• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Best rebuttal of Alito to date

Certainly. You made and assertion that federal law always supersedes state law, and you’ve just been proven wrong (again).

It's a statement that is generally true however for reference I say "see the Supremacy Clause" which is more specific.

And I've also always stated that state laws can do so if they are not challenged in federal court...I've used state pot laws as an example.

So no, I wasnt proven wrong and so your attempt at gloating also fails. 🤷 It's pathetic that you attempted a jab that failed...and had to ignore the entire rest of my post and not respond to my comments. Is that the kind of gratification you need posting on the Internet?

Care to try addressing this, which you ignored?

Now that some states will attempt it, we'll have to see how the federal courts handle challenges. Since no states so far (that I know of) have criminalized having an abortion...only providing and 'abetting,' I'm not sure it will be.​
This is interesting tho. You showed me at least one state with a trigger law that declared the unborn to be persons. Which state was that? Because since no states have criminalized having abortions...none have classified it as murder...how is that possible? How can the unborn be a person and the woman not be charged with murder?
(Perhaps I missed a red state's trigger laws or proposed new abortion laws. If any have criminalized having an abortion, please let me know)​
 
Last edited:
You could at least try to understand the reasoning in Dobbs even if you don’t agree with it.
I did. It is very convoluted and not straightforward, because Alito clearly wants embryos to be human beings who are persons, but he knows he can't. If embryos were persons, that would pit an embryo's right to life against a woman's rights to both life and liberty. He could get around a woman's right to liberty, but not her right to life.

For that reason, he attempts to say that the 14th A didn't apply to women, using married women's being under coverture as an excuse and ignoring women not under coverture. But he doesn't indicate anywhere that the federal government has a constitutional obligation to protect even a woman's right to life. It is an outrageous and dangerous decision.
 
It's a statement that is generally true however for reference I say "see the Supremacy Clause" which is more specific.

And I've also always stated that state laws can do so if they are not challenged in federal court...I've used state pot laws as an example.

So no, I wasnt proven wrong and so your attempt at gloating also fails. 🤷 It's pathetic that you attempted a jab that failed...and had to ignore the entire rest of my post and not respond to my comments. Is that the kind of gratification you need posting on the Internet?

Care to try addressing this, which you ignored?

Now that some states will attempt it, we'll have to see how the federal courts handle challenges. Since no states so far (that I know of) have criminalized having an abortion...only providing and 'abetting,' I'm not sure it will be.​
This is interesting tho. You showed me at least one state with a trigger law that declared the unborn to be persons. Which state was that? Because since no states have criminalized having abortions...none have classified it as murder...how is that possible? How can the unborn be a person and the woman not be charged with murder?
(Perhaps I missed a red state's trigger laws or proposed new abortion laws. If any have criminalized having an abortion, please let me know)​
Don’t know what you’re driving at here. I have not been arguing for or against specific penalties where abortions are banned. To what degree the act is criminalized is not what I’m here to discuss and never has been.

What we were discussing is your false assertion that a state law can never be held above a federal law, and at least now you’re acknowledging that error, however weakly, by suddenly describing your assertions as “generally true,” which is another way of saying “not always, so yes, in some cases a state law can beheld above a federal law.” That is not a fail on my part. But if you insist on keeping score, me getting you to acknowledge you’re wrong would count as a “win.”

The facts remain these:
  • It is long standing practice for state law to impinge on federally protected rights where and when exercising those rights is deemed to harm another. State libel laws and third-trimester abortion bans under Roe are prime examples.
  • With Roe gone, states will now be able to expand their protection of fetal life into the first and second trimesters.
  • I don’t have particularly strong opinions about how those laws should be enforced and/or what penalties should be imposed, though clearly some form of punishment for the medical staff, and possibly the mother, will be needed if abortion bans are to be meaningfully enforced.
 
I did. It is very convoluted and not straightforward, because Alito clearly wants embryos to be human beings who are persons, but he knows he can't. If embryos were persons, that would pit an embryo's right to life against a woman's rights to both life and liberty. He could get around a woman's right to liberty, but not her right to life.

For that reason, he attempts to say that the 14th A didn't apply to women, using married women's being under coverture as an excuse and ignoring women not under coverture. But he doesn't indicate anywhere that the federal government has a constitutional obligation to protect even a woman's right to life. It is an outrageous and dangerous decision.
No, you’re demonstrating you do not understand the decision. You’re not even speaking to what Alito wrote and instead are pretending to be a mind reader.
 
Don't we just expect the extremist right and the Christian right to overreach and push their beliefs on the entire United States?
 
Don’t know what you’re driving at here. I have not been arguing for or against specific penalties where abortions are banned. To what degree the act is criminalized is not what I’m here to discuss and never has been.

What we were discussing is your false assertion that a state law can never be held above a federal law, and at least now you’re acknowledging that error, however weakly, by suddenly describing your assertions as “generally true,” which is another way of saying “not always, so yes, in some cases a state law can beheld above a federal law.” That is not a fail on my part. But if you insist on keeping score, me getting you to acknowledge you’re wrong would count as a “win.”

I didnt say "never" and this is what I did write:

It's a statement that is generally true however for reference I say "see the Supremacy Clause" which is more specific.
And I've also always stated that state laws can do so if they are not challenged in federal court...I've used state pot laws as an example.
So no, I wasnt proven wrong and so your attempt at gloating also fails. 🤷 It's pathetic that you attempted a jab that failed...and had to ignore the entire rest of my post and not respond to my comments. Is that the kind of gratification you need posting on the Internet?​
And at the time, it was a total fail on your part with regards to the issue we were discussing: abortion and fetal rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom