Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[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."