Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-19-2023, 06:43 PM)samhain Wrote: I'd be pretty okay with legislation that meets in the middle.  No third trimester other than saving the life of the mother or product of rape/incest.  

Rhetoric will never let that kind of outcome exist.  

I think most people are in that same boat.  An elective ban at three months would be totally in line with the vast majority of Europe.  Allowing for late term abortions to save the mother, or in the case of severe health issues in the fetus, would also be in line with the thinking of most.  But, as you say, the extremists on both sides don't want that.  They either want unfettered access or little to none at all.

[Dill]

(08-19-2023, 06:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Popular support for something does not qualify it as being a constitutional right.  It would be far more accurate to say the the Roe decision imposed a law on others.  Even pro-choice people like myself can see the validity of the argument in Dobbs, and recognize that Roe was far more a case of judicial activism than the Dobbs decision.

A law which the majority wanted.

Now a  super-minority is imposing a law on the majority that the majority doesn't want.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-20-2023, 12:21 AM)Dill Wrote: A law which the majority wanted.

As I already stated, what the majority wants is irrelevant to it being protected by the constitution or not.  It's a rather key point in the post you quoted, so I'm not sure why you chose to ignore it.

Quote:Now a  super-minority is imposing a law on the majority that the majority doesn't want.

Again, this is irrelevant.  And the SCOTUS did not impose any law upon anyone.  Again a rather key point that you are ignoring.  

[Dill]

(08-20-2023, 10:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I already stated, what the majority wants is irrelevant to it being protected by the constitution or not.  It's a rather key point in the post you quoted, so I'm not sure why you chose to ignore it.

My argument was not about the constitutionality of Dobbs. 

It was about the power of a super-minority to impose its values on the majority, so in such cases, one cannot simply ignore what they believe.
 
You decided on our own that I was arguing that a majority view makes something constitutional.
And that view is apparently what you are trying to refute--not the fact that a super-minority is imposing its beliefs on
a majority vial law.

(08-20-2023, 10:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, this is irrelevant.  And the SCOTUS did not impose any law upon anyone.  Again a rather key point that you are ignoring.  

I didn't say the SCOTUS imposed a law on anyone. I said.

"But the GOP super-minority control of the Supreme Court removed abortion as a Federal "right" and turned it back to the states, allowing 
GOP controlled state legislatures more "Freedom"; so they banned it in their states and then set to work developing laws
which could extend their control over citizen's behavior outside the state." 

Doesn't look like I said the Court itself imposed a law on anyone.  I said state legislatures did, enabled by Dobbs.
So I am not ignoring any "key point."

Looks like I'm saying that as a consequence of Dobbs, state legislatures are free to impose anti-abortion laws on pro-choice majorities.

You cannot refute this empirical claim by arguing "majority views in themselves do not create a Constitutional right" or some such. 
You refute it by empirical proof that a super-minority has NOT anywhere in fact imposed pro-life laws against the will of a pro-choice majority. 
And/or that pro-choice folks can ignore pro-life beliefs put into law in such cases. 

Can you do that? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-20-2023, 11:25 AM)Dill Wrote: My argument was not about the constitutionality of Dobbs. 

It was about the power of a super-minority to impose its values on the majority, so in such cases, one cannot simply ignore what they believe.

If you're not talking about SCOTUS then your use of the term "super-minority" is incorrect.  There may be more pro-choice people than pro-life, but in no way do they dwarf their numbers to the point that use of that term would be even remotely accurate.  So please pick what you're speaking on and stick with it.
 

Quote:You decided on our own that I was arguing that a majority view makes something constitutional.

Actually, I came to that conclusion by reading your posts.  

Quote:And that view is apparently what you are trying to refute--not the fact that a super-minority is imposing its beliefs on
a majority vial law.

Again, pro-life people are not a "super-minority".

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

This poll is from 2023.  52% of adults were pro-choice and 44% were pro-life.  This isn't a "super-minority" or even close to one.  

Quote:I didn't say the SCOTUS imposed a law on anyone. I said.

