undefined | Better HN

0 pointskrapp3y ago0 comments

I mean, SCOTUS said otherwise for fifty years. They decide what is and isn't legitimate and it was fair play until last year.

I agree with you in principle but AFAIK "actual laws" have never been necessary when the SCOTUS has declared a Constitutional right. Individual states don't need to codify a right to keep and bear arms, or freedom of speech or religion, nor can they choose to re-enable slavery or segregation, because those have all been decided at a higher level.

0 comments

salawat3y ago

Yes, but a caveat by SCOTUS has the lifetime of a given group of justices. If you want that law to be effectively immortal, it needs to be implemented through the legislature, not backdoored through judicial fiat.

"Legislating from the bench" is considered poor form in legal circles for a reason.

concordDance3y ago

SCOTUS has said plenty of stupid things (e.g. Dred Scott). Laws are the right way to do things.

And it's somewhat unclear to me why this should be a federal issue at all... isn't murder a state issue?

krappOP3y ago

>And it's somewhat unclear to me why this should be a federal issue at all... isn't murder a state issue?

That's an odd framing for a self-described "pro-abortionist" to use, but no, obviously federal law against murder exists[0].

But of course the question of whether or not abortion is a matter of murder, fundamental bodily autonomy or both is a quagmire not worth getting into. Not that it's relevant to Roe v. Wade, or its appeal, because that rested on the question of the existence of a fundamental right to privacy and stare decisis.

I mean, read the dissenting opinions on Dobbs[1]. I think a good case is made there as to why this shouldn't be an issue left to the states, and why Roe wasn't repealed because it was bad law, but because the court was stacked with ideologues who were opposed to Roe for religious reasons.

You should be at least as angry about that as Roe itself, if not more so because that represents a far more egregious corruption of the system, but I suspect you aren't.

[0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

[1]https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/read-supreme-court-...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse