No, I meant libelous attacks.
True dat, the Crawford decision was of such minor import, hardly anyone ever mentioned more than a couple dozen times…
Noone would have thought to pass such a law but for the loathesome purpose. Noone rational at least.
The backlash from to the voter ID laws in 2012 was in part the result of a get out the vote effort.
Then I’m sure you will quickly provide a cite to support that factual assertion, right?
About the same time you offer your factual citation for your “rolleyes”.
Cooking tip: you can substitute “goose sauce” for “gander sauce” in your recipes, as they are fundamentally identical.
Well, next to the fact that a Bush administration investigation turned up nothing, and the fact that when you break down the actual voter fraud cases that showed up, the vast majority have to do with either mistaken citizens or absentee ballots, and the fact that the amount of voter fraud detected would have to be off by several orders of magnitude to measure up to the number of American voters who don’t have voter ID… There’s always the words straight from the horse’s incredibly dumb mouth.
Citation: Have fun. We’ve been over all this shit before. You want to go through it again? Knock yourself out.
It depends what “malign purpose” means. To me, it means using “security” to alter the outcome of an election by making it difficult for the “wrong” voters to have their legal vote counted.
If you’d like a cite for that, I’d be happy to provide one.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. It sort of analogous to the reason some give for a school hot lunch program: “For some kids, this is their only meal of the day.”
That’s good as far as that goes, but a person admits that there are a significant number of kids who aren’t fed at home and the solution is one crappy school lunch?
I am also shocked at the number of people without picture ID. So if the voter ID laws are defeated, these people are still screwed in society—hardly a day goes by where I don’t need to produce ID for something. I can’t imagine living in 2013 without one. These people are simply shut out of the system; defeating a voter ID law is a band aid placed on a cut jugular vein.
I’d like to see how closely the SCOTUS opinion tracks Posner’s opinion before I dismiss Posner as irrelevant. Posner is probably one of the most influential jurists alive today, I wonder if the SCOTUS opinion might have been different if Posner had gone the other way.
I haven’t shown my driver’s license on a daily basis after I got old enough that noone bothered to ask me for ID at bars and restaurants.
Other than airports, I don’t really need to present my ID very frequently. Do you get pulled over a lot or something?
I doubt most people arguing for school lunches would turn down more money to help more people, nor would they claim school lunches fix things. But unless they can get adequate funding for other things, helping a little is better than not helping at all. The perfect is not the enemy of the good.
if they were so necessary for everyday life, people would have them. They aren’t though.
I use a state issued photo ID rarely. I use a non state issued ID to access public transit. I don’t need any photo ID for anything else.
I don’t believe I have ever noticed Posner’s Crawford decision mentioned here! at least before this thread.
Can you point to one or two of these couple of dozen times?
Well, I certainly care what Roberts thinks: he was the author of the deciding opinion on the ACA. Posner was the author of an opinion which means little once the Supreme Court took the case. If the Court had stayed out of it, sure, we’d be hotly debating how influential the Seventh Circuit should be in the rest of the country, and Posner’s decision might be of great importance.
But as history actually happened, Posner’s opinion is no strong precedent.
Well of course Posner’s opinion is not legally relevant. Even if it had been Kennedy who came out and changed his mind it wouldn’t be relevant legally.
The question is whether you’re swayed by a smart conservative jurist who was deeply involved in this case changing his mind on it.
This is the sort of naive analysis for which Posner is (perhaps rightfully, to some extent) famous. “People are rational actors and nothing bad will ever happen if we allow the market/highway/school district/election to police itself.” If there’s a “oh shit” moment here, it should be (for a majority of Americans) the discovery that strict scrutiny does not attach to voting rights.
Oh, goody! A homework assignment from Bricker! Yay!
Is there a way to actually do that? I know there are methods for looking stuff up on the SDMB by way of Google, but can I actually craft a query on Google that will ferret out posts by Bricker which specifically mention Crawford?
And do it in such a way that there is confidence that if nothing returns, he never said it?
I do clearly recall a court decision that he tossed around quite a bit, perhaps that isn’t the same one. Of course, he might very well know what that is, but has neglected to mention it while offering me the goose chase.
Anybody got the Google-fu for this? Sure would like to know, be handy as heck.
I don’t think Bricker was specifying examples of Bricker tossing it out a couple of dozen times.
Still want to know how, even if it proves me wrong. Just that kind of guy.
Sorry, not following too closely. Was this sarcasm/ a whoosh?
If it was a whoosh or there is some subtle distinction between not noticing Posner’s Crawford decision and the SCOTUS decision, have at it. If I’d told any of my law professors that discussing or quoting a SCOTUS opinion meant we never noticed or were aware of the lower court’s ruling I’d expect to have been laughed at. YMMV.
As to the OP, since the primary rationale for the laws is effecting voter suppression, any hiccups in the veneer don’t count. What counts is the result, not the analysis or the process, so Posner’s internal reversal is easily ignored.
Elucidator, what is your major malfunction? The SDMB message board can easily manage that. You just search for keyword “Crawford” and User Name “Bricker” and set the date for Any Time. Result: 56 hits. I should have thought you’d know how to do a simple search like that.
Oh, wait, you just got me to do the work for you … bastard! Well, you can read the posts yourself then.