"But the GOP super-minority control of the Supreme Court removed abortion as a Federal "right" and turned it back to the states,

Right here you are directly using the term "super-minority" when describing the SCOTUS.  So you are referring to SCOTUS when you use that term.  Hence my correctly pointing out that SCOTUS is not concerned with public opinion numbers in regard to a particular case.  So, again, this is not a "super-minority" imposing their will on others.  Your entire premise is flawed.

Quote: allowing 
GOP controlled state legislatures more "Freedom"; so they banned it in their states and then set to work developing laws
which could extend their control over citizen's behavior outside the state." 

Yes, in states with majority GOP control.  Majority control would indicate that the use of a term such as "super-minority" is erroneous at best.

Quote:Doesn't look like I said the Court itself imposed a law on anyone.  I said state legislatures did, enabled by Dobbs.
So I am not ignoring any "key point."

Cool, then kindly point out where in this process a "super-minority" is imposing its will on the majority.

Quote:Looks like I'm saying that as a consequence of Dobbs, state legislatures are free to impose anti-abortion laws on pro-choice majorities.

Which would be correct.  Still not sure where the "super-minority" imposing its will on others appears in this scenario.

Quote:You cannot refute this empirical claim by arguing "majority views in themselves do not create a Constitutional right" or some such. 

No, but I can point out that your argument relies on a flawed premise.

Quote:You refute it by empirical proof that a super-minority has NOT anywhere in fact imposed pro-life laws against the will of a pro-choice majority. 
And/or that pro-choice folks can ignore pro-life beliefs put into law in such cases. 

Or I could refute it by pointing out that pro-life people are far from a "super-minority", as I did above.  Still waiting for where this mythical "super-minority" is.

Quote:Can you do that? 

Indeed, I can.  Please refer to the above.

At some point in your argument you're going to have to be clear about where this "super-minority" that is imposing their will on the majority is.  

Can you do that?

[Dill]

(08-20-2023, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you're not talking about SCOTUS then your use of the term "super-minority" is incorrect.  There may be more pro-choice people than pro-life, but in no way do they dwarf their numbers to the point that use of that term would be even remotely accurate.  So please pick what you're speaking on and stick with it.
Actually, I came to that conclusion by reading your posts.  
Again, pro-life people are not a "super-minority".
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
This poll is from 2023.  52% of adults were pro-choice and 44% were pro-life.  This isn't a "super-minority" or even close to one.  
Right here you are directly using the term "super-minority" when describing the SCOTUS.  So you are referring to SCOTUS when you use that term.  Hence my correctly pointing out that SCOTUS is not concerned with public opinion numbers in regard to a particular case.  So, again, this is not a "super-minority" imposing their will on others.  Your entire premise is flawed.
Yes, in states with majority GOP control.  Majority control would indicate that the use of a term such as "super-minority" is erroneous at best.
Cool, then kindly point out where in this process a "super-minority" is imposing its will on the majority.
Which would be correct.  Still not sure where the "super-minority" imposing its will on others appears in this scenario.
No, but I can point out that your argument relies on a flawed premise.
Or I could refute it by pointing out that pro-life people are far from a "super-minority", as I did above.  Still waiting for where this mythical "super-minority" is.
Indeed, I can.  Please refer to the above.
At some point in your argument you're going to have to be clear about where this "super-minority" that is imposing their will on the majority is.  
Can you do that?

Yow. Can't address ALL the misconstructions and quips.

No one is claiming the SCOTUS should be concerned with the majority view. Or with the minority view, as they were with Dobbs.
My use of "super-minority" doesn't imply what courts should or should not do. It refers to a fact of minority control of government which stacked the court in favor of minority views on an issue. A super-minority is a minority in a democratic system with control beyond the proportion of people it actually represents. Usually it works by blocking legislation and nominations.

My original claim is that the beliefs of a minority regarding abortion have been made into law against the will of the majority. 

One way to establish whether there is such a majority in this case is through polls asking whether abortion should remain a legal option as it has been, which would bring us a near two thirds majority nationally and a 37% minority.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

From there one could proceed to examples of what happens when populations in even RED STATES like Kansas and Ohio get to directly vote on 
the issue. Then the minority control fails. E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/03/kansas-abortion-vote-state-constitution
Majority Republican control =/= a majority in favor of anti-abortion law.

