Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Google has already appealed this.

I imagine the Supreme Court will probably rule on this case. I’m not looking forward to whatever boneheaded precedent they’ll set in the process.



The current Supreme Court is primarily concerned with constitutionality and clearing "legal debt" (decisions outside the scope of the Court as chartered) from previous courts. I would be surprised if they take this one up.


The “legal debt” argument is absurd. They’ve been expanding their charter as much as they’ve been contracting it.

The majority is also openly corrupt, and will throw whatever they want out the window the second they are paid to do so.

Edit: Also, this idea that they should clear legal debt is a massive expansion of their charter. The system works as follows:

- Congress writes laws

- If they are vague, the courts set precedents that are irreversible except in the case of dire errors.

- If congress doesn’t like a precedent they clarify the law.

The current court is violating separation of powers by retroactively going against the actions taken by the last 50-100 years of legislators.

For instance, congress had decades to amend the constitution to say the fourth amendment doesn’t imply a right to privacy or women’s reproductive health care (including abortion) as Roe v. Wade established.

The current court greatly overstepped their authority when they ruled there is no right to privacy or reproductive health care.

This isn’t a minor oversight that congress forgot to consider. This is the justices deciding they have been elected dictators for life.


Your point about Roe v Wade is precisely my point. The right to abortion is simply not in the Constitution. If Congress wants to pass that law, they may, and that would be legal according to the Supreme Court. Any honest legal scholar will tell you that Roe v Wade is a ridiculous Supreme Court decision, simply because it is sua sponte law.

The current court is not violating separation of power by overturning older laws. Your point about the court only overturning vague laws is completely false. The court exists as a check on Congress and the executive to hold them accountable to the texts which charter them. It is designed this way because overturning laws is far less harmful than upholding them. Government should do less, not more, and that is in our DNA as a country. The Supreme Court is acting as designed.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: