4 ms·
There wasn't any new evidence, though, and the circumstances hadn't changed, other than the composition of the Supreme Court. Their argument was not that circu
by trealira 3y ago
There wasn't any new evidence, though, and the circumstances hadn't changed, other than the composition of the Supreme Court.
Their argument was not that circumstances had changed, but that the the case was decided wrong to begin with, comparing Roe v. Wade to the case Plessy v. Ferguson, famous for deciding that laws enforcing racial segregation did not violate the U.S. Constitution so long as each race was given equal quality facilities ("separate but equal").
- pests 3y agoEh, we got prohibition wrong too. Good learning opportunity.
- bee_rider 3y agoApparently not, given that we have had to re-run the “Should we prohibit this thing that was previously considered a personal decision” experiment yet again.
- pests 3y agoI don't want to take sides here. That is not an obvious statement. To one side, that is obvious. To the other, that sounds the same as "murder should be considered a personal decision."
- bee_rider 3y agoYou have already taken a side by comparing Row vs Wade to prohibition. If you don’t want to take a side… don’t present arguments for that side.
- pests 3y agoI didn't compare Row v Wade to prohibition. I brought up Roe v Wade as an example of the courts changing their mind, completely unrelated to Row v Wade. You must have made that association.
- bee_rider 3y agoI must have misread the “too” in > Eh, we got prohibition wrong too. Good learning opportunity as if you were saying we got both of those things wrong.