Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnrodey | Hacker News Reader

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com