 1992. I don't see any slam-dunk amendments which are in need of ratification. If amendments aren't being ratified, maybe it's because we don't have broad consensus on changes which should be made. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. With regard to the rest of your comment, you appear to be responding to something I didn't write. I didn't claim all transgressions were equivalent in magnitude, nor that "new developments" should be "left undisturbed". I think Trump is generally a terrible president. However, I see ways in which the left laid the foundations for Trump's transgressions by undermining the social contract in the US in a lot of different ways, and I want to persuade people that maintaining the social contract is inherently valuable in and of itself, the same way maintaining cooperation in an iterated prisoner's dilemma is valuable.
- tavavex 1y ago
  It should definitely be difficult, the bar for changing a constitution is high in almost any functioning democracy. However, would you agree that it shouldn't be impossible either? Given that over a third of the currently standing amendments have all been passed in the same year the document was written, it seems undeniable that the rate has slowed dramatically, and the expansion of the country combined with the culture surrounding the constitution has effectively locked it. I wasn't talking directly about abortion, it just frustrates me to no end that the #1 method for passing major legislation (especially anything concerning rights of any kind) today isn't rational examination of the situation and lawmaking to support the best outcome, but having a partisan court wrangle an old constitution into the shape most appealing to them. No justifications are needed, since the way the American public is taught, the US founders are almost demigods who foresaw every permutation of history centuries into the future, so any explanation that leans on their writing, no matter how contrived, is correct. (Though, the difficulty of even passing laws is something I also noted, but omitted from the original comment. Why haven't they just passed abortion rights into law for those 50 or so years? Why is the judicial branch the main arm of enacting changes for the current changes, with the legislature largely choosing to do increasingly fewer things as time goes on?) Sorry about my snarky last paragraph - the last sentence of your original comment read as partisan for me, because the unspoken implication in it, at least to my ear, was that Trump's administration was the first on the right to meaningfully engage in judicial games (after the left had been doing it for a long time), and therefore that they're getting their fair comeuppance and making the score even.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
    >would you agree that it shouldn't be impossible either? I agree it shouldn't be impossible. >Given that over a third of the currently standing amendments have all been passed in the same year the document was written I don't think that's a fair comparison since those initial "amendments" are more like changes to the first draft, and didn't go through the usual amendment process. >I wasn't talking directly about abortion, it just frustrates me to no end that the #1 method for passing major legislation (especially anything concerning rights of any kind) today isn't rational examination of the situation and lawmaking to support the best outcome, but having a partisan court wrangle an old constitution into the shape most appealing to them. Agreed. Although, in some ways the Supreme Court is actually our least dysfunctional branch of government right now. So, could be worse? >the US founders are almost demigods They aren't demigods. But they were wildly successful in both creating a lasting, successful democracy, and popularizing the idea of democracy worldwide. It's hard to argue with results. (Keep in mind that right before the US Constitution was written, the union was on the verge of falling apart, and the main objective was simply to stabilize it.) My [non-expert!] view is something like: The founders' thinking about democracy was more lucid than, say, 90% of conversations about democracy today, but less lucid than, say, the top 1% of conversations about democracy today. I expect if we attempted to rewrite the constitution from scratch, we would get a worse result, since the rewrite would be dominated by the 90% of conversations that are less lucid. (For example, many people think the President should be chosen based on the popular vote instead of the electoral college, and neglect several important advantages the electoral college has which make it a superior method in my view.) As a concrete illustration of the "90% of conversations are less lucid" point: Voting systems theorists generally agree that ranked choice voting is inferior to plurality voting, but state ballot initiatives to replace plurality with ranked choice tend to fail. I expect if we rewrote the constitution, decisions would get made in this sort of manner. Perhaps one could handpick a team of experts to write a constitution that's actually better, but that would lack democratic legitimacy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ultimately, the path to improving the constitution lies in small-scale trial runs of better methods, and educating the public about e.g. the advantages of ranked choice over plurality. >Why haven't they just passed abortion rights into law for those 50 or so years? They have done so, in many states. (I'm very pro-federalism.) >Sorry about my snarky last paragraph Apology accepted, respect!
inglor_cz 1y ago
I think you are unnecessarily dismissive about the past and its lessons. Human nature and nature of power hasn't changed that much since the 18th century. In Continental Europe, the tradition is even longer and students of law start by studying Ancient Roman law, precisely in order to understand on which principles modern laws are built.

standardUser 1y ago

I said "nothing's ever over" when it comes to human rights, I did not say please offer me a dimwit's assessment of the role of the Supreme Court.