Hacker News Reader

Comment by PathOfEclipse | Hacker News Reader

They literally just overturned gun regulations that some states lawfully enacted. You’re cherry picking your views as much as the court is cherry picking their reading of the constitution.

They overturned "may issue" laws where you could meet all the training and qualifications to legally carry but a state official could make an arbitrary judgement call based on if you had a "good reason" to carry.

All states with "shall issue" are still in effect because its a straight here are the requirements, if you meet them and are not a prohibited person, you get your permit.

Also, the right to bear arms is explicitly enumerated in the constitution, so taking that right away isn't up to the states. The right to an abortion is not. So it goes to each state to decide.

It’s not explicitly enumerated more than anything else we’re talking about. It’s always up to interpretation. Does the constitution say where to draw line between me bearing a knife and a nuke? Nope, ‘arms’ is defined conveniently in the eyes of whoever’s in power when this is decided. That’s how all of this works!

> When liberal justices are in charge, they unconstitutionally force their will onto the people. When conservative justices are in charge, they just undo the damage of the liberal justices and place the power back in the hands of the people.

I'm sorry, who forced you to have an abortion?

> When liberal justices are in charge, they unconstitutionally force their will onto the people.

One person having a right to do something is not forcing it on anyone else.

> place the power back in the hands of the people.

A majority of "the people" do not agree with this decision. In fact, they were appointed by someone who did not have majority support, by a party that represents a minority of the actual population.

> The problem was activist judges making the Roe decision in the first place.

You just got a handful of judges making decisions based on their regligious beliefs. Please explain to me how you see that as different than an original decision?

The judges forced their morality on everyone by saying the constitution gave a right to an abortion. The constitution does no such thing, meaning the judges were acting as activists, legislating from the bench, rather than doing their jobs correctly. If you are honest, you should be able to say both that you are pro-abortion and that Roe v. wade was possibly the worst supreme court decision of the 20th century.

The secular argument against abortion is so incredibly simple: the unborn child has the right to life just as the mother does. Government is about managing the rights of everyone and balancing them when they come in conflict.

And, finally, abortion is forced on our society in the sense that our tax dollars fund it, our tax dollars fund public schools that promote it, and, if the left have their way, insurance companies will be forced to cover it, possibly free of charge: https://noqreport.com/2021/02/09/california-bill-would-force...

You are aware that Roe v. Wade was originally decided by a conservative court, right?

> The secular argument against abortion is so incredibly simple: the unborn child has the right to life just as the mother does. Government is about managing the rights of everyone and balancing them when they come in conflict.

That’s exactly what Roe managed to do for 50 years. Now there will be about half the country where these competing rights are not balanced, but tilt entirely in the favor of the fetus to the detriment of the woman.

> When liberal justices are in charge, they unconstitutionally force their will onto the people.

Gay marriage, which I enjoy, is not being "forced" on anyone.

A ban will affect green cards, force deportations and family breakups, and ruin the happiness of millions of Americans.

My country, which I love, is kicking me in the gut because some people are "uncomfortable".

this reads like satire

SCOTUS in 73 were not full of “activist judges”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com