[capguy255]

Factually inaccurate. Your statement could be said about the political branches as well, given that direct elections didn't exist when the Constitution was originally drafted the Congress/President were appointed by state legislatures.

But more specifically -- when the country was founded jurisdiction of the court was limited in nature and mainly involved mediating disputes between state governments. The idea that the Court was the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation was a radical idea that was essentially imposed by the first Supreme Court justice.

If you think that the Court shouldn't be concerned with public opinion, well, the court staying out of public opinion is a large part of Alitio's reasoning here and that belies his argument. If being tasked with issuing public and controversial opinions, the justices shouldn't be political activists who are imposing their own personal agendas regardless of political opinion.

[refurb]

Huh? Your argument is "that role for the Supreme Court wasn't decided until 1789"?

I mean, that's correct, but isn't that relevant to the discussion of the Court's role 230 years later.

I think what you want to say is "when the court rules the way I like, it's correct, but when it doesn't, the court is acting incorrectly".

It doesn't work that way

And what’s most hilarious is nobody actually read the draft opinion it says “Roe vs Wade has not resolved it, far better to have Congress resolve it”.

How is that an opinion worthy of attack?

HN likes to think it has as a more intelligent and logical discussion but looking at these comments it’s clear about 90% of it typical social media commentary you’d find anywhere. The few well thought out comments are downvoted to oblivion.