3 ms·

I turn over my king, sir. </sarcasm>

skhunted 3y ago
I think you don't understand the points I made. They could be wrong but not for the reasons anyone here has yet advanced. This is what I wrote: Highly intelligent legal experts in the form of Supreme Court justices determined that states can’t ban abortions. Other equally intelligent legal experts in the form of Supreme Court justices determined otherwise. Both sets of people wrote cogent opinions in support of their position. What is one to make of these facts? The Constitution says what you want it to say and you can write a well written, well reasoned argument supporting what you want it to say. Our Constitution, in reality, is much more than the words written in it. It’s morphed due to judicial precedent over the course of 200 or so years. I'm not advancing the notion that abortion is a right or that it isn't a right. I'm not making any legal arguments whatsoever except to say that legal experts disagree on matters of constitutional law. I'm not making an appeal to authority to advance my argument because I'm not saying that my conclusion: Our Constitution, in reality, is much more than the words written in it. It’s morphed due to judicial precedent over the course of 200 or so years. is supported by anyone with legal expertise. I'm just saying that there is no single objectively true way to decide what is or isn't a constitutional right as I see it. This is an opinion I have and I gave the reasons I have for this opinion. If someone want to refute this conclusion of mine they need to demonstrate that there is a single objectively true way to decide constitutional rights. If I'm wrong please let me know what this single objectively true way is. Referencing appeal to authority has nothing to do with my point. Referencing rayner's legal expertise is not germane to anything I wrote. His reasoning in response to what I wrote is quite bad. It is a fact that referencing an "authority" to advance the notion that referencing authorities is a logical fallacy is bad reasoning.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > Our Constitution, in reality, is much more than the words written in it. It’s morphed due to judicial precedent over the course of 200 or so years. — is supported by anyone with legal expertise. A majority of current, GOP-appointed Supreme Court justices disagree with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
  - skhunted 3y ago
    Way to incorrectly quote me. My preface was: … because I'm not saying that my conclusion: And originalism is one way of interpreting the Constitution. There are other methods that other legal experts employ. Which is my only point. There is no single objectively correct way to interpret the Constitution. So it’s incorrect, for the most part, to say, “this is what the Constitution says/means”. One should say, “this is what i think it means.”

I think you don't understand the points I made. They could be wrong but not for the reasons anyone here has yet advanced. This is what I wrote: Highly intelligent legal experts in the form of Supreme Court justices determined that states can’t ban abortions. Other equally intelligent legal experts in the form of Supreme Court justices determined otherwise. Both sets of people wrote cogent opinions in support of their position. What is one to make of these facts? The Constitution says what you want it to say and you can write a well written, well reasoned argument supporting what you want it to say. Our Constitution, in reality, is much more than the words written in it. It’s morphed due to judicial precedent over the course of 200 or so years. I'm not advancing the notion that abortion is a right or that it isn't a right. I'm not making any legal arguments whatsoever except to say that legal experts disagree on matters of constitutional law. I'm not making an appeal to authority to advance my argument because I'm not saying that my conclusion: Our Constitution, in reality, is much more than the words written in it. It’s morphed due to judicial precedent over the course of 200 or so years. is supported by anyone with legal expertise. I'm just saying that there is no single objectively true way to decide what is or isn't a constitutional right as I see it. This is an opinion I have and I gave the reasons I have for this opinion. If someone want to refute this conclusion of mine they need to demonstrate that there is a single objectively true way to decide constitutional rights. If I'm wrong please let me know what this single objectively true way is. Referencing appeal to authority has nothing to do with my point. Referencing rayner's legal expertise is not germane to anything I wrote. His reasoning in response to what I wrote is quite bad. It is a fact that referencing an "authority" to advance the notion that referencing authorities is a logical fallacy is bad reasoning.

dctoedt 3y ago
> Our Constitution, in reality, is much more than the words written in it. It’s morphed due to judicial precedent over the course of 200 or so years. — is supported by anyone with legal expertise. A majority of current, GOP-appointed Supreme Court justices disagree with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
- skhunted 3y ago
  Way to incorrectly quote me. My preface was: … because I'm not saying that my conclusion: And originalism is one way of interpreting the Constitution. There are other methods that other legal experts employ. Which is my only point. There is no single objectively correct way to interpret the Constitution. So it’s incorrect, for the most part, to say, “this is what the Constitution says/means”. One should say, “this is what i think it means.”