# 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:** 477
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9521 "2016-05-04T00:10:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That would be a fair comparison…if I had just proudly announced that I knew what I was talking about, just like the 56 signers of the Constitution did. > > But of course such a statement would expose ignorance, since it was the Declaration of Independence that had 56 signers, not the Constitution. Indeed. The constitution had 39 signers. I don’t know why you thought it was 56. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9522 "2016-05-04T00:37:23Z")
On re-examination, the constitution had 40 signers. My apologies to William Jackson. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9523 "2016-05-04T00:51:08Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What about your refusals to recognize obvious points in general? Lies? I only ask because calling you “disingenuous” has been done so often, it’s lost its charm. I have never refused to recognize an obvious point. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9524 "2016-05-04T01:11:02Z")
Heh, well, you can lie to yourself and get away with it. Lie to us… not so much. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9525 "2016-05-04T01:13:54Z")
By the way, CAN you name all the signers of the Constitution? I gather it’s important for some reason. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9526 "2016-05-04T01:31:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > . . . And you were the one that confidently highlighted the strength of your constitutional understanding with the claim that there were four dissenters. . . . My beliefs are supported by the fact that there was dissent. Even if the vote had been eight to one, the fact that one Supreme Court Justice held the law in question to be unconstitutional supports my belief that the law is unconstitutional. Sure, I boobed up the number. I didn’t bother to look it up. It isn’t important. That there was dissent is all that my point relies upon. So, once more, you’re caught lying. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9527 "2016-05-04T01:33:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Trinopus, you yourself denied that this Supreme Court decision was the law of the land. You called the result unconstitutional. You refused to admit that it is the current law of the land, dancing around the admission like Michael Flatley was your mentor. > > You cannot call my recognition of this obvious point a lie. I’ve NEVER refused to admit that Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land. In one of my posts earlier today (are you able to read?) I acknowledged this. You are obviously lying. You’re contradicting what is right there in text for everyone to see. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9528 "2016-05-04T01:39:57Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > By the way, CAN you name all the signers of the Constitution? > I gather it’s important for some reason. Grin! I only brought it up as mockery of **Bricker** ’s challenge to me to name the dissenters in the Indiana Voter-ID law. If he can make an irrelevant demand, I guess I can too. It’s very typical of **Bricker** ’s style here. It’s akin to pointing out a missing comma or a misspelled word. Now, if the SC ruling in question had been without dissent at all – my point would still be valid, because I can point to other cases where there is dissent! The fact that the Supreme Court has had cases where there is dissent supports my ability, in full validity, to say that a law’s constitutionality is open to question. That very question is what the SC votes to decide – and sometimes they even reverse themselves. Certain laws have been unconstitutional…then constitutional again! **Bricker** ’s absolutist view of “The Law of the Land” is not capable of coping with reversals of this nature. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9529 "2016-05-04T02:19:43Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > My beliefs are supported by the fact that there was dissent. > > Even if the vote had been eight to one, the fact that one Supreme Court Justice held the law in question to be unconstitutional supports my belief that the law is unconstitutional. > > Sure, I boobed up the number. I didn’t bother to look it up. It isn’t important. > > That there was dissent is all that my point relies upon. > > So, once more, you’re caught lying. Good grief. Getting an admission of error from you is like pulling teeth. So as long as there’s dissent, it’s ok to declare that the decision had no effect and was unconstitutional? And when pressed, grudgingly admit that you’re discussing your opinion? That seems like the most useful path to you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9530 "2016-05-04T02:21:59Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Certain laws have been unconstitutional…then constitutional again! **Bricker** ’s absolutist view of “The Law of the Land” is not capable of coping with reversals of this nature. You must live in a confusing world. Despite widespread confusion over the constitutionality of these laws, states keep enforcing them! How? It’s a mystery! ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9531 "2016-05-04T03:28:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You must live in a confusing world. Hey, at least he accurately stated the Constitution had been signed. I gather you thought he meant the Declaration of Independence, but the DoI is but one of four important “signed” historical American documents: 1. The Articles of Association. Effective Date: December 1, 1774. Signers: 53 2. The Declaration of Independence. Effective Date: July 4, 1776 Signers: 56 3. The Articles of Confederation. Effective Date: March 1, 1781 Signers: 48 4. The Constitution. Effective Date: June 21, 1788 Signers: 40 Notably, Roger Sherman of Connecticut is the only man to have signed all four. Anyway, I don’t know if Trinopus really was thinking of the DoI when he referenced the signing of the Constitution - I’m just amused by the herpity-derp ignorance you eagerly displayed when you thought you’d discovered his error. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9532 "2016-05-04T04:21:08Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Hey, at least he accurately stated the Constitution had been signed. I gather you thought he meant the Declaration of Independence, but the DoI is but one of four important “signed” historical American documents: > > 1. The Articles of Association. > Effective Date: December 1, 1774. > Signers: 53 > > 2. The Declaration of Independence. > Effective Date: July 4, 1776 > Signers: 56 > > 3. The Articles of Confederation. > Effective Date: March 1, 1781 > Signers: 48 > > 4. The Constitution. > Effective Date: June 21, 1788 > Signers: 40 > > Notably, Roger Sherman of Connecticut is the only man to have signed all four. > > Anyway, I don’t know if Trinopus really was thinking of the DoI when he referenced the signing of the Constitution - I’m just amused by the herpity-derp ignorance you eagerly displayed when you thought you’d discovered his error. Please re-read my post and quote the portion you feel demonstrates any error at all on my part. Or “herpy derpy ignorance.” Here it is: > [@Bricker](#): > > That would be a fair comparison…if I had just proudly announced that I knew what I was talking about, just like the 56 signers of the Constitution did. > > But of course such a statement would expose ignorance, since it was the Declaration of Independence that had 56 signers, not the Constitution. That knowledge alone means little, of course…it’s the invocation of the false fact as evidence that you know of whence you speak that turns it from meaningless to pathetic. > > So whenever I claim that the 56 signers of the Constitution agreed with me, you are welcome to hoot and holler. > > And you were the one that confidently highlighted the strength of your constitutional understanding with the claim that there were four dissenters. > > Seriously, this is so pathetic it’s funny. On a website that claims an interest in fighting ignorance, you wave yours proudly, as a badge of honor, and hint darkly that the REAL problem is knowing it was 6-3. Not knowing, and assuming it was 5-4… yes, that’s the true sign of subject mastery! ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9533 "2016-05-04T04:24:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Good grief. Getting an admission of error from you is like pulling teeth. I readily admit that I blundered when assuming the Indiana voter ID case had been settled by a 5-4 vote. I have not, otherwise, made any errors. I have a suite of opinions – and so do you. Disagreement is not error. > [@](#): > > So as long as there’s dissent, it’s ok to declare that the decision had no effect and was unconstitutional? I never said that the decision was unconstitutional, and I never said that the decision had no effect. You’re making things up again. > [@](#): > > And when pressed, grudgingly admit that you’re discussing your opinion? I’ve never denied that. **Bricker** , you blundered. You overplayed your hand. You caught me in a very minor and not relevant error, and tried to pretend that it invalidated my opinion. Having failed there, you now resort to false accusations. Your debate skills are lacking. You are seriously deficient in tactics and rhetorical talent. To explain it once again (although I wonder how you will choose to mischaracterize it this time) I say that the fact that even one Supreme Court Justice has voted to overturn a law gives support to my view that the law can be called into constitutional question. The Justice himself has called the law into constitutional question. He is on official record as saying the law violates the constitution. When I say the same thing, I am in no less company than one of the members of the court itself. I have never denied that such laws, having been upheld, are “The law of the land.” That’s a lie on your part. I have certainly never said – go ahead and use your robot skills to find an exception – that a Supreme Court decision has “no effect” or that a Supreme Court decision was “unconstitutional.” You made that shit up, and you’re paying for it now in the loss of esteem of every person reading this thread. A year or so ago, I wronged you, by accusing you of being reluctant to admit your errors. I was corrected in this, by persons who are not at all your friends in this forum. You have just made the same blunder with regard to me, accusing me of refusing to admit my error. I have done so multiple times now, and you are proven very wrong. You would also benefit from an antiperspirant. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9534 "2016-05-04T04:29:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You must live in a confusing world. > > Despite widespread confusion over the constitutionality of these laws, states keep enforcing them! How? It’s a mystery! Another error on your part. To begin with, states have a history of enforcing unconstitutional laws. The Jim Crow era comes to mind. The abuse of force is far from extinct in the United States. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of the chiefest exponents. Oh, and, secondly, you lie again: I never said that a law that is unconstitutional (by three or four of **Max the Vool** ’s criteria) cannot still be the Law of the Land, and thus enforced. You keep making this childish blunder. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9535 "2016-05-04T04:45:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Please re-read my post and quote the portion you feel demonstrates any error at all on my part. Okay, here’s the relevant part of his post, or at least I assume you assume it was relevant, since you quoted it: > [@Trinopus](#): > > Can you name all the men who signed the Constitution? Right now, no looking it up? No? I’ll bet the same money, the same way, that you just did. You cannot name the Constitution’s signers. So you’re pretty obviously too ignorant to have an opinion on the document. Goose goose gander. And the relevant part of your reply: > [@Bricker](#): > > That would be a fair comparison…if I had just proudly announced that I knew what I was talking about, just like the 56 signers of the Constitution did. > > But of course such a statement would expose ignorance, since it was the Declaration of Independence that had 56 signers, not the Constitution. That knowledge alone means little, of course…it’s the invocation of the false fact as evidence that you know of whence you speak that turns it from meaningless to pathetic. > > So whenever I claim that the 56 signers of the Constitution agreed with me, you are welcome to hoot and holler. Why are you even invoking the DoI (and its 56 signers), unless you thought that Trinopus _meant_ the DoI when he said “signed the Constitution”. Well, the Constitution _was_ signed, so regardless of what he may have _meant_ to say, there’s nothing factually incorrect about what he _did_ say. Indeed, the context suggests he meant Constitution and not the DoI, since the rhetoric was about your alleged expertise and the DoI is not relevant to this issue. Or maybe you were aware that both documents had been signed and you just decided to say “56 signers of the Constitution” as an example of a factual error - but it would be _your_ factual error, since Trinopus didn’t mention the numbers of signers of _any_ document in the post you quoted. Basically, you fucked up. It’s over a trivial matter of no import, but I’ll be genuinely surprised if you’d admit it, instead of trying to spin it in some way. Meantime, when I visualize you typing that post, it always comes with a soundtrack of your imbecilic giggling: "Herpity-derp, he said constutushun when ever’buddy nose dey signed the decleration of inderpendence, hyuk hyuk hyuk!’ It makes me chuckle. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9536 "2016-05-04T05:30:23Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > . . . Why are you even invoking the DoI (and its 56 signers), unless you thought that Trinopus _meant_ the DoI when he said “signed the Constitution”. . . . Y’know, I completely missed that bit. It’s vaguely amusing, sort of like Gaudere’s Law. He schooled me (properly) for miscounting a vote – and then miscounts the signing of the founding document of the U.S.A. Far from relevant; it’s like Obama talking about the 57 states, or George Bush talking about Pearl Harbor Day being September 7. It doesn’t really undermine **Bricker** ’s understanding of the constitution. It does make him look a tad silly, scolding me for a blunder and then making one of his own. I just call it karma. Also, of course, this entire side-show has, as noted above, been a huge digression away from the real point of the thread: voter suppression. **Bricker** loves to divert the point. He’ll do anything to avoid facing the facts, and the facts are the voter ID laws have been proven – hell, GOP officials have bragged about it – to have the purpose of diminishing Democratic voter turn-out. That’s what the man is defending. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9537 "2016-05-04T06:08:32Z")
Bricker cracked some skulls in this thread. Few things funnier than sanctimonious left-wingers being called on their bullshit and subsequently flailing around in an attempt to defend themselves. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9538 "2016-05-04T08:10:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Since I can never tell whether you folks are talking about a wise social policy or a normative legal framework, I have no idea. Oh. So that’s the problem. I can only speak for myself, but … If I post in all-caps “HERE’S A QUESTION FOR THE LEGAL-LOOKUP BOT”, along with a link to an image of an Esquire with a stick shoved up his rectum, then I’m asking for your legal opinion. Otherwise I’m expressing an opinion about wise social policy. I think similar remarks apply to most posters here, _as they’ve made clear and **as you’d know by now if you weren’t so insufferably dense.** _ ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9539 "2016-05-04T11:05:15Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Bricker cracked some skulls in this thread. Few things funnier than sanctimonious left-wingers being called on their bullshit and subsequently flailing around in an attempt to defend themselves. That IS funny, though I wouldn’t limit it to left-wingers. It applies to bullshitters of all types. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9540 "2016-05-04T14:59:37Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > In other news, Governor McAulliffe of Virginia is reinstating the voting rights of all of Virginia’s ex-convicts in a move that seems calculated to throw a few hundred thousand votes towards Hillary Clinton. > > Is this move any less cynical than Voter ID laws? Well, I’ll step forward and say that I find this troubling. Not because I particularly think that ex-felons shouldn’t get to vote, but because whatever arguments there are either way, the decision should not be being made by someone who benefits politically. Did governor McCauliffe do this purely for crass political gain, or does he honestly believe it is the ethical course of action? The fact that we can’t possibly know is troubling. (That said, there are any number of reasons why this is less troubling than voter ID laws, including the obvious one that it’s granting voter rights rather than restricting them.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=476) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=478)