Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[Dill]

(08-20-2023, 10:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I already stated, what the majority wants is irrelevant to it being protected by the constitution or not.  It's a rather key point in the post you quoted, so I'm not sure why you chose to ignore it.

My argument was not about the constitutionality of Dobbs. 

It was about the power of a super-minority to impose its values on the majority, so in such cases, one cannot simply ignore what they believe.
 
You decided on our own that I was arguing that a majority view makes something constitutional.
And that view is apparently what you are trying to refute--not the fact that a super-minority is imposing its beliefs on
a majority vial law.

(08-20-2023, 10:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, this is irrelevant.  And the SCOTUS did not impose any law upon anyone.  Again a rather key point that you are ignoring.  

I didn't say the SCOTUS imposed a law on anyone. I said.

"But the GOP super-minority control of the Supreme Court removed abortion as a Federal "right" and turned it back to the states, allowing 
GOP controlled state legislatures more "Freedom"; so they banned it in their states and then set to work developing laws
which could extend their control over citizen's behavior outside the state." 

Doesn't look like I said the Court itself imposed a law on anyone.  I said state legislatures did, enabled by Dobbs.
So I am not ignoring any "key point."

Looks like I'm saying that as a consequence of Dobbs, state legislatures are free to impose anti-abortion laws on pro-choice majorities.

You cannot refute this empirical claim by arguing "majority views in themselves do not create a Constitutional right" or some such. 
You refute it by empirical proof that a super-minority has NOT anywhere in fact imposed pro-life laws against the will of a pro-choice majority. 
And/or that pro-choice folks can ignore pro-life beliefs put into law in such cases. 

Can you do that?