# 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:** 453
**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, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9041 "2016-04-12T16:24:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I don’t care what their intent was. I care whether the words they actually voted for are legitimate law. Then you aren’t participating in the discussion. Nobody has said the law isn’t the law. The discussion is about whether the law should be changed. ---
**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, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9042 "2016-04-12T17:54:40Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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 Then what a good thing such people can read these wise words, and learn a bit more about our government. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9043 "2016-04-12T17:58:32Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Then you aren’t participating in the discussion. Nobody has said the law isn’t the law. The discussion is about whether the law should be changed. Nonsense. The discussion is certainly about the effort to change the law via court decision – to claim that that the Voter ID law is unconstitutional. It is not. But the discussion you now wish to imagine is much easier to have: No, it shouldn’t. ---
**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, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9044 "2016-04-12T18:00:22Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. Sure. So you’re now acknowledging legitimacy and simply criticizing. Good for you. Keep it up; it’s good exercise for when you have a useful cause. ---
**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, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9045 "2016-04-12T18:11:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nonsense. The discussion is certainly about the effort to change the law via court decision – to claim that that the Voter ID law is unconstitutional. It is not. But saying “it’s the law” isn’t an argument that it is constitutional either. I understand that a court can’t simply overturn a law because it doesn’t like the law. If that’s all your saying, fine. ---
**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, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9046 "2016-04-12T19:58:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nonsense. The discussion is certainly about the effort to change the law via court decision – to claim that that the Voter ID law is unconstitutional. It is not… With all dew respect, that is the conversation you _wish_ this were about. You and I, we’ve been through this, and this is not our fête. So, let us not talk falsely now… Yes, it is a common misnomer amongst the naive and idealistic that a thing that is clearly unjust can be described as “unConstitutional”. And, no, that is not so. Many’s the time that something utterly unjust has been held to be constitutional, until we grew as a people enough to know better. Other times, the Constitution has been perverted to drape a thin veil of legitimacy over something entirely repulsive, as in “separate but equal”. So, yes, you are correct about the meaning of “Constitutional”. It is still wrong to stack the electoral deck in a partisan fashion. It will remain wrong regardless. If it were declared just and noble by the Archangel Gabriel, it would still be wrong. And _that_ is what our argument is about. > [@](#): > > …But the discussion you now wish to imagine is much easier to have: > > No, it shouldn’t. Well, that certainly settles that! Why appeal to authority when you embody the concept in your very self! But perhaps you have a sophistic and pedantic argument to explain why electoral cheating is perfectly OK in this instance, but the Great Massachusetts Massacre demands our fierce condemnation? Wherein “sordid” is not nearly enough. I can forgive the dull and limited for their failings, they know not what they do. You have no such defense. You may stand athwart progress and scream for it to stop! but it will roll over you and pass on, leaving you to yell at it to come back. Shane didn’t, and it won’t either. ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9047 "2016-04-12T22:42:52Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I bet there’s some legal principle in Common Law going way back that already handles those situations though. Yes…but it’s not a specific legal instruction. There is no law that says, “You may walk on the grass if necessary to save someone from a burning car.” Instead, there is a general principle, known as the “reasonable man” exemption, that allows us to break the law when it is “reasonable” to do so. (Ever been stuck in traffic when a signal is broken and won’t change? After a certain amount of time, it’s “reasonable” to ignore the broken signal and just go on through the intersection.) However, this requires individual interpretation, on the scene, immediately, by persons not trained in law, with no guidance. The imbeciles who took over the Malheur Wildlife Refuge may have thought they were behaving “reasonably.” The principle escapes being explicit; it cannot be explicit. ---
**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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9048 "2016-04-12T22:45:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nonsense. The discussion is certainly about the effort to change the law via court decision – to claim that that the Voter ID law is unconstitutional. It is not. Since when have you been the United States Supreme Court? Several state voter ID laws have already been declared unconstitutional. You’re displaying ignorance as well as absurd dishonesty. ---
**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, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9049 "2016-04-12T22:47:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So you’re now acknowledging legitimacy and simply criticizing. :dubious: **Of course I am.** That is what this thread is **for.