Nice to see that the other side of the debate has some intellectual giants to make the case.
Scalia will throw a bone to “principle” when the Court is voting 7-2 or such, but as I demonstrated earlier the Court is rather predictable on 5-4 splits. Civil rights? Corporate power? Police power? Anything that helps the GOP? Across a very broad range of issues, the voting is so consistent one wonders why they don’t just let Arthur Kennedy make all the decisions, and let the other eight stay on vacation.
The disgusting Supreme Court packed with Bush-Reagan hacks will be highlighted when The Decline of America’s Democracy is written. Saddest of all would be to read Chief Roberts’ secret diary:
And, of course, now Florida is going to resume its voter-roll purge.
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens let’s it be know that he, too, has an opinion concerning the ruling of Shelby County v. Holder.
Hat-tip to Charlie Pierce who provides a more nuanced view…or, is it the other way around?
Another Republican for justice and liberty for all: Rob Gleason
And then there’s this little ditty:
Whose voters? The GOP? That infers their members are spineless in the face of adversity. Or did she mean the Democrats? Then that implies the ones who are engaging in voter fraud are members of the GOP.
“Hysteria” is generally a GOTV kind of thing. The only form of “hysteria” that could ever keep voters at home is the kind that imagines that trying to vote will get you in trouble.
(There was a time when that did keep . . . certain people from voting, but it was no hysterical or unrealistic fear at the time.)
Funny, I don’t hear him saying that that was because the voter ID law kept ineligibles from voting.
I suspect they sometimes let their guard down because they don’t really think what they are doing is wrong. They know for a fact that most of America is solidly with them, so if the Dems win anything, they must be cheating. How could Obama have won if all the really unskewed and truthy polls clearly showed Romney would win?
Nor do you hear him saying that the law kept eligible voters from voting.
True! He didn’t specify any mechanism by way of which this wondrous result was realized.
Could have been magic, i suppose. Or shame, perhaps? “Look, here is this totally legal and constitutional law making it harder for me to vote! I must be an unworthy person, undeserving of any such choice. Gosh, if I vote, its a blight on democracy! I will abstain until they tell me I have done enough penance.”
That’s silly of course. No doubt you have a more plausible scenario right at your fingertips, but didn’t quite have enough time to offer it. Take your time, we’ll be here. Ready when you are.
Wait, I thought that Bricker was concerned mostly with the legality of things in this case (as he often is) and was not asserting the purity of Republican motives in pushing these laws? IOW, I thought he was of the opinion that “they may be putting these laws in place to suppress Democratic votes, but that doesn’t matter, because they have the legal right to do it”?
Or am I incorrect?
I thought Bricker’s rationale was that the mere fear of fraudulent voting was sufficient to justify voter ID laws. It’s not intended to change how many people are able to vote, or for whom, but eliminating the appearance of fraud will instill greater confidence in the results.
Which is somewhat at odds with Gleason’s claim that it did change the numbers.
Pretty slick, gotta hand it to him. The actual threat doesn’t even need to exist, merely the fearful worry that it might. Not even that it currently exists, but might at some point in the future. And, really, shouldn’t the Democrats just man up and take a bullet for the sake of the country?
Has the question been studied? I can’t seem to find anything by googling right now, but there ought to be stats available regarding who was turned away from the polls in Pennsyvania in November 2012, who got a provisional ballot, and whose provisional ballots were counted or discarded. (Of course, that would not tell the whole story; some others, eligible or not, might have been “turned away” in the sense that they were too discouraged to show up, or e-day came and they could not find their ID and saw no point in going to the polls without it.)
Well, that’s because Gleason and I are different people. I have no idea why he believes that the voter ID laws decreased fraudulent voting to that degree.
And I have no idea why I should be responsible for his opinion, correct or in error.
Of course, it’s not even that simple:
So that’s what cut Obama’s vote-margin from 10% to 5%? Just the “confusion”?
It’s not exactly news that confusion is the GOP’s best friend, but, still . . .
Missed that part. Where did he say anything about “fraudulent voting”?
What else could it be? (In his mind, that is).
I think it’s obvious what cut Obama’s vote totals in half: the usual malaise that afflicts voting for second-term presidents. Just my opinion, of course.
In his mind there’s a lot else it could be and almost certainly is. His statements are a different matter.
Agreed.