Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[Dill]

(08-23-2023, 11:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, you're actually creeping up on a point here.  One wonders why you didn't just make it.
Does it not?  It'd be interesting if you actually made an argument one way or the other.

The trick is to follow the argument.

(08-23-2023, 10:58 AM)Dill Wrote: A minority of a voting population in a liberal democracy can impose it's will on a majority in several ways, one of which is to capture the legislative branch, and then, as a legislative majority, capture the judiciary via control of nomination.
Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:Sure, if enough people don't vote.  But that's a personal decision and if you take no time to vote then you cannot then claim to be an oppressed majority.

Yeah, NO WAY can someone lose a U.S. election with more votes.
No way the party with fewest votes nationally could become a majority in one house of Congress. 
("The majority party cannot simultaneously be the minority. Note the circles we are going in now?")
And gerrymandering would never be a concern if people just took the time to vote. Takes a "majority" to implement, right? 

After I spoke of legislative capture, you responded as if that were merely a problem of people not voting. 

My statements, decoded, mean 

1. Thanks to the electoral college, the party with the most people who make a "personal decision" to vote can still lose a presidential election.
2. Given two Senators per state representation in the Senate, Dems can get millions more personally chosen votes than Republicans and still be the minority there while representing a majority of voters.
3. Thanks to gerrymandering, one party can gain a permanent majority in the state legislature while remaining a minority of the state's voters. 
You argue as if 3 can't illustrate "minority" control if the minority of one party has a "majority" in the legislature--because it takes a majority to pass legislation and a majority is not a minority.

When I did "just make [my] point" of how a minority can gain control of government and impose its values on a majority via law, you responded with point-by-point-beside-the-point statements like "what the majority wants is irrelevant to what is Constitutional" and "Dobbs didn't put any laws into effect," and "37% is not a super-minority." But I should spend more time "rebutting points made"?