Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
Considering that you do not know what a woman is - or what ad hominem means - it is no surprise that you don’t seem to know what “arbitrary”, “unprecedented” or “democracy” mean either.
Must be hard to know any word when all you use is your personal dictionary that defines every word as, “A word we use to describe something.”
Can you explain the process for appointing a Supreme Court Justice?
Questions you should ask yourself while doing your research (since you obviously don’t know the process) -
- What does the word “arbitrary” mean?
- Who has the authority to nominate new Supreme Court Justices?
- Does this process involve only “one elected official”?
- What does the word “unprecedented” mean?
- Am I a demagogue?
- Why am I so ignorant?
Not only is this an Appeal to Tradition - a logical fallacy - but it is about a “tradition” that never existed.
Supreme Court Justices are to be apolitical to abide by their constitutional role as unbiased judges - so there is no need for political “balance” on the Court.
The whole “balance” argument only came about recently when judges began politicizing the Court and legislating from the bench.
The only remedy is to fill the Court with originalist Justices.
So what?
One of the main purposes of the Supreme Court is to prevent a popular majority from passing laws, even through a general election process.
If this were not so - there would have been no significant victories for civil rights groups - ever.
Remember what happened with Prop 8?
The majority said "No" to same-sex marriage in California - but the Courts overturned the decision.
The majority would always have mob rule.
Besides - your claim that the majority want something doesn’t magically make Roe any more legitimate.
I believe you mentioned this research before - did you ever provide a source? - could you do so now?
You claimed that the decision to overturn Roe was based not only on religion - but bigotry.
When I challenged your claim - instead of providing supporting evidence or a reference to the decision itself - you just doubled down on your original claims.
Circular reasoning is an argument in which both the premises and the conclusion have to rely on the truthfulness of the other.
For example -
“The overturning of Roe was caused by religious bigotry because only religious bigots would overturn Roe.”
Special pleading occurs when someone dismisses a specific case as an exception to a rule without adequate reasons.
For example -
“I stand by the legitimacy of the Supreme Court - they have the authority to interpret the Constitution - but not when they overturn Roe!”
Legal precedent can be challenged - and even overturned - it is all part of the process.
There are four factors that the Supreme Court considers when overturning precedent -
- the quality of the past decision's reasoning
- its consistency with related decisions
- legal developments since the past decision
- reliance on the decision throughout the legal system and society.
There is only one side of the political aisle that demands authority and control without explanation.
There is only one side demanding silence and acquiescence in lieu of discussion.
Only one side that screams that everyone should ignore facts.
And it ain’t the Right.
What? You really don’t know what “democracy” means - do you?
The Supreme Court Justices are not elected representatives - their decisions are not voted on by the people - it is not a democratic body.
I never once denounced the Supreme Court - claiming that we should ignore their decisions, undermine their authority or question their legitimacy - I just disagreed with their decision.
This would be like claiming that you disagree with what the President is doing - that isn’t a claim that he/she was not elected democratically.
The Right has disagreed with the Supreme Court on “abortion” for decades - but they did nothing like what the Left is doing now.
It’s hilarious and validates everything I have been saying about the Left.
He did not just mention fraud - but all the other anomalies and illegal activities.
No - I don’t - because I didn’t get to vote on it.
I believe that if Trump was able to present all his evidence directly to the people and had them vote on it - the majority would have agreed with him.
But - that’s not how a constitutional republic works.
I remember when Obamacare was being debated and those on the Left said, “We need to pass the bill in order to find out what is in it.”
Just look at what is happening now - everything I have said about the Left has been validated.
They don’t want to argue or debate - they want to be violent and rouse the mob and commit sedition.
They don’t want “abortion” to be decided on by the States - because they don’t want to have to argue for it - because they can’t.
I understand that proper definitions of words may be an impossible concept for you to wrap your head around - but it is completely legitimate to refer to the not-yet-born as children
A child is a son or daughter of any age.
Remember when you asked me to explain and justify my claims that you employed a fallacy?
And try not to base your explanation solely on the definition of words - because you don’t understand that concept.
To you a word means whatever you want it to mean at the time.
That’s messed up man.
