I didn’t create this post:
There are other posts in which I expanded upon my beliefs of why the OH action is bad.
No, but you chose to ignore that the “it” refers to a specific practice and generalized to imply a belief in “one way ratchet” law. You took an exagerrated interpretation so you could challenge that interpretation, even while accusing others of using strawman arguments.
I don’t think it’s at all controversial that laws RESTRICTING rights should face stricter scrutiny than laws EXTENDING rights.
Still, if the “one-way ratchet” had been, in fact, an actual argument, **Bricker’**s rebuttal would have been cogent, intelligent, and precise. Gotta give him that one.
But that would restrict the rights of Republicans to manipulate elections! Won’t someone PLEASE think of the Republicans?!
As you pointed out in post 6369, then, isn’t the proper response to clarify the argument?
In this case, I don’t agree that “it” referred to the specific practice, because I asked a general question. But perhaps you’re right – that’s what the proponent of the argument needed to clarify.
I’m not sure I agree that a law reducing days that voting is possible is fairly called “restricting” a right.
But the discussion seems to be clear now that there are plenty of permissible reasons for a state to reduce voting days or hours, and of course plenty of impermissible ones as well.
But you now agree that as a general principle, it’s not correct to say we can automatically determine removing a voting day to be bad – that it depends on the specific factors surrounding the decision, yes?
Yes. I thought my other posts made that clear, since I was critical of this OH decision for specific reasons that may or may not apply in other cases (and which you’ve chosen to ignore, perhaps, to go down this rabbit hole).
Bricker, you realize that if you have to slice the “ratchet” issue down to an atom in order to claim victory, all you get is an atom? Meanwhile, there remain untamed elephants of irrationality trampling through your argument.
Bricker, when you nitpick and argue like a stereotypical TV lawyer, as you seem to be doing here, it really doesn’t seem to advance anyone’s knowledge, understanding, insight, etc., on this issue.
What I’m really curious about is this: do you believe at least some significant part of the motivation of Republican officials on voter ID and rolling back early voting (and similar actions) is to help Republicans politically by reducing Democratic turnout? And if so, do you believe this is morally wrong?
OK.
So: refresh my recollection. What are the specific factors in this case that make the Ohio decision “wrong?”
He’s previously stipulated the former. To the latter, he can point only to polls of the underinformed while neenerneenering those in the more-informed minority.
But at no time has he discussed the value of supporting and strengthening democracy itself as a moral good, despite numerous entreaties. The concept is incomprehensible to him.
Answered in this post.
Tell me:
Does this “…advance anyone’s knowledge, understanding, insight, etc., on this issue?”
But it’s my failure to do so that triggers your remonstration, eh?
Yes. Not sure how “significant,” but it’s certainly more than a scintilla, or a trivial amount.
Yes.
This is that post:
Which of these happened in Ohio?
It advances my knowledge, understanding, and insight about Trinopus’s opinion of you. 
C’mon, admit it. You love this stuff. You can’t get enough of it.
All of it except perhaps for the statements part (I’m still googling), which definitely occurred in neighboring states and are part of this pattern.