Comment by qalmakka | Hacker News Reader

Comment by qalmakka | Hacker News Reader

The fact that people can't see that the conservatives are basically advocating worldwide for short term economic growth in exchange for basically our future is appalling to me.

I am afraid we will see an immense amount of instability, increased poverty, mass migrations and authoritarian regimes rising up due to the fact that we couldn't manage to convince people that those parties do not care about them.

In a previous post I wrote that conservatives everywhere use moral issues to make people enraged in order to get vote, and in exchange to that they use their power to help the rich get richer. This is exactly what I was talking about. Those Conservative judges were appointed by a President elected by people that rallied behind him hoping to see Roe overturned, and in exchange for that they also gave them a free pass to alter the US political system in a way that is favourable to the Republican party, i.e. the party of big industry and capital.

This is also another small hint that "countries" are a stupid concept - we must stop to pretend that a single country is an island, everything has consequences that irradiate and reflect on the rest of the world, and it's stupid to think everyone can be a ruler of its own tiny spot of our planet.

Countries are like homes, but they aren't cottages in the middle of nowhere, they are flats - if you set your own house on fire, everyone will suffer, everyone will lose something, if not everything.

"$countryname first!" and Nationalism in all its forms is basically just a more general form of Fascism.

This sounds like GPT-3 trained on partisan talking points. If it's not, isn't it weird that you didn't notice that Democrats keep promising to codify Roe but never do? They had 40 years!! If they solved the problem, they wouldn't have that to campaign on and raise money with. Keep people enraged to get their vote. You're spot on about that, but it's how both parties operate. Never solve the problem so it'll be there next cycle.

Roe v Wade becomes codified, abortion becomes legal in all 50 states, immediately there is a lawsuit, they appeal to the supreme court, supreme court chooses to hear the case, supreme court repeals the codified Roe v. Wade.

IANAL but how does codifying Roe v Wade change this?

By codified I think most people refer to it being enshrined into the Constitution.

The decision made by the Supreme Court was that abortion was not a constitutionally-protected right, I doubt they would hold that allowing abortion was somehow unconstitutional. If that's what they wanted they would have gone ahead and declared that in their recent ruling. Instead they explicitly stated this is a matter for the legislature to decide.

Ahhh gotcha. Subtle but important difference. I think that I agree then.

Yep. Wedge issues. I'm glad the SC is trying to force congress to do its job. If only someone would do something about executive orders, we may make some real progress.

You sound very naive.

There is a long history and philosophy around the proper roles and relationships of a legislature and court such as SCOTUS. The current Court could claim to make decisions upon a strict originalist philosophy of jurisprudence. Maybe they think they do, and maybe they really do. But...

Take an open-eyed look at history. Look at the process by which the justices are selected. This shows a different ultimate motivator: conservatives have been working for decades to pick justices whose claimed philosophies align with the conservative agenda.

And you sound like a one party voter.

I don't care the motivation. The SC shouldn't be doing congress' job. Congress got burned because they've been complacent.

RvW has always stood on tenuous footing. We've known this. Congress has literally had decades to do something and they chose instead to keep the status quo. Why? Because the republican threat helps democrat voter turnout. Same reason nothing is being done about the failed drug war.

> Congress got burned because they've been complacent.

This is a bizarre metaphor to use. This isn't a zero sum game. It is a three branch government.

RvW was about the right to privacy. The right to have an an abortion has never been addressed by congress.

My comment was questioning the language of the other comment. It said "Congress got burned because they've been complacent.". This is a bizarre way of thinking about it.

In general, I push back against language and metaphors that don't have much value. We get to choose what metaphors we use. So we should choose good ones. Fixating on, i.e. "A versus B" is a competitive metaphor. But the branches of government are not competing against each other. They are working as part of system to (hopefully) maintain some semblance of a functioning representative democracy.

When one branch exercises a check against another branch, I don't think it is useful or interesting to say that it "won". I don't want us to start treating any of the branches as competitors in some kind of game or sport. I don't have much joy when, e.g. the House votes to impeach a President. It might be wise and justified (or not), but it is hardly a cause for celebration. But at times, it is necessary duty.

More specifically... No, Congress didn't "get burned". First of all, the composition of Congress has changed significantly over the last decades. Second, to my knowledge, the Dobbs ruling was not directed in any way at Congress or its legislation.

> I don't care the motivation.

That's unfortunate. The Supreme Court can only function well if the justices are predominantly motivated by judicial, not political, principles.

If the court plays lip service to judicial principles while ultimately being driven by politics, it is a puppet and cannot serve as a proper check and balance.

> The SC shouldn't be doing congress' job.

Yawn. This is a cliche and talking point you know, to use your own language.

This statement does not address the issues head on. If you have a theory of jurisprudence, say it. You don't need to water it down with over-generalizations.

> RvW has always stood on tenuous footing. We've known this. Congress has literally had decades to do something and they chose instead to keep the status quo. Why? Because the republican threat helps democrat voter turnout.

