08-21-2023, 08:27 PM
(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.