** That is what most of us have been doing here all along. The legitimacy, defined as constitutionality, of voting-suppression laws is perhaps debatable, but that debate would be incidental to the criticism of the purpose, justice and wisdom of such laws, all of which is at least as important as the constitutional question, and you are powerless to render it irrelevant or end the discussion by pegging such laws as “legitimate.” If they are, the discussion does not end but **begins** there. ---
**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, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9050 "2016-04-12T23:27:29Z")
I hope Bricker starts a new thread soon so that I can be the initial respondent and write “foist!” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9051 "2016-04-12T23:28:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nonsense. The discussion is certainly about the effort to change the law via court decision – to claim that that the Voter ID law is unconstitutional. That’s inarguably an overstatement. I’m sure that there have been people on the anti-voter-ID side of this thread who have made statements to the effect of “these laws are unconstitutional” or “these laws ought to be unconstitutional” or “I hope these laws are found to be unconstitutional” or what have you. But huge swaths of this thread have been about something else entirely. Back during Jim Crow, there was a time when the various Jim Crow laws were clearly constitutional, and clearly enjoyed popular support. But they were always, well, _something_. Some adjective which combines some aspects of “evil” and “immoral” and “antidemocratic” and “sure as heck SHOULD be unconstitutional”. However you want to describe that quality, I’ve been trying to convince you that voter ID laws also share that quality, albeit to a lesser degree. That’s what this thread has been about for the past several thousand posts, at least from my perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9052 "2016-04-13T10:05:43Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > That’s inarguably an overstatement. I’m sure that there have been people on the anti-voter-ID side of this thread who have made statements to the effect of “these laws are unconstitutional” or “these laws ought to be unconstitutional” or “I hope these laws are found to be unconstitutional” or what have you. But huge swaths of this thread have been about something else entirely. > Back during Jim Crow, there was a time when the various Jim Crow laws were clearly constitutional, and clearly enjoyed popular support. But they were always, well, _something_. Some adjective which combines some aspects of “evil” and “immoral” and “antidemocratic” and “sure as heck SHOULD be unconstitutional”. However you want to describe that quality, I’ve been trying to convince you that voter ID laws also share that quality, albeit to a lesser degree. That’s what this thread has been about for the past several thousand posts, at least from my perspective. Ok. Then: nope. Voter ID laws don’t share that quality. They’re good. ---
**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 13, 2016, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9053 "2016-04-13T10:54:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ok. > > Then: nope. Voter ID laws don’t share that quality. They’re good. If that’s the sum total of your argument in favour, then I guess we win (for what that’s worth) on the preponderance of evidence front. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9054 "2016-04-13T13:34:20Z")
Your approach is very inefficient. If you were Himself, the **Bricker** Almighty, you could make a simple and direct declaration of total victory, and be done with it! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9055 "2016-04-13T14:16:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Voter ID laws don’t share that quality. If you think that, you have lost not only your sense of moral judgment but your sense of smell. But, you don’t think that, you’re simply lying. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9056 "2016-04-13T14:48:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > If you think that, you have lost not only your sense of moral judgment but your sense of smell. But, you don’t think that, you’re simply lying. You’re back to saying Voter ID laws are immoral? Don’t you need to share a moral framework with someone before using a morality argument against them? Do you feel the laws in every other country that require an ID to vote are similarly 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 13, 2016, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9057 "2016-04-13T15:12:54Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > You’re back to saying Voter ID laws are immoral? Don’t you need to share a moral framework with someone before using a morality argument against them? > > Do you feel the laws in every other country that require an ID to vote are similarly immoral? Take a clue from Bricker and look at the context (the context in this case being election manipulation and not Bricker’s “lib’ruls are dum!” perspective, in case that was unclear). ---
**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 13, 2016, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9058 "2016-04-13T15:16:32Z")
Voter ID laws are about preventing fraud, not reducing Democratic voters. “Religious freedom” laws are about protecting the rights of Christians, not discriminating against gays. “Bathroom gender” laws are about protecting children, not persecuting transgender people. The Civil Was was about states’ rights, not slavery. Etc. Etc. Etc. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9059 "2016-04-13T15:28:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Take a clue from Bricker and look at the context (the context in this case being election manipulation and not Bricker’s “lib’ruls are dum!” perspective, in case that was unclear). I thought the context was the immorality of Voter ID laws? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9060 "2016-04-13T16:45:12Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If that’s the sum total of your argument in favour, then I guess we win (for what that’s worth) on the preponderance of evidence front. No. That’s the point. You have an opinion, and I have an opinion. Your opinion does not weigh more than mine does. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=452) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=454)