If by 'tenuous footing', you mean that there is not legislation protecting it, I understand what you are saying. However, per stare decisis (respecting judicial precedent), the general idea of Rowe has been settled and stable for a long time. Public opinion has been relatively stable too.

You said "Congress has literally had decades to do something and they chose instead to keep the status quo.". Congress is a body, yes, but it is also comprised of parties and coalitions that disagree. Saying a "split-brain" body "chose" to keep the status quo isn't a very useful way of thinking about it. A better explanation (one that conveys more information about what is happening) is that the parties strongly disagree, and the party lines have gotten firmer over time.

In February (this year, 2022), the House passed a law codifying abortion with Democratic support. It failed the Senate 46-48 due to Republican opposition.

The Democrats have rarely had a filibuster-proof majority in congress that would allow them to codify Roe. And they have been working under the assumption that it was a settled issue. As I recall, even some of the recently appointed Supreme Court justices were under that impression as well. At least until they were sworn in.

Even when they had a filibuster-proof majority, they didn't have a majority that believed in abortion rights. Some of the democrats in obama's brief filibuster proof session were pro life. Even now, at least 1 democrat senator is pro life.

Please do not equate the parties. It is incredibly naïve to see two parties that aren't perfect and somehow wave your arms and say they are equivalently bad. They are clearly different both in terms of their policy objectives and their willingness to stay within the realm of truth and science.

Please do equate them. Neither stays at all within the realm of truth and science. I can't believe anyone still genuinely thinks either party does in the year 2022.

Are you legitimately "both sides"-ing Democrats and Republicans here? Wake me up when a horde of armed Democrats storms the Capitol.

If Democrats stormed the capital they would probably do an energy efficiency retrofit. HANG the chandeliers ... show them the LED ... lights.

You are defining an arbitrary boundary and making a false dichotomy. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Stop putting them in the same category. This is useless and nondescriptive. Here's what I mean by that : if you were to build a machine learning classifier with a decision tree algorithm, what do you think some of the most important differentiators would be?

Tell me which party tends to acknowledge scientific evidence more often.

A fool sets impossible standards and moans that everyone falls short.

Accept reality. Choose from the better options. There is no perfect except in mathematics (and maybe some physics we don't know yet)

You act like this was completely up to the Democrats. Please point to a time in history when codifying Roe with legislation would have passed the Senate.

One part of what you say is largely true: fear motivates in the short term more than many other techniques.

The Supreme Court is focused on laws, not outcomes - as it should be.

Is it though?

They are the final say on legal interpretation. Outcomes are for legislators to worry about.

The Constitution doesn’t say any of that.

The Constitution doesn't say that the Supreme Court is the final say?

Constitution, Article 3

> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

If your question was intended to claim that the Article you quoted gives The Supreme Court ‘the final say on legal interpretation,’ I’m interested to know which words in that Article you believe gives that say.

It seems to me like they are considering outcomes. I'm not sure how we know for sure if they are or not, we don't know what's in their heads. But this court appears to many like they've got some outcomes in mind and are fitting the law to them.

And, I mean, Trump literally said that he could guarantee he was going to appoint justices that would overturn Roe, and then they did, as he guaranteed. That's an outcome, right?

This type of non-sense is what ruins the comments section.

Right back atcha!

Very much a "The law in its majesty ..." take on the matter.

Indeed. People are upset with the Supreme Court recently, but what it has been doing is empowering democracy, which people are nominally for.

You want effective standards, do the work and pass a law.

For example scotus coming out in the next few months and going against the ruling that allowed gay marriage would be empowering for democracy?

The scotus is still operating in this environment. I don’t see how “fuck it throwing you to the wolves” has any immediate or future benefits?

A number of people on both sides of the issue have noted that the country was on an arc toward more liberal abortion laws before Roe. When SCOTUS steps in and decides issues without a solid Constitutional basis it interferes with the consensus process of democracy and produces division. The same is likely true with the other privacy rulings.

Have some faith in people. Inventing rights and privileges autocratically is definitely problematic in a democracy. It's better to do the work of persuasion. We all have to live together. Note as well, the number of countries who have arrived at gay marriage through legislation rather than judicial fiat. It's a more respectful way to go.

'More respectful'? What was respectful about states denying people the ability to see their partner in the hospital because they have the crime of being gay? Or being denied the ability to participate in basic rights because they're gay?

Or is it just because it doesn't inconvenience you? Like these are all things that are very fresh in the memory of anyone gay that's lived in southern or red states. It's not a democracy if you have a bunch of people you treat as second class citizens.

Majority rule literally the definition of democracy.

This is obviously in conflict with minority rights.

If you care more about minority rights than democracy, fine. Lots of governments have limits on majority rule. The USA constitution is a famous example.

But those limits are limits on democracy. Which make them anti-democratic.

The more strictly you protect minority rights the less democratic your society is.

