The classic last-ditch tactic: pretending you've won in order to avoid addressing the post.
Uhrm, its a request for you to provide substantiation for your argument. You said something was objectively legally true, but can't cite the law.
You aren't addressing the point. You have made no attempt at confronting the substance of the argument.
Because you've backed away from the substance of the accusation you made. Why would I argue when you're not standing by the accusation anyway?
Then perhaps you should stop seeing this as a game. I did not try to convince you on the subject of abortion. I simply pointed out that in the past you had claimed a good understanding of your opponents, and now by contrast you were just slinging insults and assuming those opponents shared your moral framework or were lying.
May the gods spare me the suffering of living in any world in which you are the supreme authority on correct or wrong answers.
No one is challenging that federal law supersedes state law, they're asking you for the specific federal law that does so in this case.
Supremacy Clause
www.law.cornell.edu
Sure, sure, but in this specific context what federal law are they just interpreting any way they want to?
It was a joke of a use of the court system to remove Trump from the ballot because it was going to be an obvious overturn. The states were literally acting like baseball umpire purposefully making the wrong call. It's the equivalent of the constitution saying you can't a murderer run for president and then states deciding that say OJ Simpson couldn't have run for president. He's not a convicted murderer so it would be a dumbass ruling. At least OJ was tried for murder, Trump wasn't even tried for insurrection let alone convicted. Funny what happens when you just apply basic logic.Uhrm, its a request for you to provide substantiation for your argument. You said something was objectively legally true, but can't cite the law.
From the horse's mouth:
"State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions. Their interpretation of federal law or the U.S. Constitution may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may choose to hear or not to hear such cases."
Underlining mine.
Again:
"Unless the federal courts possess exclusive jurisdiction over a matter, state courts may hear cases over which federal courts would have also had jurisdiction."
"the Supreme Court has ruled that state courts generally must hear federal law claims unless state law bars a state court from hearing a federal claim through a neutral rule of judicial administration that does not improperly burden claims arising under federal law"
"The Court thus held [in Claflin v Houseman] that the State courts have concurrent jurisdiction [on federal claims] whenever, by their own constitution, they are competent to take it."
Claflin v Houseman itself:
"When we consider the structure and true relations of the federal and state governments, there is really no just foundation for excluding the state courts from all such jurisdiction."
They would have never ruled that because that's not how laws work.
I'm not the biggest fan of democracy, I just don't have a better solution honestly. I don't know why you guys get all up in arms about judges being political appointees and acting like that is some massive anti-democracy workaround. In Illinois, there's a massive section on the ballot for retaining or not retaining judges, and like 0.00001% of the public is going to know if a judge is actually doing a good job or not and the vote is pure ignorance.
Correct about... the accusation that you don't even stand by? OK.
The SCOTUS were likely to overturn it because it would be politically dangerous to allow it. There's no solid or unambiguous federal law that prevents states barring candidates for state primaries-- I notice you've been unable to cite one.
Are you really so oblivious? This entire argument is you not understanding my position, while accusing me of not understanding others, leading ultimately to you agreeing the moment you understood, but out of sheer stubbornness insisting that the thing you didn't understand was me changing my position.
I agreed that abortion involves killing (as does uprooting a plant), something that isn't disputed by me or practically any other pro-choice people.
Yep-- it's what you employed when you said the only honest way to be pro-choice was to be OK with murder.
You can't be on an Internet forum for more than 10 minutes and unfamiliar.
I said a certain position was more honest than another. I applied those positions to nobody in particular. I not really argued against anything since you've made no substantive argument for either, and have instead chosen to continue to argue against words that I didn't say.
No; you said that a certain stance was the only honest way to be pro-choice. Which by necessity means the statement applies to all pro-choice people.
Pointing to something someone else said, and saying "I think this", is meaningfully identical to using the words yourself. This whole 'I didn't literally write the words' argument is incredibly unconvincing and disingenuous, and I sincerely hope you can see that.
Are you suggesting that it is impossible to be dishonest?
If I were trying to disown the idea entirely, you'd have a point. You are nitpicking specific verbiage, while I maintain the same position as ever.
