# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 452
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9021 "2016-04-11T01:03:53Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Just out of curiosity, would a law that repealed all existing abortion laws (state and Federal) be comparably not immoral? I have no idea. Does this “law” somehow purport to also wipe out the constitutional aspects and create a complete tabula rasa on the subject? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9022 "2016-04-11T04:18:49Z")
What I love about the whole Socratic dialogue thing, you never give a wrong answer to a question! You just take it, fiddle with it a bit, and hand it back as another question! Gotta wonder if his students didn’t get a little tired of it… “Dammit, Socrates, why do you always answer a question with another question?” “So, why shouldn’t I answer a question with a question?” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9023 "2016-04-11T11:47:35Z")
They eventually got sick enough of his shit to kill him. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9024 "2016-04-11T12:22:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A glimmer? Aw, shucks. > > … But I don’t care what their intent was. I care whether the words they actually voted for are legitimate law. > > And they are. Let me see if I understand this. I’m going to be a “textualist”, i.e. interpret your words as if they mean what they mean. What your words mean is that whether a law is good or bad is irrelevant to you; the intent of the law is also irrelevant to you; all you care about — all you’ve been hyperventilating about for 2200 posts — is whether these laws are legitimate. A Doper wondered about their constitutionality, and you’ve helped out. Thank you. If we’d asked you about a hypothetical law that lawyers could masturbate in public provided they’re wearing a polka-dot shirt and an _I Love Trump_ button, whether the law was good or bad policy would hold no interest for you. Your only concern would be whether it was “legitimate law”(\*). Got it. (BTW, is “legitimate law” a pleonasm? :p) So, OP’s concern is finally laid to rest, 9000 posts later: > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > **I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors** > > You’re all worthless motherfucking liars with the civic virtue of a sewer-rat’s tapeworm. “Voter fraud” is a non-problem and you **know** it. The Dems don’t want undocumented immigrants to vote any more than you do, and you know that, too. This is all about disfranchising the poor and minorities. Shame on you all, and STFU forever. Mr. **Glutton** must not be a “textualist” since he’s disguised the fact that he started the thread just to get an opinion from a constitutional law expert. Or perhaps I just don’t understand legalese. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9025 "2016-04-11T18:38:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have no idea. Does this “law” somehow purport to also wipe out the constitutional aspects and create a complete tabula rasa on the subject? I’m not strictly sure what “constitutional aspects” you mean, since I was under the impression there _were_ no constitutional aspects to abortion until they were penumbra’ed into existence, a longstanding sticking point for _Roe_ opponents. But let’s say the hypothetical legislation clearly and fully legalized abortion, and in a manner that thoroughly dots every ‘i’ and crosses every ‘t’ in a masterful tapestry of legal precision and clarity. Moral? Immoral? Neither? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9026 "2016-04-11T19:02:38Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m not strictly sure what “constitutional aspects” you mean, since I was under the impression there _were_ no constitutional aspects to abortion until they were penumbra’ed into existence, a longstanding sticking point for _Roe_ opponents. > > But let’s say the hypothetical legislation clearly and fully legalized abortion, and in a manner that thoroughly dots every ‘i’ and crosses every ‘t’ in a masterful tapestry of legal precision and clarity. Moral? Immoral? Neither? By my lights, immoral. But I certainly can’t speak for you. And I never would argue the law should be judicially eviscerated merely because I found it immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9027 "2016-04-11T23:17:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > By my lights, immoral. But I certainly can’t speak for you. And I never would argue the law should be judicially eviscerated merely because I found it immoral. So if you expressed your opinion that the law was immoral and gave your reasoning, and someone repeatedly accused you of wanting to overthrow the entire legal system, that person would be at the very least acting in a discourteous manner, would they not? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9028 "2016-04-11T23:20:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Really? Never heard a thing about Kant’s view of how motivation affects morality? > > Ever hear of Kant? > > Philosophy? > > The letter K? > > Just trying to figure out where to start. You’re being a real Kant. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9029 "2016-04-12T01:38:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So if you expressed your opinion that the law was immoral and gave your reasoning, and someone repeatedly accused you of wanting to overthrow the entire legal system, that person would be at the very least acting in a discourteous manner, would they not? No, they’d be acting perfectly appropriately. I would be the rude one in that exchange, for trying to foist my personal morality off as the proper basis for overturning properly constituted law. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9030 "2016-04-12T02:19:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I would be the rude one in that exchange, for trying to foist my personal morality off as the proper basis for overturning properly constituted law. Is that true of anyone who expresses a personal opinion about a law, that it constitutes a foist attempt? Does the foisting attach the moment one gives a reason to oppose a law, i.e. saying a law is immoral and nothing else is okay, but saying it’s immoral and describing why is a foist? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9031 "2016-04-12T02:27:12Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Is that true of anyone who expresses a personal opinion about a law, that it constitutes a foist attempt? Does the foisting attach the moment one gives a reason to oppose a law, i.e. saying a law is immoral and nothing else is okay, but saying it’s immoral and describing why is a foist? No. Calling it immoral in the context of calling for it to be removed by means other than legislative is the tipper. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9032 "2016-04-12T02:53:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Calling it immoral in the context of calling for it to be removed by means other than legislative is the tipper. I think you need to look at it from the frame of reference of someone less knowledgeable about the law than you, which to be fair, is almost everyone on Earth. If someone is calling for one of the laws to be overturned via judges, it’s probably because they have a good enough view of their country, that they think it must be illegal for one party to try to rig the game so that voters less likely to vote for them find it harder. Intuitively it seems, to a novice, that something so repugnant must be against the rules. That the cynical attempts by the GOP to prune some of the poorer voters from the electorate, must be both morally and legally improper. I don’t think calling for it to be overturned via judge is a call for anarchy, it’s a plea for the government to be the good guys, not just the blind tool of the evil, religious zealot pigs you vote into office. Did you like that? I was totally reasoned and level with you, then whipped out the evil pigs thing right at the end. \<3 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9033 "2016-04-12T03:44:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Calling it immoral in the context of calling for it to be removed by means other than legislative is the tipper. Then I don’t understand your response because you’re contradicting yourself: > [@you](#): > > I would be the rude one in that exchange, for trying to foist my personal morality off as the proper basis for overturning properly constituted law. > [@you](#): > > And I never would argue the law should be judicially eviscerated merely because I found it immoral. Are you being rude in the hypothetical or not? Is there implied foisting and/or judicial evisceration in your hypothetical response? Does it require a larger “context?” And, for that matter, is there _any_ context you will recognize in which one can criticize a law (and/or the legislators who passed it) that doesn’t involved attempted “foisting” or democratic overthrow? If not, then you saying the legalization of abortion would be immoral (indeed, you expressing your opinion on _any_ law, real or hypothetical) cannot possibly be other than a “foist”. If these are standards you set for yourself, so be it. Please explain why anyone else should consider sharing them. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9034 "2016-04-12T04:28:39Z")
Placing more value on law than justice is like preferring porn to sex, or Coors over beer. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9035 "2016-04-12T05:36:28Z")
It leads to the horrors of legalism, when institutions, robot-like, follow the exact letter of the law, sometimes with horrible results. It’s like the idiot who refuses to rescue someone from a burning car, because, to get there, he’d have to walk on the grass, and that’s against the law! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9036 "2016-04-12T10:59:22Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Placing more value on law than justice is like preferring porn to sex, or Coors over beer. Well, in fairness, law is indeed critical - as a codified approximation of justice. Bricker leaves the impression that pointing out that is _only_ an approximation is comparable to insurrection. Except when _he_ does it, of course, and he has presented and can I’m sure continue to present a tortured justification. I’m not inclined to call his attitude hypocritical - that does him too much credit. He strikes me instead as very very childish. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9037 "2016-04-12T11:23:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, in fairness, law is indeed critical - as a codified approximation of justice. Bricker leaves the impression that pointing out that is _only_ an approximation is comparable to insurrection. > > Except when _he_ does it, of course, and he has presented and can I’m sure continue to present a tortured justification. I’m not inclined to call his attitude hypocritical - that does him too much credit. He strikes me instead as very very childish. His approach sometimes reminds me of a phrase Carl Sandburg quoted in “The People, Yes” (1936): > [@](#): > > If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9038 "2016-04-12T16:01:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again: I am a textualist, not an originalist, because I don’t believe the intent of the legislators is directly relevant. What’s relevant is the words they passed into law and what those words mean. So when you ask what was “intended,” by the Voter ID laws, the answer is that there are undoubtedly some Republican legislators who intended to produce better GOP outcomes. And there were others who undoubtedly intended to restrict fraudulent voting, come what may, and there were others who merely sought to assuage public confidence in election results. But I don’t care what their intent was. I care whether the words they actually voted for are legitimate law. > > And they are. Anything a legislature enacts and a court does not hold unconstitutional is “legitimate law.” The Jim Crow laws were “legitimate law” while they lasted. But no “legitimate law” is immune from legitimate criticism, which can legitimately go to its intent as distinct from its wording. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9039 "2016-04-12T16:12:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Calling it immoral in the context of calling for it to be removed by means other than legislative is the tipper. That makes it “rude”? Nonsense. There are only two “means other than legislative” for removing a law: litigation and insurrection. Calling for the first is certainly not improper, and there are sometimes good and proper grounds even for the latter. Neither is necessarily **rude** – wasn’t the American Revolution a rather genteel and polite thing of its kind, as insurrections go? – and in either context, the rudeness would hardly matter anyway. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9040 "2016-04-12T16:22:24Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It leads to the horrors of legalism, when institutions, robot-like, follow the exact letter of the law, sometimes with horrible results. > > It’s like the idiot who refuses to rescue someone from a burning car, because, to get there, he’d have to walk on the grass, and that’s against the law! :eek: I bet there’s some legal principle in Common Law going way back that already handles those situations though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=451) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=453)