08-22-2023, 05:50 PM
(08-22-2023, 02:12 PM)Dill Wrote: Post #706 Just after the post where I had to explain my argument has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of Dobbs and does not say the SCOUS imposed a law on anyone.It's interesting, because you can't explain how a "minority" enacts its will on the majority. In terms of SCOTUS a majority GOP Senate approved the appointees of the GOP POTUS. This SCOTUS then enabled GOP majority states legislatures to act on abortion in the manner described. Again, odd use of the word minority, as all three steps require a majority to achieve.
Also just after you asked me to "kindly point out where in this process a 'super-minority' is imposing its will on the majority (#707)." And just before where you said you never asked for an example of that (#710), after I provided one in post #706.
Quote:So enough spitballing.
What are the premises of my argument, and what is the conclusion? You'll need to refer to specific statements.
I'm asking because your scattershot "point by point" responses are continually off the mark, attacking claims I have not made.
If you are arguing in good faith then you won't dodge this question with responses like "why should I since you have already stated them repeatedly" or "Scroll up and read your own post if you don't know."
What is in question now is whether YOU actually know them.
I'm sorry for causing confusion by addressing your posts point by point, rather the opposite of "scattershot" btw. But then majority is the opposite of minority as well. I actually get what you're trying to say, you're just not doing a very good job of saying it. Oddly, pally articulated your argument much better than you have. But I'll leave it at that since you don't want more "scattershot" point by point replies.
