Hacker News Reader

Comment by yieldcrv | Hacker News Reader

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 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.

View on HN

You "understand" and "think it is noteworthy" and "observe", but what do you "feel" about the people who've lost freedom today, because of the observable fact that this primarily happened due to the religious beliefs of the new members of the Supreme Court?

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.

I empathize with people that expected the option of one set of services and won’t have that.

And I'm sure that empathy is comforting to those who will now die because their miscarriage can't be handled in a medically sound way.

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.

That is a consequence of Congress not doing its job on this topic for 50 consecutive years.

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.

Or it's a consequence of the Supreme Court changing its precedent after 50 years of leaving it alone, and its members explicitly misrepresenting their position.

As I also mentioned in my first reply to you, 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.

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)

It's not a red herring, as it demonstrates that the protection via the Supreme Court was not in any jeopardy of failing to function, as it has successfully protected women's rights for over 50 years.

On extremely shaky ground. Had Roe v Wade not been decided as it was, there would now be legislation.

Which is something both Justice Alito “the religious right” and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “super left savior” agreed on!

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com