Hacker News Reader

Comment by pohl | Hacker News Reader

That's kind of how it works, though, innit: wannabe autocrat demagogue gets a bullhorn, uses it to leverage power via populist rhetoric, then shoves activist justices onto the bench — who, surprise, do their activist thing...

That's the "very little connection" you're missing.

View on HN

"Activist" is not a charitable description of any of the justices. It is widely accepted that _Roe_ was on unstable legal grounding, at best.

Whatever one thinks of the legal grounding of the Roe decision, those criticisms pale in comparison to throwing stare decisis out the window and trying to make an enumerated-rights argument without even addressing the 9th amendment[1] in the room.

Charitable descriptions are, at this point, unmerrited.

[1]"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

SCOTUS hasn't used the ninth amendment much, and it wasn't the basis for Roe (though I think RBG would have preferred that it was).

I think intellectual honesty would lead most people to think that Roe had to go. The only question was: do we fix it with better reasoning (if some Constitutional basis does exist), or throw it out. Casey tried to do the former but didn't quite seem to do it. So now it's gone and left to the states.

I suspect only a few states will go extreme. And they'll have to see the consequences and try to make it work, or answer to the electorate.

Would rogue be more acceptable?

A majority can't really be "rogue" either.

Even RGB said that Roe vs Wade was on questionable constitutional grounds. Calling them activists is pretty ridiculous.

And the new decision is on even less constitutional grounds. There is nothing in the constitution that allows a state to force a woman to carry a baby. But it happens to be their preferred judicial activism, and therefore somehow not applicable.

So in your view the government cannot make laws against abortion because the constitution doesn't say they can? If that is the case then we can't have laws against rape, assault, reckless driving, etc. The 10th amendment says any power not granted to the federal government and not banned by the constitution is left for the states.

State powers are very broad and a federal judge needs a good and specific reason to strike down a state law. See the tenth amendment.

The only way one might reasonably call the imminent opinion "activism" is based on stare decisis. And that's a debatable topic.

This kind of thinking only applies to the federal government. State governments are constrained by the bill of rights.

Those judges were all Bushites (see their backgrounds and how they didn't help Trump steal 2020). Trump was the most pro-choice Republican in a while, he just didn't care at all about the Supreme Court and outsourced it to the very pro-life Republican establishment. If Jeb or Romney had won in 2016 this would have probably happened earlier

I'm sure he didn't care. It's not as though there is video of him...

Oh, right. There is.

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-i-will-be-appointing-pro...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com