This isn't a codebase refactor, this is people's lives. Pulling this ruling before you have "what the people want" in place is like deleting a feature you plan on rebuilding later before you actually rebuild it.
Nobody in their right mind thinks that's a good idea in any other context, so why would it make sense here?
I do NOT share that viewpoint. But we are a republic. And the Supreme Court doesn’t issue law, that’s Congress’s responsibility.
What this represents is not a code refactor but a Change to a comment in the code base on what a function does.
The Supreme Court didn't issue a law here, they changed their interpretation of a decision they had made 50 years prior, for no reason at all except that the composition of the court had changed.
That's like hiring a new guy and his first action is to remove an entire technology that was propping up your infrastructure, because it wasn't being stored in the "correct" VCS.
In that case would you want the court to instead state, well a decision 50 years ago was made. So we wont change it. The US Congress needs to pass a law explicitly granting woman the right to vote. Such-as with say Minor v. Happersett, "Court held that, while women are no less citizens than men are, citizenship does not confer a right to vote, and therefore state laws barring women from voting are constitutionally valid"
A good court in a Democratic government must be objective in interpretation of law . And the system is such that it is the US Congress's responsibility to pass law.
There is zero legitimate reason for this to be reversed now, compared to after it’s been codified in the legislature.
But all of this is a silly distraction. The real reason has nothing at all to do with what the court’s role should be, and everything to do with the religion of the people currently serving on the court.
To keep the tech analogies going, it’s like a new tech lead deleting the web app code because be doesn’t believe in monorepos, but saying it’s a security issue.
You’re inferring that the court made it’s decision on a religious reason, and you’re entitled to your inference.
So here’s my inference, as an atheist conservative. No the Supreme Court did not overturn the case for religious reasons. They overturned it exactly for the reasons they stated:
“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives”
The legitimate reason it is reversed _now_ is that it is _now_ when the matter is before them in the court of law that conflicts with Roe in a way that is hard to reconcile against precedent.
If your complaint is that it hasn't been codified into law by the legislature since 1973 (and you're right -- it hasn't) that is not the fault of the judicial branch, rather the legislative.
To borrow from your analogy, it's more like a repository deprecating its code, watching everybody for years claim that "they're going to delete this any minute now" and nobody stepping to the plate to take over as maintainer.
When your action is the proximate cause of the revocation of freedom from 165m people, it's definitely 'your fault'."
This may not have been a great way to keep women safe forever, but today was not the day it needed fixing.
It is not the job of the Supreme Court to care for the reproductive health of the American people. Of the federal government, that would either be the job of the executive or the legislature, depending on your preferred view of the executive branch.
If the Supreme Court cannot do this, it should not exist.
It exists to referee the non-violent resolution of a subset of emotionally charged disputes through a functioning legal system. It does not exist to ensure that one side or the other wins.
At least four sitting justices were put on the court specifically to ensure this ruling occurred.
Those things are only useful if they help people. The root purpose of any system of government to exist is to provide for the health and happiness of the governed.
If any system of government fails to do that, it is broken, and the fact that you've lost sight of the entire purpose of government is both sad and entirely predictable.
And cool it with the personal attacks. That kind of behavior is inappropriate.
And it's in the court now because this is the first time in 50 years that we've had a court regressive enough to vote it down.
It hadn't been codified in law because there wasn't a need because the court's had settled the issue.
To follow your analogy it's like finally removing that deprecated code after 50 years and seeing side-effects across the code base that are hugely disruptive to a tiny percent of users and anger inducing to a majority, while also making a minority of users feel smug about it finally being removed.
This is silly. It's basically always in the courts. This particular case has been ongoing since 2018 IIRC. Before that it was June Medical. Before that it was Whole Women's Health v Hellerstedt.
> It hadn't been codified in law because there wasn't a need because the court's had settled the issue
Except it had not legislatively, and it needed to have been. At the same time as Ruth Bader Ginsburg was lamenting the flaws of Roe halting legislative process that she knew still needed to happen, Joe Biden was proposing amendments to overturn Roe v Wade so that abortion could be outlawed.
It is and always has been balanced on the head of a pin. Both sides have of course been using it more as a platform for fund-raising than doing anything legislatively, while warning that the other side was moments away from winning. Please donate $5, $10, or $50 to the cause.
The boundaries of Roe v Wade have been debated for a looong time, especially as new medical technology have come out but this case only existed because conservatives believed they had a good chance of overturning Roe.
That isn't a good analogy. A better analogy is the security team modifying ACLs that allow them push changes. It may be a destructive change, but it's outside of scope of the security team.
Shouldn't have been in the CS datacenter, so screw the customers and the business as a whole who relied on that system, right?
Except the vast majority do support abortion. I really don't care what "a large portion" of America thinks, the majority thinks it should be a right but due to the way we cast votes for presidents we have the minority picking supreme court seats and thus giving us this decision.
That is not true, they are a very loud minority. Most polling puts people who really care about banning abortion (in the ways it is being done right now) at below 20%.
The reason it is not passing legislation is because the Senate (which is required) is not a democratic institution. A state like Wyoming has 65x more voting power than a state like California. Current the Senate sits at 50/50 yet one side represents 40M more citizens than the other.
Is this backed up by data or your personal view? Because every piece of data that I've seen is that only ~30% of americans support a ban of abortion, while the large majority are in favor for it being legal.
30% is a “large portion of America”, is it not? It may not be a majority, but it’s enough to be a majority in some states.
Within the bounds of what is permitted by the Constitution. If you believe that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution, then laws are irrelevant, as this is outside the bounds of what law is permitted to be written.
Body autonomy means I don't have to catch a disease because other people are too selfish to get a vaccine that is only experimental in the same way air and water is experimental.
I never said they were. But if you're going to make an argument about bodily autonomy then how you can you be OK with forcing people getting a medical treatment they do not want?
Vaccination protects you from the disease. Vaccinating a 3rd party does not, we've been over this already.
The COVID vaccine was in fact experimental and it only received an "Emergency Use Authorization" by the FDA. How about you check some basic facts before you respond?
The Republicans fought tooth and nail against even simple mask mandates but now want to legislate what happens in a woman's uterus in the name of "protecting life"? What a joke.
Yes, it was also hilarious to see Democrat politicians vacationing in Florida maskless while their constituents had to follow illogical mask rules back home. Heck, in some cases they don't even pretend to care about these rules themselves (see MET gala and the countless of "parties" these politicians went to maskless).
> now want to legislate what happens in a woman's uterus in the name of "protecting life"? What a joke.
The supreme court did not ban abortion, so your argument is moot here. I'm personally OK with abortion in the early stages. But I'd argue that there's a line where a woman's "bodily autonomy" ends and a prenate's bodily autonomy begins where abortion becomes more than the equivalent of removing an appendix.
65% of the USA currently says that Roe v. Wade shouldn't be overturned.
I am willing to empathize with the denial of service but thats it.
Congress was the more appropriate federal authority to be a legislature, and failed to do so. In the absence of a federal law passed by Congress, state ones are the only ones that matter.
The topic of how long the ruling lasted is a complete red herring, as this is not out of character for the court at all.
I don’t feel like the convenience of having the court being so hard to overrule is a good enough reason for it to act as a superlegislature when convenient.
I am the same way on this regarding all topics. On this specific topic, in the past I had tried to point out how odd Roe v Wade was with the court acting as a superlegislature but I quickly learned this was not a conversation people were willing to have as they couldnt separate the “camps” from the case(s) so I stopped bringing it up. I’m glad that this case forces the conversation.
Are you really going to pretend not to understand why this ruling came now, when the religious right just so happened to be in charge of the Supreme Court, and not at any other time in the past 50 years?
I completely understand that only one party is willing to make that interpretation on this topic. I think it is noteworthy that “the religious right” did not act as a superlegislature itself, given the opportunity, and simply removed it back to Congress or the states when in the absence of a law from Congress.
I observe that there are or were other ways to reach the outcome that the other party wants, that party has bungled all of those ways, and will likely continue to do so.
Not caring about the people for whom the system is designed for is exactly what makes this such a monumental problem. If the system doesn't work for the people it's designed to work for, it the outcomes don't reflect their will, then it's a broken system.
If this is the "correct" way, then the system might need to be torn down and rebuilt, possibly violently. Consider that as you avoid empathizing with those affected.
Possibly less so to their loved ones, some of whom may act violently in response to a system that killed a person they care about.
I doubt they're going to care meaningfully about which legal mechanism it was that would have been most appropriate to use to allow their loved one to live.
Contact your state and Congressional representations and find legislative candidates that are as passionate on this topic as you are, if there arent other causes you are more passionate about that different candidates care about of course.
It is accurate that several judges lied to Congress during their nomination process and we do not have remedies or sanctions for that. (That are deemed politically rational)
Paradoxically, the Roe decision created the division that has far extremes. A false dilemma of which there are many other possibilities. Also something those two justices agreed on.
Congress avoided the topic for 50 straight years, masquerading the ruling as good enough, now it continues to lack consensus for anything else, its up to the people to attempt something else. If consensus cannot be reached then consensus cannot be reached, which is something I empathize with, people need to optimize their use more effectively and conform it to the consensus mechanisms of this country. Generate proposals that are more inspired and would have broader consensus, of which I do have a few.
We should give some deference to precedent, but the rule of law is paramount. Consider what the opposite of the rule of law really entails, or how hard won that victory was.
What is legal != what is just, ethical, or moral.
Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree. We can't organize society to run on what is just, ethical, or moral. We can only make laws based on our understanding of those things. Our understanding of morality changes over time. Where the law is unjust, we should change the law. Abandoning the rule law ends badly.