Power

[aphar]

According to Russell, lust for power is what drives people.

Thus, it is not surprising that any government exercises more power than it is entitled to by law and tries to expand it all the time.

The idea behind Separation of powers is that various branches should keep each other in check.

E.g., whenever the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional, we have a demonstration of a legislative over-reach attempt, stopped by the judiciary. Whenever that happens, we see that the system is working, and should rejoice.

On the other hand, when the opposite happens, it could be good or bad, depending on the law.

However, the recent outrage is the decision that reverted a previous decision which said "the government cannot do X", i.e., they can do X now.

Some SCOTUS decisions are wrong and should be overturned.

But granting the government powers that it has been explicitly denied before?! No way!

PS. I not interested in arguing whether abortion is murder (nope) or should be legal or not (maybe). This is not about abortion, but about government power grab.

Comments

[aphar]

...some, but not all, matters. The question is where to draw the line...

My point is that once something is placed outside of the purview of the "majority"/government, it should remain there forever.

The only adjustment permitted is to limit the government more, never to relax existing limits.

[brevi]

I understand and disagree, as there is a need for an “Undo” button, to correct for the past mistakes and intentional mischief. Suppose that the next, impeccably progressive, SCOTUS gazes into its collective navel and discovers a new fundamental Constitutional right, say, to euthanize one’s sick dependents based on the inconvenience and cost-of-care considerations. According to your absorbing-state logic, once this new right is constructed, it cannot be challenged. Huh?

[aphar]

So, in your imaginary future, SCOTUS decides that the state cannot regulate killing of the sick by their caretakers. Right? (Let us not talk about "rights" - it's just a justification for limiting state powers, not something interesting in itself).

Don't we have it already? What happens to a person on life support who has no money to pay for it?

[brevi]

A concrete choice of a wrongly decided right is immaterial — I picked the right to force euthanasia on someone else merely as an example of something obviously morally wrong. My point is that constitutional law cannot be “no way back”, so that any mistakes could eventually be undone.

BTW, my understanding is that having money/insurance is not supposed to factor into medical decisions — hospitals claim to do what’s medically necessary first, and only then ask questions about payments. So if an indigent family insists on keeping someone on life support — the hospital will oblige, unless the person is brain dead with no chance of regaining consciousness.

Finally, we do talk about fundamental rights as they are interesting in and by themselves, and their independent existence is the reason to limit the government‘s power.