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

From a purely meta point of view:

This was something passed by a Democratic administration. Therefore Republicans hate it, and since 2/3 of the Supreme Court is Republican, it's likely to be struck down.

The actual reasoning comes later. Something-something-Federalist-Papers-something. I'm sure they'll have no trouble digging up some Founding Father who said something that sounds like banning this, if you squint right.

I know a great many lawyers, of both parties, who have more respect for the Supreme Court than I do. They are more informed and better educated than I am, so you should take my cynicism with a grain of salt. But in my experience, treating the Supreme Court as a partisanship machine yields extremely accurate predictions.



I'm sure they'll have no trouble digging up some Founding Father who said something that sounds like banning this, if you squint right.

When this country was founded, a lot of its residents were slaves, so I'm sure Thomas and Alito will find plenty of fodder in that for their "originalist" stance denying workers rights.


I'm pretty sure the constitution was not written for slaves and no "originalist" stance would consider them. This is a silly "gotcha" that you just made up so you can get mad.


>constitution was not written for slaves

That's the point.


The 3/5th clause has been used by prior SCOTUSs to justify decisions, so it is not a gotcha. It's history...

On that note, Alito and Thomas had to use a pre-U.S. colonial law as their grounds to overturn Roe, so there is no limit to how far they will go to use "orignalism" to further their ideology.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

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

Search: