View Single Post
  #67  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:43 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
They're not "chickenshit questions". I'm trying to find out if there's any real evidence to support asahi's claim about women "almost certainly" being jailed for miscarriages.
They are chickenshit questions, because you and I know that you’d prefer to fixate on knocking down a particular claim without debating the actual issue at hand.


Quote:
2) I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that precludes it. I understand that it is likely to run afoul of current Supreme Court precedent, but one of the goals is presumably to challenge that very precedent. I guess we'll have to wait and see what SCOTUS says. I certainly hope they'll find it Constitutional.
So for consistency of arguments as long as you and I choose to participate on this board: your definition of the term “constitutional” relates only to one’s own reading and interpretation of the Constitution, without regard to precedent?

So if my interpretation of a particular law is at odds with precedent, I’m free to say that my interpretation is better than the Supreme Court’s (at least until the Court rules specifically on my take on the issue) and you won’t challenge me on that?


Quote:
4) I haven't given it much consideration, but probably not. More importantly, for this thread, I don't believe this law does that, Slate's nonsense notwithstanding.
The quality of your argument would be much inproved if you provided your own cite debunking Slate. Seeing as how you are asking people to support their assertions, you should support your own.