Wow, those grapes sure are sour, aren’t they?
Precedent is not limited to appellate opinions, Bricker, you know that, it’s just that’s the only kind usually cited because the only kind usually published.
-
Federal district court opinions are certainly published – what do you think fills the pages of the Federal Supplement?
-
When I say “precedent,” I speak of binding precedent. A federal district court case is, I suppose, persuasive precedent, in the sense that another federal district judge may find himself convinced by the reasoning and adopt it, in the same or any other circuit. But that judge is equally free to disregard the reasoning and adopt a contrary rationale if he pleases. Binding precedent comes from a decision of the federal circuit court, which establishes the federal law for its circuit when it decides a case. Once the circuit has spoken, a federal district judge in that circuit is bound to follow that law. (A federal district judge in another circuit is still free to accept or disregard it, of course). The federal circuit can overrule itself, and of course the Supreme Court’s decision sets binding precedent for the entire country.
How is it possible that a judge can not be persuaded by your (shared) position that many, mostly Democrat, poor people should be kept from voting so that we can inoculate against the non-existent problem of in-person voter fraud?
That’s not a question for the judge to determine. That’s a question for the legislature to determine.
I find it telling that you are so steeped in liberal-think that you are seemingly unable to understand that the legislature’s role is to craft laws; the judge’s determination is limited to whether the legislature’s solution is constitutional.
And of course I completely reject your loaded summary of my position in any event.
And I direct your attention to Crawford v. Marion County.
For purposes of this thread that is no distinction; either is equally Pittable depending on circumstances.
Unless of course the alw is unconstitutional.
Crawford relied on the finding of fact at the district level so in this regard the district court’s opinion might have been dispositive.
If the district court in Crawford had found the voter ID laws unduly burdensome or that it impacted some substantial number of otherwise eligible voters or if it had found the state interest to be nominal because this sort of voter fraud simply doesn’t exist in large enough numbers to register.
Given even slightly different, a district court could reach the opposite conclusion adn rule taht the voter ID law is unduly burdensome, impacts a great number of eligible voters and does not address an important enough satte interest to overcome the burdens it imposes on such a large number of eligible voters.
Specifically, in Crawford, there was a mitigation of the burden by letting people file provisional ballots that would be counted if you signed an affidavit at the courthouse. A lot of these new Voter ID laws only count provisional ballots if you show up at the courthouse with documents necessary to get the voter ID in the first place. Other states may have much higher populations of people without voter ID. The only part of Crawford that everyone seems to be following is the part where you make these ID’s free. Counting hunting licenses but not counting food stamp cards seems like it might be less than evenhanded.
I’m referring to Bricker’s history of doing a celebratory touchdown dance whenever a court ruling ends up supporting a position he has argued for on the boards.
Crawford v Madison County? Why didn’t someone mention that before? Indeed, why is there even any issue left to discuss after such a high-level decision makes the point moot?
And what difference does it make that the threat of in-person voter fraud is a chimera? Voter confidence is of the highest importance, considerably more significant than the transient concerns of indigent citizens. If the state legislature concludes that voter confidence might be impaired by the threat of unicorn stampedes they are empowered to act! (After somber and judicious consideration, utterly devoid of partisan considerations… Mostly. Somewhat.) Whatever their motivation, the legislature is entirely within its legitimate concerns to act accordingly!
To protect the all-important voter confidence. From the unicorns. Stampeding.
(I have always been fond of rationalistic arguments that challenge the bounds of reason. The Counselor is a gift that keeps on giving, bless his heart.)
To be fair, he condemns all the other forms of voter suppression that the Republican party has engaged in recently. I am just baffled by his defense of voter ID laws that are meant to suppress poor minority voters.
Do you even understand the difference between a ruling that sets precedent and a ruling that does not?
Are any of those “celebratory touchdown dances” for rulings that were not precedential?
Hey Bricker, I’d just like you to know something.
You know how viscerally upset you get about the botched execution? Some of us feel the same way about the right to vote. You laugh and cluck to yourself about how smart “your side” is for enshrining lasting electoral advantage by keeping likely Democrats from voting. You don’t care that the excuse given for the laws is in-person voter fraud, and it very nearly doesn’t exist. As long as that excuse is there, you think it’s fair game and the protestations of “the other side” are music to your ears.
I just thought you should know that for some people who care about justice and want America to be a great country, those people are just as upset as you are about the death penalty.
I only mention it because you, like many conservatives, sometimes don’t understand what motivates the liberals around you.
Heck, when you put it like that… I’m pretty sanguine about the death penalty - I think it could be done right (but never has been) - but systematic and disingenuous efforts at disenfranchisement just piss me off.
Incidentally, I was asked for my ID the last time I voted. A simple ID requirement could be done right, but I don’t trust Americans who call for it to do so. Canadians can manage it with a nonpartisan government agency to oversee elections, helped along by single-payer healthy care that encourages everyone to get a free picture ID (their province’s health care card), though even then it’s not without problems.
Voter ID laws that are clearly intended to disenfranchise get struck down. Voter ID laws that are reasonable for insuring the integrity of the election process get upheld. Most states have a voter ID requirement of some sort:
I do. Do you understand that when you’re the douchbag prancing on the sidelines, nobody gives a fuck about precedent?
Goddamn, you’re a moron.
That just seems to be a personal attack, as opposed to a substantive rebuttal.
You said: “A judge’s ruling establishes whether people were previously right or wrong when they stated their opinion on a legal issue, right?” To support this jab, you claimed: “I’m referring to Bricker’s history of doing a celebratory touchdown dance whenever a court ruling ends up supporting a position he has argued for on the boards.”
I pointed out that the present ruling doesn’t qualify, because it’s not true that I celebrate “whenever a court ruling ends up supporting a position I have argued for…” I reminded you that my observations concerning my own accuracy are associated with precedent – that a single district court ruling is not the kind of thing I’d typically offer to show I was right.
Your response doesn’t really address that at all, does it? I mean, I certainly grant that this forum allows that kind of response, but it seems to be an admission that your original attack was not based on anything factual, and your response to having that pointed out is another attack not based on anything factual.
And from here, you’ll undoubtedly jump over to read another thread on the SDMB about how conservatives deny facts and liberals base their policy decisions on facts, and you’ll nod sagely to yourself. Right?
If someone feels that the deliberate killing of a human being by a state of the United States is in any way equivalent to the demand that people present photo IDs before voting… then all I can say is:
(1) OK, I get that you have extremely strong feelings on the issue, but
(2) …those feelings are completely misplaced, because the two should not remotely engender the same feelings.
A imprisoned, helpless human life being taken by sanctioned state action is simply not in the same moral universe as the desire to make people present photo IDs. I accept your representation that you feel the same way about both, but I reject completely the objective validity of that feeling.
Guillotine! Guillotine! Guillotine! In a public square with a big crowd! Crazy old ladies in the front row knitting! And a drumroll!
Of course it’s a personal attack, dummy. I’m commenting on your personal behavior.