08-20-2023, 02:11 PM
(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"!
