Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsol | Hacker News Reader

>that most people have not read their religious texts.

What do you think qualifies you to judge if most Hindus have not read the Rig Veda, most sikhs have not read the Adi Granth, most Muslims have not read the Quran, most jews have not read the Torah, etc for every religion?

I find people take the experience they have with one particular religion around them, and then paint all religious people the same way. It's very strange because it makes no sense, yet even in places with very well read people like HN you see it all the time. I certainly agree there is a lot of polarization in the world right now

View on HN

ok. what did you think about the rest of the post besides the topic sentence. have you read supreme court cases that people elevate to the importance of religious texts? if so, what did you think of them, if not have you weighed in on these topics before because that was the actual point.

Sorry, I agree with the rest of it. That part is just a pet peeve of mine so it distracted me-- but actually I do agree. I myself haven't read any detailed judgements by the Supreme Court, very few people do.

I think people judge the outcome of these very consequential lethal decisions morally rather than based on their legal merits. In fact I doubt most people are equipped to judge cases on their lethal merits. At the end of the day if a badly supported law is passed that many people agree with, they'll go along with it. If a well supported law that people disagree with is passed, they'll complain until someone finds a problem with it no matter how minor or abstract. Many people don't understand that legality=/=morality, or they desperately want them to be the same

FWIW, I would encourage you to read the leaked text.

I have read a few opinions of the Supreme Court over the years. I have no specific background in law, and I am not even a native English speaker, but I have found them uniformly accessible to a layman. They use a dozen or so boilerplate latin expressions that you need to get used to, but they are otherwise fairly readable.

The leaked text by Mr. Alito is a masterpiece of English prose and scholarship, in my opinion. In 90 pages or so, it explains the history of the issue and the legal theories that common-law judges have advanced since the 14th century. It analyzes the arguments in favor and against Roe and Wade. It also summarizes the legal handling of the issue in various US states.

Irrespective of whether or not you agree with the conclusion, these opinions are one of the few pieces of contemporary literature worth reading. I myself am looking forward to the final form of this text (should the Court decide to uphold it) as well as all the dissenting opinions, which I expect to be of similarly high caliber.

I actually got a chuckle out of the 30 pages of statutes from places that are now US states and territories from 1850 till 1973.

Thought it was odd and hurried to include Hawaii's 1850 statute. Since it was neither a territory or state then. Wish I knew a news source or discussion board that could find this stuff moderately entertaining, instead of looking for angles to discredit the entire institution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com