Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[Dill]

(08-20-2023, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you're not talking about SCOTUS then your use of the term "super-minority" is incorrect.  There may be more pro-choice people than pro-life, but in no way do they dwarf their numbers to the point that use of that term would be even remotely accurate.  So please pick what you're speaking on and stick with it.
Actually, I came to that conclusion by reading your posts.  
Again, pro-life people are not a "super-minority".
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
This poll is from 2023.  52% of adults were pro-choice and 44% were pro-life.  This isn't a "super-minority" or even close to one.  
Right here you are directly using the term "super-minority" when describing the SCOTUS.  So you are referring to SCOTUS when you use that term.  Hence my correctly pointing out that SCOTUS is not concerned with public opinion numbers in regard to a particular case.  So, again, this is not a "super-minority" imposing their will on others.  Your entire premise is flawed.
Yes, in states with majority GOP control.  Majority control would indicate that the use of a term such as "super-minority" is erroneous at best.
Cool, then kindly point out where in this process a "super-minority" is imposing its will on the majority.
Which would be correct.  Still not sure where the "super-minority" imposing its will on others appears in this scenario.
No, but I can point out that your argument relies on a flawed premise.
Or I could refute it by pointing out that pro-life people are far from a "super-minority", as I did above.  Still waiting for where this mythical "super-minority" is.
Indeed, I can.  Please refer to the above.
At some point in your argument you're going to have to be clear about where this "super-minority" that is imposing their will on the majority is.  
Can you do that?

Yow. Can't address ALL the misconstructions and quips.

No one is claiming the SCOTUS should be concerned with the majority view. Or with the minority view, as they were with Dobbs.
My use of "super-minority" doesn't imply what courts should or should not do. It refers to a fact of minority control of government which stacked the court in favor of minority views on an issue. A super-minority is a minority in a democratic system with control beyond the proportion of people it actually represents. Usually it works by blocking legislation and nominations.

My original claim is that the beliefs of a minority regarding abortion have been made into law against the will of the majority. 

One way to establish whether there is such a majority in this case is through polls asking whether abortion should remain a legal option as it has been, which would bring us a near two thirds majority nationally and a 37% minority.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

From there one could proceed to examples of what happens when populations in even RED STATES like Kansas and Ohio get to directly vote on 
the issue. Then the minority control fails. E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/03/kansas-abortion-vote-state-constitution
Majority Republican control =/= a majority in favor of anti-abortion law.

But you are still not sure whether or where minority views have been imposed on the majority, nationally or at the state level, in states where abortions immediately became illegal, and are developing creative ways to extend their surveillance to other states. 

Like Texas, where abortion is illegal, though 60% of Texans think it should be.
https://tfn.org/cms/assets/uploads/2022/08/PerryUndem-Texas-Electorate-on-Abortion_SB-8.pdf
Or 74% in more recent polling.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/texas-abortion-ut-poll/