But you are still not sure whether or where minority views have been imposed on the majority, nationally or at the state level, in states where abortions immediately became illegal, and are developing creative ways to extend their surveillance to other states. 

Like Texas, where abortion is illegal, though 60% of Texans think it should be.
https://tfn.org/cms/assets/uploads/2022/08/PerryUndem-Texas-Electorate-on-Abortion_SB-8.pdf
Or 74% in more recent polling.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/texas-abortion-ut-poll/

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-20-2023, 01:19 PM)Dill Wrote: Yow. Can't address ALL the misconstructions and quips.

Yes, any time you can't address the points being made you respond with a single text, instead of addressing points individually.  It's another trait of your posting that we are very familiar with.

Quote:No one is claiming the SCOTUS should be concerned with the majority view. Or with the minority view, as they were with Dobbs.
My use of "super-minority" doesn't imply what courts should or should not do. It refers to a fact of minority control of government which stacked the court in favor of minority views on an issue.

A very slight minority in this case.  Hence the use of "super-minority" is strange.

Quote:A super-minority is a minority in a democratic system with control beyond the proportion of people it actually represents. Usually it works by blocking legislation and nominations.

I.e. any minority that wields any influence.  What you're describing is our government as intended, hence the Senate.  Your use of a term, "super-minority" to describe what is simply a minority, is perplexing and seems to be done for hyperbolic reasons.  Why the need to add "super" in front of minority?

Quote:My original claim is that the beliefs of a minority regarding abortion have been made into law against the will of the majority. 

Except that can only happen when the GOP has majority control over a state government.  As we have a representative system of government what you're describing is not, in fact minority control.  There cannot be minority control when the majority of a state's legislature is from the party passing the law.  Now, if you want to argue that they don't represent the majority will of their constituents, that would actually be a potential point in your favor.  But you didn't make that argument.  If they truly don't then they can be voted out of office by the will of the majority during the next election.

Quote:One way to establish whether there is such a majority in this case is through polls asking whether abortion should remain a legal option as it has been, which would bring us a near two thirds majority nationally and a 37% minority.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

37% would still not constitute a "super-minority".  Nor does this change the fact that state governments can only enact such laws with majority control.

Quote:From there one could proceed to examples of what happens when populations in even RED STATES like Kansas and Ohio get to directly vote on 
the issue. Then the minority control fails. E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/03/kansas-abortion-vote-state-constitution
Majority Republican control =/= a majority in favor of anti-abortion law.

Excellent!  An election was held and the majority voted in one way.  Much like could happen in the next election in which state representatives did not vote in the way their constituents would prefer.

Quote:But you are still not sure whether or where minority views have been imposed on the majority, nationally or at the state level, in states where abortions immediately became illegal, and are developing creative ways to extend their surveillance to other states. 

First point, how can it be imposed nationally at the state level?  The underlined is non-sensical.  Again, if this truly does not represent the will of the people of that state then they will vote in people who do represent it at the next election.  

Quote:Like Texas, where abortion is illegal, though 60% of Texans think it should be.
https://tfn.org/cms/assets/uploads/2022/08/PerryUndem-Texas-Electorate-on-Abortion_SB-8.pdf
Or 74% in more recent polling.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/texas-abortion-ut-poll/

How amazing for them then that they live in a country that holds free elections.  They will be able to vote those people out and vote in people who reflect their positions.  Or they won't.  Either way the voice of the people will be heard, without any fear of the insidious "super-minority"!

[Dill]

(08-20-2023, 02:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First point, how can it be imposed nationally at the state level?  The underlined is non-sensical.  Again, if this truly does not represent the will of the people of that state then they will vote in people who do represent it at the next election.  

How amazing for them then that they live in a country that holds free elections.  They will be able to vote those people out and vote in people who reflect their positions.  Or they won't.  Either way the voice of the people will be heard, without any fear of the insidious "super-minority"!