> It's not a democracy if you have a bunch of people you treat as second class citizens.

That's the purest democracy there is. A direct democracy that let people vote on absolutely anything would always produce that result.

So if the majority rules that the minorities should be slaves, that’s democratic?

In that case, is democracy good?

Yeah supreme court is doing its job just fine. Main issue seems to be Congress peeps voting party line with omnibus bills instead of discrete policy being legislated that they can vote freely on with just their constituents in mind. And then of course the money and corporate capture. I don't think elected members even write the bills anymore.

> but what it has been doing is empowering democracy, which people are nominally for.

I know what you are trying to say, but it is too narrow.

If you think broader, the above is a laughable claim. Overturning the current understanding of laws is jarring to democracy. (Sure, there are times when it is morally necessary.) Why? Previous legislatures operated under the assumption that the Clean Air Act worked in a certain manner.

The Supreme Court has effectively overturned previous democratic work knowing full well the practical implications.

It's just that easy when half of everything is controlled by obstructionists who do nothing other than entrench their parties power.

Oh and they've also convinced their party that cooperation is weakness because they are literally fighting the devil.

Enlightenment is when you realize that is the view from both sides.

How would you apply this to the Roe v Wade decision overturn? I'm not saying it is infeasible to apply it to that but I am curious to see the argument that that was explicitly focused on laws and not outcomes (especially given some of the language used by some of the justices to refer to abortion)

I'm a software developer, not a legal scholar. Anything I said that could be considered intelligent regarding analysis of SCOTUS opinions would be nothing more than regurgitation I've heard from another source in the media.

As such, I will decline to offer anything beyond what I've already said.

It depends what you mean. Of course the mechanisms under their control are mostly about legal interpretation and Constitutionality. If you read a lot of Supreme Court opinions you'll see that the justices do care about outcomes to a large degree.

Judges use outcomes to interpret the law all the time. There's nothing, on it's face, invalid about that approach. You may personally disagree with it, but then you'd have to justify why the rest of us should believe in a legal philosophy that's clearly going to degrade our quality of life by destroying the environment.

I’m not a conservative, but this ruling is good because it’s interpreting the law as written, which is the only fair way to apply it. Reducing the politicalization of the courts by getting judges away from ruling based on their desired policy rather than the law is probably insufficient, but it’s necessary to maintain general confidence in the system over time.

If you want policy changes to handle whatever real or imaginary threats you believe you face, then the correct way to deal with that is through the elected branches. They are the ones meant to make policy.

No it's not. Anyone can interpret anything as anything else, this is proven over and over throughout history.

This supreme court has been stomping the other branches of government.

Congress created the EPA. If they don't like what they created, it's on them to fix it.

Congress created the EPA, but the court ruled that some regulations were outside of their charter. Congress can fix it by updating the EPA charter.

The court should have stayed out of it. At most they should press congress to clarify the charter.

That's exactly what the court did. Congress is now forced to clarify the charter if they want the same regulations in place.

I interpret your comment to mean you agree with this decision.

...yeah no, obviously not. The law has meaning and that meaning is stable. Words mean things. If you are stuck in "Anyone can interpret anything as anything else" land you have fallen prey to being too clever.

> Anyone can interpret anything as anything else, this is proven over and over throughout history.

  “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

  “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

  “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

I suppose that may be a workable political system, but I'm not certain it will produce outcomes anyone will like.

You are oversimplifying. Generally speaking, most of the work of SCOTUS is reigning in the Executive because of overzealous regulators. The US regulatory framework is theoretically designed to be based in law, made by the legislature, not the whims of unelected bureaucracy.

Congress delegating it’s power is suspect at best, and likely unconstitutional entirely (something something, War Powers Act). Congress created the EPA through the power of the purse, but it’s operated by the Executive, and therefore is not and should not be empowered to unilaterally create regulations with the force of law. Making law is Congress’ job.

I agree and the executive branch has at least two major roles in the constitutional law-making process. First is the presidential veto, and second the Vice President in his or her office of President of the Senate can vote on bills from time to time.

...said the unelected supreme court, as it enacted sweeping policy changes over the course of two weeks.

If nationalism is a more general form of fascism, are all, or almost all governments prior to the modern era fascist?

There's something to be said for rules and policy being adapted to a locale. What's right for people in one region might not work for some in another. You'll get a tyranny of the majority in much of your life the broader you go away from local governance. I agree there's benefit to have federal and international rules and policy but it's more nuanced than just saying sentiments for keeping power at a national level are fascist.

Nationalism is very specific to the modern era. It didn't really exist before the French Revolution. So no.

Unless that was a typo and you mean to write "after the modern era"

From Shakespeare's Henry V, circa 1599...

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our English dead. Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George! '

Res ipsa loquitor...

You're right, I wasn't careful enough typing.

cool well if you have the votes then pass a law, and btw, BRICS will take over economically and keep pumping gases into the atmosphere the whole time

Reply on news.ycombinator.com