 Quote: |
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Quote: |
Originally Posted by aMFliberal Actually, you're completely wrong. Hev said Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, thus it is the will of the people that it remains that way. The precedents set forth by the Plessy and Dred Scott cases WERE overturned, thus they were overturned because that was the will of the people. Obviously the people didn't just will these decisions to happen, but at some point or another, the collective will of the people influenced Dred Scott and Plessy to be overturned, just as the collective will of the people is keeping Roe v. Wade from being overturned. | Once again, know your history. Brown v Board of Education (1954) which overturned Plessy was not welcomed with open arms, or have you forgotten that great Democratic Governor George Wallace's statement, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Dred Scott took a Civil War and a Constitutional amendment. They were were far from the will of the people. The issue of abortion is just as divisive, except no longer is the division between North and South. The collective will of the people had nothing to do with the overturning of Plessy, read the Brown decision, the court relied upon psychological data. Plessy was overturned in spite of the fact that there was overwhelming pressure by the people to maintain the decision. THe court intrepretted the constitution and decided that under equality, the notion of seperate but equal could not exist. Plessy was overturned despite the will of the people. Hev's own statement was that it shouldn't be overturned because it is the will of the people, a very similiar argument used by southern racists in upholding the Plessy decision.
Know your history, know your facts, my statement is still accurate, and still correct. The notion that the will of the people is what is influencing the Court's decision is fallable. I used a historical demonstration of that argument, it happened to be regarding racism, but the parallels still apply and are accurate. Do I consider hev a racist, no, but I used that issue to show the fallacy of the argument used. Instead of realizing the accuracy of the argument, instead history is adjusted to fit the argument.
dmk | Good point. If the opposite of pro is con, what is Congress? |