Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

[AGENT J]

Yes. And you claim my posts are irrelevant?

haven't you learn that failed insults show your desperation? you are not even aware of where my post is going, yours was in fact irrelevant LMAO

ok next question:

HOW will it change?

 

[sangha]

The FORMULATE that argument, and POST IT here. NOT a link to the supreme court decision, the actual ARGUMENT.

Umm, if you had actually taken the time to educate yourself about the facts before making them up, you'd have read the decision and seen that the decision contains the actual argument :lamo

 

[david52875]

Now you're posting fictions. Please quote where the Constitution says "the court has the responsibility to interpret the constitution correctly"

Art III, sec I says nothing about that, but it most certainly does say that SCOTUS has the power (not the "responsibility") to interpret the constitution

Yes INTERPRET the constitution, not decide what words mean! "I decide that the word "it" means that I can throw people in jail without a trial."

Interpret:

Explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions): "interpret the evidence".

NOT

Define the meaning of (information, words, or actions): "interpret the evidence".

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

 

[AGENT J]

Umm, if you had actually taken the time to educate yourself about the facts before making them up, you'd have read the decision and seen that the decision contains the actual argument :lamo

he doesnt do good with facts, he either ignores them or doesnt understand them

 

[winston53660]

It most certainly does not. It gives the Supreme court the responsibility to interpret the constitution correctly.

Are you some kind of authority we should appeal to? And if so why?

 

[david52875]

Umm, if you had actually taken the time to educate yourself about the facts before making them up, you'd have read the decision and seen that the decision contains the actual argument :lamo

If it contains an argument, post it here. Just linking to the supreme court decision is not an argument, it is an appeal to authority.

 

[david52875]

Are you some kind of authority we should appeal to? And if so why?

No. What's your point? The appeal to authority is a fallacy no matter what your authority. Me or the Supreme Court.

 

[david52875]

Are you some kind of authority we should appeal to? And if so why?

But I'm not appealing to authority, my argument is not:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

 

[winston53660]

No. What's your point? The appeal to authority is a fallacy no matter what your authority. Me or the Supreme Court.

The pont is that the SCOTUS is an authority. And you are not.

 

[david52875]

haven't you learn that failed insults show your desperation? you are not even aware of where my post is going, yours was in fact irrelevant LMAO

ok next question:

HOW will it change?

I'm done explaining how our government works to you. If you did not understand it the tenth time, you will not understand it the eleventh.

 

[sangha]

Yes INTERPRET the constitution, not decide what words mean! "I decide that the word "it" means that I can throw people in jail without a trial."

Interpret:


NOT

The court has interpreted the word "person", as used in the constitution, as not including the unborn

In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons

 

[david52875]

The pont is that the SCOTUS is an authority. And you are not.

Even if that's true (which it's not), if you appeal to it, you are committing a fallacy.

 

[david52875]

The court has interpreted the word "person", as used in the constitution, as not including the unborn

No, the supreme court has DEFINED the word person. And you are appealing to authority again. Post the argument used by the supreme court.

 

[david52875]

The pont is that the SCOTUS is an authority. And you are not.

Appeal to Authority.

 

[sangha]

If it contains an argument, post it here. Just linking to the supreme court decision is not an argument, it is an appeal to authority.

The argument is over 60 pages long. The editor on DP does not allow such long posts.

Besides, if you won't click on the link and read it, why should I think you'll read it if I post it here. After all, it's not a burden to click on a link tp FindLaw and the concept of "burden of proof" does not prohibit citations

 

[david52875]

The argument is over 60 pages long. The editor on DP does not allow such long posts.

Besides, if you won't click on the link and read it, why should I think you'll read it if I post it here. After all, it's not a burden to click on a link tp FindLaw and the concept of "burden of proof" does not prohibit citations

The supreme court decision is 60 pages long. Not the argument.

 

[sangha]

But I'm not appealing to authority, my argument is not:

And neither am I. SCOTUS is not "claimed to" have the power to interpret the constitution. It actually DOES have that power.

 

[david52875]

And neither am I. SCOTUS is not "claimed to" have the power to interpret the constitution. It actually DOES have that power.

To INTERPRET the constitution. They INTERPRETED the constitution WRONG.

 

[sangha]

Even if that's true (which it's not), if you appeal to it, you are committing a fallacy.

Wrong. You are mistating the meaning of "appeal to fallacy"

SCOTUS is not merely "claimed to be" the authority when it comes to interpreting the constitution. It actually *IS* the authority.

 

[david52875]

And neither am I. SCOTUS is not "claimed to" have the power to interpret the constitution. It actually DOES have that power.

So your argument is "The Supreme Court is correct that the constitution says x, because the Supreme Court decided the constitution said x"

According to you Blacks have no rights. Because the Supreme court is apparently an authority on human rights.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm done explaining how our government works to you. If you did not understand it the tenth time, you will not understand it the eleventh.

I knew you would dodge because it proves you wrong every time, you are so exposed kid LMAO
you have NO CLUE how government, facts or reality work :laughat:

its obvious you are trolling at this point

maybe you will man up and answer

HOW will it change?

 

[david52875]

"appeal to fallacy"

"Appeal to Fallacy"? WTF? Are you abusing a controlled substance?

 

[david52875]

I knew you would dodge because it proves you wrong every time, you are so exposed kid LMAO
you have NO CLUE how government, facts or reality work :laughat:

its obvious you are trolling at this point

maybe you will man up and answer

HOW will it change?

Your question has no meaning, and thus no answer. If your done spamming the thread, go away.

 

[ecofarm]

There is no "person" until birth.

You don't believe it has any rights at 8.5 months of gestation? Abortion should be generally legal at that point?

 

[sangha]

No, the supreme court has DEFINED the word person. And you are appealing to authority again. Post the argument used by the supreme court.

No, it has not "defined" the word. It merely has interpreted the meaning of the word, as used in the constitution.

And referring to SCOTUS is not an appeal to authority because SCOTUS is not merely "claimed to be" the authority on interpreting the constitution; It *IS* the authority. The constitution says so