Hacker News Reader

Comment by YPPH | Hacker News Reader

As an Australian, a few things about the SCOTUS absolutely shock me, aside from the obvious issue of politicisation.

I've only skimmed the judgment, but Roberts CJ convincingly points out that there was no need for the court to completely overturn Roe. It would suffice to jettison the viability standard. Going further was completely unnecessary to decide the case.

On the other hand, Thomas J took the occasion, without having heard complete argument on the respective issues, to opine that other substantive due process rights should be reconsidered. Including Griswold (no banning controceptives), Lawrence (no banning sodomy), and Obergefell (no banning gay marriage). This is simply astounding.

The second is the sheer hypocrisy of the members of the court who decry judicial activism while, in the next breath, engaging in the same.

I wish you luck for the future, Americans.

View on HN

Roe stood for years because the decision directly tied it to the right to privacy (via the 9th and 14th amendments), because that right "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy". The Supreme Court reverses itself in this Dobbs decision; skimming the final decision, it attempts to tear down the original justification, but I'm not seeing an argument beyond "we think they were wrong", which is a pretty awful rationale for the Supreme Court.

> "we think they were wrong", which is a pretty awful rationale for the Supreme Court.

What exactly are you looking for that would count as a rationale that doesn't boil down to "we think they were wrong"?

The decision threw out Roe entirely (Roberts' concurrence notwithstanding) -- and Roe was based on two legal theories: a right to privacy (implied, but not made explicit, in the Bill of Rights, and interpreted by Roe to be under the 9th and 14th amendments), and that a law that could only be enforced via unconstitutional searches was itself unconstitutional. Alito's decision doesn't tackle _how_ Roe was wrong, it simply declares that the court erred when it considered those privacy rights.

In my opinion, It's up to the federal government to make federal laws, not the supreme court. Democrats had _plenty_ of time to put the right for abortion into a law and pass it. Now, they have a platform on which to run for the next election, convenient...

Politicians delegate too many decisions to the SCOTUS because they don't want to govern, well the SCOTUS isn't supposed to govern in their place.

If nothing can get done at Washington, then the problem is at Washington itself, not the supreme court.

I would buy this as an argument if the Court, when presented with ways to absolutely improve the legislative situation, add more checks and balances to the legislature, and make it more democratic, doesn’t turn around and do the opposite (gerrymandering and Citizens United are two obvious examples).

i think it's a twrrible decision, but you have a point policians can keep kicking issues into the long grass- ultinately it will land on scotus and they have to make a decision

The problem as always is the silent filibuster. If obstructionists in the senate actually had to stand up and defend their obstruction more things would get done.

Laws like that would only be possible in certain years where there’s a majority across all 3 branches (e.g. 2008) and neutered when the other branch is in power.

Arguably a supreme court decision is more stable.

A constitutional amendment would be most stable but we will never get to that level of state support

The democrats would not have been able to make the right for abortion into a law during that period. And women should not have to suffer because the republic is dysfunctional.

“Judicial activism” refers to striking down state laws. In this case they upheld a law.

I mean…no it doesn’t.

That’s nonsense.

Does that equally apply to gun rights ?

The states can ban abortion but not ban concealed carry.

Yes I would say the gun rights decision was judicial activism.

I've never heard such a limiting definition for judicial activism. It's typically understood more broadly as a criticism of American judges who, according to some, go beyond their duties of "interpreting law" and instead create it. To borrow from conservapedia (a resource I wouldn't otherwise defend, except in this limited case), it's "when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court."

Judicial activism is altering laws according to what the judge likes, usurping a legislative role. The supreme court striking down state laws is the typical form of such abuse because the typical supreme court case is deciding whether a certain new law has a problem.

Roe vs. Wade is practically almost the same as a law that allows abortion, the other threatened precedents cited in the other comments are similarly almost laws that allow various rights, and so there is very little "upholding" of existing laws in this demolition and threatened demolition of "liberal" norms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com