You will notice I don't engage him on that point. Or really much on any current events other than as jabs. They want to talk about those tings so they can drag you down a rat hole of "he said, she said" - You can see how the legitimate points you do bring up will be ignored anyway. You have to assume they will NEVER respond to your points, and your responses must be designed to elicit a statement of principle ( because they have none) that you can then use to hang them.
Then use their OWN statements to force them into admitting they are Totalitarians who wish to persecute "the other" and deny the very existence of rights, citing "the greater good" backed by force as their justification. Its very much against their self image and ego so the more you can get them to stare at it the angrier they will become. Especially if you ask them questions. ( they love lecturing.. but can't lecture on this)
I suspect this guy will not respond - but its a long drawn out conversation with weeks between responses.. as I don't look at DISQUS often anymore. He has been civil, so I have continued to respond, and he - for whatever reason has felt inclined to reciprocate. He might not even see it-- its been a week or two since the last one. If he does come back I suspect it will be "But we have the elite master race on the supreme court or override the masses when they are "wrong"" argument. But he is just digging deeper if he does...if Rights are now determined by a small group of un-elected people, I just hang him by his " the majority is always right" assertion.. The Wolves and Sheep on the Supreme court thing is brilliant, because it illustrates that if they aren't following or constrained by a set of outside rules, then the court is really just a super legislature - and not a court deciding on what a Law says, but what it SHOULD say. Black is white. White is Black. Red is the color that you bleed. Here, let me show you.