Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Thomas tears into abortion precedent, says Roe v. Wade should fall in dissent on Louisiana case
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tinker Grey" data-source="post: 75129590" data-attributes="member: 671"><p>I'm beginning to think (not because of your post, per se) that taking things to their logical conclusion is the wrong thing to do. For one, it is very akin to a slippery slope fallacy. For two, in the case of SCOTUS, it can and has over-turned itself. One needs a compelling reason for doing so.</p><p></p><p>What Roberts has done is say that A) we just made this decision, B) the arguments haven't changed -- no new information is added in this case, and C) changing that decision just because we can (the composition of the court has changed) would be wrong.</p><p></p><p>Roberts doing anything else would have made the court a tool of political ideologies.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tinker Grey, post: 75129590, member: 671"] I'm beginning to think (not because of your post, per se) that taking things to their logical conclusion is the wrong thing to do. For one, it is very akin to a slippery slope fallacy. For two, in the case of SCOTUS, it can and has over-turned itself. One needs a compelling reason for doing so. What Roberts has done is say that A) we just made this decision, B) the arguments haven't changed -- no new information is added in this case, and C) changing that decision just because we can (the composition of the court has changed) would be wrong. Roberts doing anything else would have made the court a tool of political ideologies. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Thomas tears into abortion precedent, says Roe v. Wade should fall in dissent on Louisiana case
Top
Bottom