08-20-2023, 11:55 AM
(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?
