Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimbob45 | Hacker News Reader

I would just rather the people be represented than decided for. As such, I don’t like that Roe v. Wade was decided for the US by nine dipshits and I don’t like that nine new dipshits may strike it down in the near future, none of whom were even indirectly elected.

Why do you consider my argument well-poisoning?

View on HN

That's the constitutional order that prevails in the US and most republics/parliamentary democracies have something pretty similar. I'd be fascinated to hear about alternative proposals, but if you're just going to go on and on about 'dipshits' then you're probably not here for an actual discussion.

> I don’t like that Roe v. Wade was decided for the US by nine dipshits

It wasn't, not really. And this is exactly my point:

Most countries have successfully legislated abortion law. The USA's federal legislature failed to do so directly and left it to their supreme court to decide something from their ambiguity: as is their job.

This decision can still today be written clearly into law, in either direction, by representatives. So, it's an ongoing failure of the legislature.

I disagree that they failed to do so. It was left up to the states, as it should have been.

Not indirectly elected? Many, many U.S. conservatives voted for Republican senatorial and presidential candidates specifically having in mind that they would shape a Supreme Court willing to strike down Roe. Trump promised to only appoint justices who would do so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com