Hacker News Reader

Comment by api | Hacker News Reader

That’s the point. The purpose of these advances is to get to the Supreme Court in the hope that a more conservative court will overturn precedent. Expect more of this including attempts to overturn things long ago considered settled.

Birth control, the legality of homosexuality, free speech, desegregation, red lining, employment discrimination, all these things will probably be relitigated soon.

This is the culmination of a decades long push to stack the courts and government bureaucracies that in some cases started literally at birth with kids who are homeschooled or private schooled and raised to be soldiers for the cause.

View on HN

Which is weird because Dobbs was a rebuke of ambiguity in the Constitution. There’s no ambiguity in “separation of church and state”. However, if I was a conservative, I’d want to distance myself from Dobbs as far as possible because the next most ambiguous item in the Constitution is the second amendment.

A prediction I have made for years: it will be the right, specifically the national conservatives, who “come for the guns.”

You can see little seeds of it in the shifting discourse after one mass shooter turned out to be trans. Just wait.

It will happen if they gain real broad spectrum power. The deal will be “now that good nationalist hard right wingers now run the police and FBI you don’t need those guns anymore, and we can’t have dangerous degenerates with guns now can we?”

Think I’m nuts? Look at how fast the Trumpists were able to flip the militia / conspiracy subcultures into supporting secret mass arrests and limitless state power as long as “the patriots are in control.” Look at the whole Q narrative and adjacent things. Total 180 degree flip into cheering for the stuff they were paranoid about for decades.

Fascists always lock down power as soon as they have it. They will also ban encryption and cryptocurrency. The Greenwald orbit will act really surprised. Maybe that surprise will be genuine. After totalitarians come to power there’s always a subset of their supporters who are very surprised when they get instantly tossed under the bus.

The left likes to scream and virtue signal about guns but they’re not truly or deeply authoritarian enough to do what it would take to execute on it. (Which is a good thing.) They also tend toward a maximalist interpretation of the rights afforded by the constitution, which makes it hard to argue for a very narrow interpretation of the second amendment without tossing things like gay rights and reproductive rights.

I noticed now the headlines are people getting shot doing random reasonably innocent things.

- fetching a ball from a yard.

- pulling into a drive way

- opening the wrong car door because it looked like yours

The fact that this isn't insanely obvious to every single person in the world is infuriating. It was obvious centuries ago. It's obvious now. Everyone that's aware needs to stop questioning their own eyes. If someone claims the sun is NOT going to rise tomorrow, everyone will put the burden of proof on them. Calling your observation a "prediction" is as useful as calling the claim that the sun IS going to rise tomorrow a prediction.

Calling these people fascists is 100% accurate and there will be at least one idiot that replies to this comment claiming it's hyperbole. We're WAY beyond that point. They are taking major action, daily at this point, and every "win" is emboldening all the rest. The exponential growth might be beyond stopping at this point. I know I have no clue what to do other than scream at the sky and prepare as best I can for the likely future of this country.

It's difficult to get people to notice fascism when they have a vested interest in it, which a lot of Americans do.

Separation of church is not the clear establishment most take it as. In the constitution it appears nowhere. It's only shows up in the 1st amendment in the phrase: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This was taken to be a restriction exclusively on Congress for the majority of the US's existence. For instance the early states mostly all had their own official religions, and so on.

But in 1947 there was a critical case [1]. It was about whether a state could use public funds for busing kids to private religious schools. It was a 5-4 split decision that was kind self contradictory in its ruling, but in a way that ended up making everybody pretty happy. The court ultimately decided that publicly funded religious bussing was okay, but also expressed that there must be a strong distinction made between church and state.

I think the reason this has been less of an issue is because people have generally been willing to make some concessions to the other side. Religious types generally accepted not having e.g. intelligent design taught alongside evolution. And secular types generally accepted a bit of religion in cultural stuff, sports, extracurricular, times of crises, etc. But the divides in everything are changing that. And so it does look like we're trending towards another Supreme Court judgement.

[1] - https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/435/everson-v-b...

I don't see how mandating hanging 10 Commandments isn't establishment of religion. That's what I quoted above. That's the issue.

Even more relevant (and certainly more recent) cases would be McCreary County v. ACLU [1] and Van Orden v. Perry [2], though they are even less decisive than your example, given the former ruled against a Ten Commandments display in front of court houses, while the latter rules in favor of said displays in public parks.

Despite this particular case having a much stronger establishment of religion argument given it's a legislative mandate to display the Ten Commandments, I don't know that I'd make any bets on how the current Supreme Court would rule, though.

[1] - https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/695/mccreary-county...

[2] - https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/697/van-orden-v-per...

That implies that quite a few Justices lied to get on the court. As far as I'm aware, all of them claimed that lots of precedents were settled law during confirmation hearings.

I refuse to believe that anyone would lie to become a judge. It's flat out unamerican.

Didn’t that happen with Roe v Wade?

All of the Justices appointed by Trump - which pushed the majority towards the conservative - were selected from a list created by the Federalist Society[0] specifically for their conservative ideology, which by definition includes opposition to Roe v. Wade.

Given how strongly conservatives hold to the belief that the US has been corrupted by federalism, secularism and progressivism, it isn't at all surprising that justices would lie during confirmation, since they believe they're serving a higher cause. In fact, Democrats are accusing them of doing exactly that[0] by claiming "settled precedent" for Roe V. Wade, which they later overturned. Of course, it's not difficult to find arguments to the contrary, the polarized optics of American politics being what it is. I'm sure Team Red has a list of examples of nominees by the Democrats who they claim did the same thing, but that doesn't disprove the thesis.

[0]https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/01/how-the-federali...

[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/28/did-sup...

[2]https://www.heritage.org/life/commentary/the-justices-didnt-...

>I refuse to believe that anyone would lie to become a judge. It's flat out unamerican.

On the contrary, it's perfectly American. American politics is and always has been rotten to the core.

> I refuse to believe that anyone would lie to become a judge.

Then you don’t know people at all. American or not, people will lie for far lesser things if they think they can get away with it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com