Hacker News Reader

Comment by akudha | Hacker News Reader

Across the country, many laws are passed by red states that might not hold up if they are challenged in Supreme Court. But how many cases can SC take on? How long will these cases take?

Primary objective of these laws is to scare people and theatrics. By that metric, this law seems to be doing well.

That said, are we even sure the current SC will act in the best interests of the ordinary citizen?

View on HN

> Across the country, many laws are passed by red states that might not hold up if they are challenged in Supreme Court.

This is definitely not specific to red states.

Exactly. See New York's and Chicago's blatantly unconstitutional gun laws--passed after recent USSC rulings.

Hell, even in blue states. I live in Oregon and we're fighting a gun law that was clearly laughing at the hurdles one must go through in order to undo a law.

The reason red states are passing laws like this is that they believe the Supreme Court, recently stacked by Conservatives hand-picked by the Federalist Society, will either leave it to the states or rule in their favor.

And given Roe v Wade, a so called by the Catholic majority “settled decision”, has been reverted, all the evidence suggests it will rule in their favour.

If the SC can’t protect a freedom as fundamental as person’s bodily autonomy and integrity, they will do nothing here.

While I understand your point I think that ruling came down to the technicalities of constitutional law. It should not be up to the judicial branch to make laws only interpret them. If there is a problem with the law congress needs to fix it.

While I agree with your interpretation of the responsibilities of the SC, my problem is with the course of action taken by the justices.

The SC did not have to change the ruling, but the majority chose to do so, with full knowledge that a repeal would trigger laws that put the health and livelihood of conscious, living and breathing citizens at risk.

The SC gave a metaphorical loaded gun to certain states, allowing them to aim and shoot at bystanders, at people who can not get out of the way (= i.e. have an out of state abortion), and in the process enact economic violence towards its own citizens [1] and put their life in danger.

I am not expressing that the states are not at fault, I am expressing that the SC could have simply not taken any course of action given that they had previously expressed that it is a settled matter.

[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/?...

Again, the Supreme Court's role is not to cause or avoid social outcomes; it's to rule on the constitutionality of law. To suggest otherwise is confirming that you believe in an activist court--as long as it suits you, of course.

Fair enough, let that be the purpose of the SC as envisioned by the founding fathers.

Does the evidence suggest that the SC is filling that role and is not an activist court?

Whether the supreme court is making up laws or merely interpreting the constitution seems to depend on whether one agrees with their decisions.

They over reach in every political direction. That is a problem as if they're stacked left or right they'll unfairly bias the system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com