Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by the_sleaze_ 32 days ago
It's difficult to find anything except wildly biased news sources. After reading the article I know I should be upset about what the supreme court has done, and I should be fearful about what could possibly happen tomorrow because of it.

But I don't have a very clear picture about what actually happened.

How could one possibly build their own opinion one way or another from this piece?
2 comments
apparent 32 days ago
> How could one possibly build their own opinion one way or another from this piece?

Having read coverage of it previously, just seeing the headline told me it was not likely to be a balanced/informative article.

link
oldsklgdfth 32 days ago
IANAL, but pretty curious of SCOTUS. I just read a lot of the opinions. (I hate that the pdf does not have a table of contents).

I've used the mental model of math and theorems to reason about it. In this model, all laws have to be consistent with base axioms from the constitution (and common law maybe?)

I have come to realize that it is not a great analogy. The model breaks down when you realize that the law is not about "truth" (objectively true statements), but about "goodness" - what is right or wrong. That's the subjective component. Reading opinions help guide through the logic and what is thought of as good. Dissents are useful to glee into different perspectives. Some dissents are high tower rants though. Learn to discern the two.

Take a look at Marbury v. Madison[0] for the background on how SCOTUS gained the power of judicial review, i.e. power to strike down laws as unconstitutional. Judicial review is not granted in the constitution.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

link
the_sleaze_ 32 days ago
> Judicial review is not granted in the constitution.

Pretty fascinating. I didn't know this.

link
nxobject 31 days ago
i.e., welcome to Constitutional law, where divining the effect of a amendment written in 19th century prose lives and dies on jurisprudential philosophy, rather than decided case law. (Is that what you mean by the “(and common law?)” parenthetical?)
link
oldsklgdfth 31 days ago
By common law I refer to British common law which pops up in opinions.

References to "domicile" come from common law (in Trump v Barb).

I may be mistaken.

link