Nationally OR at the state level. 

And sure, people may vote the scoundrels out of office if laws don't represent their will, or they may have other priorities which over ride the abortion. So NOT voting them out wouldn't mean they agree with all the laws they passed, or that in that instance minority views were imposed on the majority.

You asked for an example of minority views made law and imposed on a majority. 
Can you not acknowledge that you got that? Texas. Doesn't matter if they vote in people later
who do share their positions at some later date. 

So my original point was that it is not easy to ignore others beliefs about abortion when they are put into law. 
I cited Dobbs as a lead in to examples of minority beliefs put into laws the majority had to respect.

You have spun that into so many different directions and misconstructions, claims about constitutionality never made, misunderstanding
 "super-minority" control, etc. Looks to me like you just interject claims and assumptions I have not made and then demand I
"refute" your responses to them, or you claim I am ignoring "points." Soon I'll be "disingenuous" for not taking every misguided bait.

[*pally*]

Ohio passed 2 citizen amendments that sought to limit gerrymandering, they passed overwhelmingly. When the time came to redistrict the committee flat-out ignore the state constitution (as determined multiple times by a bipartisan vote of the state supreme court). Basically, they ignored the orders to fix the maps until they ran the clock out and a 3 member, all-Republican, Federal court hearing ordered these illegal maps used for the 2022 election. That gave the State legislatures a Republican supermajority and at least 2 more Republican members of Congress.

Ohio, in 2022 easily voted in 2 new members of the State Board of Education. The 2 members were liberals which gave Democrats a majority on the board. The illegally gerrymandered supermajority state legislature then turned around and stripped the Board of their policy-making authority giving it to an official appointed by the Republican governor. The voters did everything right and the legislature said FU.

58% of Ohioans back abortion at least through the 1st trimester, the Supermajority passed a hard 6-week ban with no exceptions for rape or incest. Then knowing that a constitutional amendment vote was happening in Nov tried to force through another amendment that would essentially block that citizen-led amendment (and all future citizen-led amendments)...luckily that one failed.

These are just a couple of low-hanging examples of state legislatures ignoring the will of the majority to push their own agendas. The only hope Ohio has of surviving MAGA rule is the citizen-led ballots initiative option. Sadly, though most extremely gerrymandered states don't have citizen options. They have to rely on the courts and those are often as partisan as the legislatures

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-21-2023, 01:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Nationally OR at the state level.

Your statement was in the context of abortion.  What national law on abortion has been put into effect that imposes minority will on others?

Quote:And sure, people may vote the scoundrels out of office if laws don't represent their will, or they may have other priorities which over ride the abortion. So NOT voting them out wouldn't mean they agree with all the laws they passed, or that in that instance minority views were imposed on the majority.

If they don't vote them out due to their stance on abortion then the issue is not important enough to them.  

Quote:You asked for an example of minority views made law and imposed on a majority. 

No, I did not.

Quote:Can you not acknowledge that you got that? Texas. Doesn't matter if they vote in people later
who do share their positions at some later date. 

I do acknowledge that you supplied an example of something I didn't ask for, yes.  Also, of course it matters, that's how representative government works.  Don't like a law, elect someone who will change it.  It happens all the time, especially if the law in question is important to people, either pro or con.

Quote:So my original point was that it is not easy to ignore others beliefs about abortion when they are put into law. 
I cited Dobbs as a lead in to examples of minority beliefs put into laws the majority had to respect.

Yes, except Dobbs didn't put into effect any laws.  I allowed states to do so, but it did not do so itself.  This is an important distinction.

Quote:You have spun that into so many different directions and misconstructions, claims about constitutionality never made, misunderstanding
 "super-minority" control, etc. Looks to me like you just interject claims and assumptions I have not made and then demand I
"refute" your responses to them, or you claim I am ignoring "points." Soon I'll be "disingenuous" for not taking every misguided bait.

