08-21-2023, 03:13 PM
(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.
