Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSimilar(60)
This reasoning was upheld in 1837 by the Taney Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning and upheld state laws enforcing segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine.
On appeal, this reasoning was clearly upheld in respect of the sole remaining convicted defendant.
American courts upheld this patently false idea until 1954 (and sadly, some would still like to use this reasoning used against out LGBT communities).
Is this reasoning correct?
Does this reasoning hold up?
Many Swiss accept this reasoning.
But this reasoning is fallacious.
This reasoning is widely accepted.
This reasoning is deeply flawed.
This reasoning doesn't guarantee a supreme court ruling in favor of HB2 – the Texas regulations are more restrictive in their cumulative impact than the waiting period and the other regulations upheld in Casey.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com