Yeah, that would actually work if I hadn't responded to your posts point by point.  I am arguing in good faith here.  Based on this paragraph you are not.  Thanks for trying though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-21-2023, 02:31 PM)pally Wrote: Ohio passed 2 citizen amendments that sought to limit gerrymandering, they passed overwhelmingly. When the time came to redistrict the committee flat-out ignore the state constitution (as determined multiple times by a bipartisan vote of the state supreme court).  Basically, they ignored the orders to fix the maps until they ran the clock out and a 3 member, all-Republican, Federal court hearing ordered these illegal maps used for the 2022 election.  That gave the State legislatures a Republican supermajority and at least 2 more Republican members of Congress.

I legitimately applaud you for being the first person to bring up gerrymandering.  I kept waiting for Dill to bring it up because it's actually a good point for his argument.  That being said I don't think it's actually working much in your favor in Ohio.  Or at least not to the extent you might argue.  Do you think that with a more equitable map that Ohio's state government would still be majority GOP?  I would say rather decidedly, yes.  Hence, the argument cannot be made that a minority, much less a "super minority" (not your word, I know), is imposing their will on the majority.

Quote:Ohio, in 2022 easily voted in 2 new members of the State Board of Education.  The 2 members were liberals which gave Democrats a majority on the board.  The illegally gerrymandered supermajority state legislature then turned around and stripped the Board of their policy-making authority giving it to an official appointed by the Republican governor.  The voters did everything right and the legislature said FU.

This is a much better example.  Question, would a super majority be needed to impose this change, or would a simple majority suffice?

Quote:58% of Ohioans back abortion at least through the 1st trimester, the Supermajority passed a hard 6-week ban with no exceptions for rape or incest.  Then knowing that a constitutional amendment vote was happening in Nov tried to force through another amendment that would essentially block that citizen-led amendment (and all future citizen-led amendments)...luckily that one failed.

So, even in your examples you actually provide a point in my favor.  Also, because it should be repeated, 58% is a majority but 42% against is not a "super-minority".

Quote:These are just a couple of low-hanging examples of state legislatures ignoring the will of the majority to push their own agendas.  The only hope Ohio has of surviving MAGA rule is the citizen-led ballots initiative option.  Sadly, though most extremely gerrymandered states don't have citizen options.  They have to rely on the courts and those are often as partisan as the legislatures

You actually only gave one, the BoE.  The other example, the gerrymandered maps, is not exactly a huge point in your favor as even without them Ohio would still have a majority GOP state government.  Would they lack the power of a super majority?  Very likely so, but that doesn't mean that they are flat out ignoring the will of the people.  And, as you yourself pointed out, the people decisively prevented one of their machinations through voting.  Still, this is by far the best argument put forth for this position in the thread, sincere kudos.

[*pally*]

If redistricting was true to the intent of Ohio's laws, the statehouse would be approximately 52%-48% Republican. The Ohio House is 68% Republican and the Senate is 78% Republican. A legit redistricting would have ended up with multiple contestable seats which generally forces candidates to the center.

I'm not saying even a smaller majority would have changed the outcome on multiple bills but give voters a legitimate shot at deciding the victor instead of the district deciding it

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-21-2023, 06:51 PM)pally Wrote: If redistricting was true to the intent of Ohio's laws, the statehouse would be approximately 52%-48% Republican.  The Ohio House is 68% Republican and the Senate is 78% Republican.  A legit redistricting would have ended up with multiple contestable seats which generally forces candidates to the center.  

I'm not saying even a smaller majority would have changed the outcome on multiple bills but give voters a legitimate shot at deciding the victor instead of the district deciding it

Do you really think that a state that skews more red with every national election would have a shot at a Dem majority in the state government even without gerrymandering?  I don't find that to be very plausible.  You will get no argument from me about the dangers of gerrymandering and how it allows extreme candidates to be just that.  You see something similar in CA, although CA is far more blue than Ohio is red.  I have to deal with the same thing, just on different topics.

But, to the argument at hand, is this a point in favor of the argument that the majority are being dictated to by a "super-minority?"  I don't think that argument has been made, or even close to it.

[Dill]

(08-21-2023, 03:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your statement was in the context of abortion.  What national law on abortion has been put into effect that imposes minority will on others?

