I have no idea. Does this “law” somehow purport to also wipe out the constitutional aspects and create a complete tabula rasa on the subject?
What I love about the whole Socratic dialogue thing, you never give a wrong answer to a question! You just take it, fiddle with it a bit, and hand it back as another question! Gotta wonder if his students didn’t get a little tired of it…
“Dammit, Socrates, why do you always answer a question with another question?”
“So, why shouldn’t I answer a question with a question?”
They eventually got sick enough of his shit to kill him.
Let me see if I understand this. I’m going to be a “textualist”, i.e. interpret your words as if they mean what they mean.
What your words mean is that whether a law is good or bad is irrelevant to you; the intent of the law is also irrelevant to you; all you care about — all you’ve been hyperventilating about for 2200 posts — is whether these laws are legitimate. A Doper wondered about their constitutionality, and you’ve helped out. Thank you.
If we’d asked you about a hypothetical law that lawyers could masturbate in public provided they’re wearing a polka-dot shirt and an I Love Trump button, whether the law was good or bad policy would hold no interest for you. Your only concern would be whether it was “legitimate law”(*). Got it. (BTW, is “legitimate law” a pleonasm? :p)
So, OP’s concern is finally laid to rest, 9000 posts later:
Mr. Glutton must not be a “textualist” since he’s disguised the fact that he started the thread just to get an opinion from a constitutional law expert. Or perhaps I just don’t understand legalese.
I’m not strictly sure what “constitutional aspects” you mean, since I was under the impression there were no constitutional aspects to abortion until they were penumbra’ed into existence, a longstanding sticking point for Roe opponents.
But let’s say the hypothetical legislation clearly and fully legalized abortion, and in a manner that thoroughly dots every ‘i’ and crosses every ‘t’ in a masterful tapestry of legal precision and clarity. Moral? Immoral? Neither?
By my lights, immoral. But I certainly can’t speak for you. And I never would argue the law should be judicially eviscerated merely because I found it immoral.
So if you expressed your opinion that the law was immoral and gave your reasoning, and someone repeatedly accused you of wanting to overthrow the entire legal system, that person would be at the very least acting in a discourteous manner, would they not?
You’re being a real Kant. 
No, they’d be acting perfectly appropriately. I would be the rude one in that exchange, for trying to foist my personal morality off as the proper basis for overturning properly constituted law.
Is that true of anyone who expresses a personal opinion about a law, that it constitutes a foist attempt? Does the foisting attach the moment one gives a reason to oppose a law, i.e. saying a law is immoral and nothing else is okay, but saying it’s immoral and describing why is a foist?
No. Calling it immoral in the context of calling for it to be removed by means other than legislative is the tipper.
I think you need to look at it from the frame of reference of someone less knowledgeable about the law than you, which to be fair, is almost everyone on Earth.
If someone is calling for one of the laws to be overturned via judges, it’s probably because they have a good enough view of their country, that they think it must be illegal for one party to try to rig the game so that voters less likely to vote for them find it harder.
Intuitively it seems, to a novice, that something so repugnant must be against the rules. That the cynical attempts by the GOP to prune some of the poorer voters from the electorate, must be both morally and legally improper. I don’t think calling for it to be overturned via judge is a call for anarchy, it’s a plea for the government to be the good guys, not just the blind tool of the evil, religious zealot pigs you vote into office.
Did you like that? I was totally reasoned and level with you, then whipped out the evil pigs thing right at the end. <3
Then I don’t understand your response because you’re contradicting yourself:
Are you being rude in the hypothetical or not? Is there implied foisting and/or judicial evisceration in your hypothetical response? Does it require a larger “context?”
And, for that matter, is there any context you will recognize in which one can criticize a law (and/or the legislators who passed it) that doesn’t involved attempted “foisting” or democratic overthrow? If not, then you saying the legalization of abortion would be immoral (indeed, you expressing your opinion on any law, real or hypothetical) cannot possibly be other than a “foist”.
If these are standards you set for yourself, so be it. Please explain why anyone else should consider sharing them.
Placing more value on law than justice is like preferring porn to sex, or Coors over beer.
It leads to the horrors of legalism, when institutions, robot-like, follow the exact letter of the law, sometimes with horrible results.
It’s like the idiot who refuses to rescue someone from a burning car, because, to get there, he’d have to walk on the grass, and that’s against the law! :eek:
Well, in fairness, law is indeed critical - as a codified approximation of justice. Bricker leaves the impression that pointing out that is only an approximation is comparable to insurrection.
Except when he does it, of course, and he has presented and can I’m sure continue to present a tortured justification. I’m not inclined to call his attitude hypocritical - that does him too much credit. He strikes me instead as very very childish.
His approach sometimes reminds me of a phrase Carl Sandburg quoted in “The People, Yes” (1936):
Anything a legislature enacts and a court does not hold unconstitutional is “legitimate law.” The Jim Crow laws were “legitimate law” while they lasted. But no “legitimate law” is immune from legitimate criticism, which can legitimately go to its intent as distinct from its wording.
That makes it “rude”? Nonsense. There are only two “means other than legislative” for removing a law: litigation and insurrection. Calling for the first is certainly not improper, and there are sometimes good and proper grounds even for the latter. Neither is necessarily rude – wasn’t the American Revolution a rather genteel and polite thing of its kind, as insurrections go? – and in either context, the rudeness would hardly matter anyway.
I bet there’s some legal principle in Common Law going way back that already handles those situations though.