View Single Post
Old 05-09-2019, 12:35 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,238
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
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. ...
The "actual issue at hand" is a bunch of misinformation and ignorance being spread by Slate about what the effects of the law. That's what I "prefer to fixate on knocking down": the ignorance of Dopers.

Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... 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? ...
You're certainly free to share how you interpret it and if / why you think that interpretation is superior. Others are free to point out when your interpretation is at odds with precedent.

Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... 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.
You want a cite for something the law doesn't say? I've already provided a direct link to the law. It does not say that women can be sentenced to death for having an abortion.

ETA: ninja'd by UV, but that Slate article in the OP is still horseshit.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-09-2019 at 12:38 AM.