None that I know of.

(08-21-2023, 03:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If they don't vote them out due to their stance on abortion then the issue is not important enough to them.  

Probably not important enough to bring that up here then.

(08-21-2023, 03:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I did not.

I do acknowledge that you supplied an example of something I didn't ask for, yes.  Also, of course it matters, that's how representative government works.  Don't like a law, elect someone who will change it.  It happens all the time, especially if the law in question is important to people, either pro or con.

If you weren't asking for an example of minority views made law and imposed on a majority, and now reject an example thereof when supplied with one, then you were not engaging with my argument. "Don't like a law, elect someone who will change it," is just unrelated chatter. 

(08-21-2023, 03:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, except Dobbs didn't put into effect any laws.  I allowed states to do so, but it did not do so itself.  This is an important distinction.

Yes, a very important distinction, which I articulated first in post #697 for BBG, then recapped/bolded for you in #704. 

(08-21-2023, 03:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, that would actually work if I hadn't responded to your posts point by point.  I am arguing in good faith here.  Based on this paragraph you are not.  Thanks for trying though.

LOL yes, if Dobbs enabled state legislatures to ban abortion, and then some state legislatures banned abortion against the will of the majority in that state, you don't want to grant that that law exemplifies a minority turning it's views into law against the will of the majority, that the the majority has to obey. 

So "point by point" you explain that majority support doesn't make something a Constitutional right, there has to be a majority in the state legislature to pass laws,  what the majority wants is irrelevant to what is constitutional, the the SCOTUS isn't concerned with public opinion numbers so it is not a super-minority,  an election was held and a majority won, 37% would not constitute a super-minority, "hyperbolic" to call a minority "super," an election was held and the majority voted one way, and I'm describing our government working as intended, "hence the Senate," etc. So "we" good faith actors are "very familiar" with my "trait" of not responding to every point--even if they just fly away from my premises and conclusion, correcting and "informing" against errors never assumed and never made. 

Because your "point by point" continued scattershot and off the mark, I've recapped the core of my argument twice, noted that it was empirical, and explained what would prove it wrong. I even offered a spot definition of what a "super-minority" is. (Hint: not just views polled from a general population.) And I've provided examples which support that argument. But you think that is not "arguing in good faith."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-21-2023, 08:06 PM)Dill Wrote: None that I know of.

Odd, as that's the entire crux of your argument.  The "super-minority" SCOTUS (you used the term in relation to SCOTUS), forcing their views on the majority.

Quote:Probably not important enough to bring that up here then.

Well, I'm not those people.  I'll let them be the judge of that.

Quote:If you weren't asking for an example of minority views made law and imposed on a majority, and now reject an example thereof when supplied with one, then you were not engaging with my argument. "Don't like a law, elect someone who will change it," is just unrelated chatter. 

I was engaging with your argument, as revealed by your responses.  You could just admit I never asked for an example, but for some reason you chose not to acknowledge this.  Needing an example of such a law is not a prerequisite to make the argument, "Don't like a law, elect someone who will change it."  So, no, it's not "unrelated chatter."

Quote:Yes, a very important distinction, which I articulated first in post #697 for BBG, then recapped/bolded for you in #704. 

Yes, post #697 where you referred to the "GOP super-minority control of the Supreme Court.".  Unfortunately, you then muddied the waters with comparisons of said "super-minority to state level governments.  If you used clearly defined terms then this probably wouldn't occur.

Quote:LOL yes, if Dobbs enabled state legislatures to ban abortion, and then some state legislatures banned abortion against the will of the majority in that state, you don't want to grant that that law exemplifies a minority turning it's views into law against the will of the majority, that the the majority has to obey. 

Except that's not what's happening.  The party in control, i.e. the majority, is enacting legislation.  The majority party cannot simultaneously be the minority.  If they do not represent the majority opinion of their constituents they can, in a free society such as ours, remove them from office in the next election.  Notice the circles we're going in now?  Wonder how we got there?

Quote:So "point by point" you explain that majority support doesn't make something a Constitutional right, there has to be a majority in the state legislature to pass laws,  what the majority wants is irrelevant to what is constitutional, the the SCOTUS isn't concerned with public opinion numbers so it is not a super-minority,  an election was held and a majority won, 37% would not constitute a super-minority, "hyperbolic" to call a minority "super," an election was held and the majority voted one way, and I'm describing our government working as intended, "hence the Senate," etc. So "we" good faith actors are "very familiar" with my "trait" of not responding to every point--even if they just fly away from my premises and conclusion, correcting and "informing" against errors never assumed and never made. 

Pretty much yes to all of this. 

Quote:Because your "point by point" continued scattershot and off the mark, I've recapped the core of my argument twice, noted that it was empirical, and explained what would prove it wrong.

How so?  I'm sure an erudite man such as yourself could articulate this beyond merely stating it.

Quote:I even offered a spot definition of what a "super-minority" is. (Hint: not just views polled from a general population.) 

Did you?  Kindly point out where and in what context please.

Quote:And I've provided examples which support that argument. But you think that is not "arguing in good faith."

Oh my, are you really arguing in good faith?  You were clearly being snarky in that paragraph, which is not an indicator of arguing in good faith.  I have, once again, responded to your post point by point, a courtesy you have certainly not extended me in this thread.  Maybe stop trying to be a victim and respond to arguments actually being made?  You may find it liberating.

[Dill]

(08-21-2023, 08:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did you?  Kindly point out where and in what context please.

Post #706  Just after the post where I had to explain my argument has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of Dobbs and does not say the SCOUS imposed a law on anyone.

Also just after you asked me to "kindly point out where in this process a 'super-minority' is imposing its will on the majority (#707)." And just before where you said you never asked for an example of that (#710), after I provided one in post #706.

(08-21-2023, 08:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Odd, as that's the entire crux of your argument.  The "super-minority" SCOTUS (you used the term in relation to SCOTUS), forcing their views on the majority.

So enough spitballing. 

What are the premises of my argument, and what is the conclusion?  You'll need to refer to specific statements.

I'm asking because your scattershot "point by point" responses are continually off the mark, attacking claims I have not made. 
If you are arguing in good faith then you won't dodge this question with responses like "why should I since you have already stated them repeatedly" or "Scroll up and read your own post if you don't know." 

What is in question now is whether YOU actually know them.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2023, 02:12 PM)Dill Wrote: Post #706  Just after the post where I had to explain my argument has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of Dobbs and does not say the SCOUS imposed a law on anyone.

Also just after you asked me to "kindly point out where in this process a 'super-minority' is imposing its will on the majority (#707)." And just before where you said you never asked for an example of that (#710), after I provided one in post #706.

It's interesting, because you can't explain how a "minority" enacts its will on the majority.  In terms of SCOTUS a majority GOP Senate approved the appointees of the GOP POTUS.  This SCOTUS then enabled GOP majority states legislatures to act on abortion in the manner described.  Again, odd use of the word minority, as all three steps require a majority to achieve.

Quote:So enough spitballing. 

What are the premises of my argument, and what is the conclusion?  You'll need to refer to specific statements.

I'm asking because your scattershot "point by point" responses are continually off the mark, attacking claims I have not made. 
If you are arguing in good faith then you won't dodge this question with responses like "why should I since you have already stated them repeatedly" or "Scroll up and read your own post if you don't know." 

What is in question now is whether YOU actually know them.  

I'm sorry for causing confusion by addressing your posts point by point, rather the opposite of "scattershot" btw.  But then majority is the opposite of minority as well.  I actually get what you're trying to say, you're just not doing a very good job of saying it.  Oddly, pally articulated your argument much better than you have.  But I'll leave it at that since you don't want more "scattershot" point by point replies.

[Dill]

(08-22-2023, 05:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's interesting, because you can't explain how a "minority" enacts its will on the majority.  In terms of SCOTUS a majority GOP Senate approved the appointees of the GOP POTUS.  This SCOTUS then enabled GOP majority states legislatures to act on abortion in the manner described.  Again, odd use of the word minority, as all three steps require a majority to achieve.

I'm sorry for causing confusion by addressing your posts point by point, rather the opposite of "scattershot" btw.  But then majority is the opposite of minority as well.  I actually get what you're trying to say, you're just not doing a very good job of saying it.  Oddly, pally articulated your argument much better than you have.  But I'll leave it at that since you don't want more "scattershot" point by point replies.

A minority of a voting population in a liberal democracy can impose it's will on a majority in several ways, one of which is to capture the legislative branch, and then, as a legislative majority, capture the judiciary via control of nomination.

I was going to mention Pally's reference to gerrymandering. Thanks for the reminder. That is one way a minority can can become a "majority" in a legislature and use that to impose their will on a majority of citizens who will otherwise. Her examples of minority imposition are excellent. 

Not clear that you do "actually get what I'm trying to say" if you're still claiming "all three steps require a majority to achieve."
But you are not willing or able to summarize my argument to show that you do, so best we leave off the topic. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2023, 06:27 PM)Dill Wrote: A minority of a voting population in a liberal democracy can impose it's will on a majority in several ways, one of which is to capture the legislative branch, and then, as a legislative majority, capture the judiciary via control of nomination.

Sure, if enough people don't vote.  But that's a personal decision and if you take no time to vote then you cannot then claim to be an oppressed majority.

Quote:I was going to mention Pally's reference to gerrymandering. Thanks for the reminder. That is one way a minority can can become a "majority" in a legislature and use that to impose their will on a majority of citizens who will otherwise. Her examples of minority imposition are excellent. 

She definitely made a much more compelling argument in two posts then you have in considerably more.  Odd that you have nothing to say in regard to my rebuttal of her post.  The biggest problem with gerrymandering as a cog in your argument is that you need majority legislative control to implement it.

Quote:Not clear that you do "actually get what I'm trying to say" if you're still claiming "all three steps require a majority to achieve."
But you are not willing or able to summarize my argument to show that you do, so best we leave off the topic. 

If I'm not understanding your point then it's clearly because you're doing a very poor job of making it.  The aforementioned pally's post was easily comprehensible and did not rely on hyperbole like "super-minority" and was, thus, easily understood.  But you may be correct, if you cannot articulate your point in an understandable manner it is time to cease the back and forth.  Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Dill]

(08-22-2023, 07:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A minority of a voting population in a liberal democracy can impose it's will on a majority in several ways, one of which is to capture the legislative branch, and then, as a legislative majority, capture the judiciary via control of nomination.

Sure, if enough people don't vote.  But that's a personal decision and if you take no time to vote then you cannot then claim to be an oppressed majority.

Yeah, NO WAY can someone lose a U.S. election with more votes.

No way the party with fewest votes nationally could become a majority in one house of Congress. 
("The majority party cannot simultaneously be the minority. Note the circles we are going in now?")

And gerrymandering would never be a concern if people just took the time to vote. Takes a "majority" to implement, right? 

(08-22-2023, 07:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: She definitely made a much more compelling argument in two posts then you have in considerably more.  Odd that you have nothing to say in regard to my rebuttal of her post.  The biggest problem with gerrymandering as a cog in your argument is that you need majority legislative control to implement it.

Sure. One "rebuttal" conflates the majority of Ohio Republicans with the majority of Ohioans who think abortion should be legal. 

Once you've done that, her examples "provide a point in your favor." Thus she was "easily understood." 

You also rebutted the claim that Ohio would have a shot at becoming blue without gerrymandering. At least twice. 
No one made that claim, and nothing to do with Pally's argument, but you still get credit for rebutting it. 

(08-22-2023, 07:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If I'm not understanding your point then it's clearly because you're doing a very poor job of making it.  The aforementioned pally's post was easily comprehensible and did not rely on hyperbole like "super-minority" and was, thus, easily understood.  But you may be correct, if you cannot articulate your point in an understandable manner it is time to cease the back and forth.  Enjoy the rest of your day.

LOL Did you just make your "understanding" the measure of someone else's argument? 

You did. That's not a "good faith" standard.