In fairness, abandoning any kind of moral argument in support of a disenfranchisement strategy was inevitable, since it doesn’t actually, y’know, exist.
Are you trying to suggest that because one action followed another in time, the second was caused by the first?
All actions in time and space are caused by previous actions. Your fate is eternal. Hail Xenu.
Actually, I was just sort of hoping you’d go back and respond to what I think is a vindication of my criticism of the actions as morally wrong.
I have always acknowledged that the motives for some people that are pushing plans like this are indefensible.
I have resisted the inference that because some motives are impermissible, the plan as a whole becomes morally corrupt.
That seems to give an awful lot of leeway to these guys. Basically, even if I’m right, there would seem to be no way to prove to you that at least some of the people were not partially motivated by the “non-morally-objectionable” concerns.
I don’t think I’ve proven it to you, by the way. But I do think there’s a preponderance of evidence that makes it more likely than not that the main motivator behind these actions is to help Republicans politically.
Who, then, is innocent here? Those Republicans who did not even consider that these actions would have an unjust and impermissible effect? Were they ignorant, hence, innocent? Didn’t hear anything about that? Did they walk about with their fingers in their ears, singing “La, la, la, can’t hear you!” all day long?
Can we agree that is more than unlikely? You toss about the vague word “some” as though it means something specific, but it is actually more an evasion than a statement. Usually, it is used to imply that this represents a minority, only “some” Republicans have corrupt motives. The word would also apply if the majority had such motivations, a semantic parsing you pointedly ignore.
And the rest? Isn’t anyone who voted for this complicit, seeing as how a people’s representative has a duty to keep himself informed? No one told him, the voices in dissent somehow did not reach his pristine and innocent ears?
Please. You pee on our shoes and tell us its raining. Maybe it is raining, but you are still peeing on our shoes. And gloating about it, let the record show.
No. Because a law supported by valid, neutral justification should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators. That’s the holding of Crawford v. Marion County, and it’s a concept that makes perfect sense. I agree with it. It’s right.
First, “may have provided” is another evasion, one you have already surrendered. It definitely was, you yourself agreed that this was the case. You are adorably coy about how many, sheltering behind “some”, but you had at least that much honesty.
And we are compelled to agree, because the courts have never been unjust? We are arguing justice, however much you might prefer to argue legality. Yes, these things are legal. That’s the problem.
And to niggle and nitpick in Brickerish fashion, those are reasons why the law may not be overturned, they have no direct bearing on whether they should have been enacted in the first place.
Let me put it directly: would you have voted for it? Without so much as a qualm? Have you a friend who would be affected by this, could you explain yourself in such a way as to keep his respect?
Plus it’s a misuse of “valid”, or perhaps more accurately a usage that is legally defensible but not rationally or morally.
Emphasis mine. It must be nice to be able to invoke a chant in lieu of thinking.
Your kiddie-cocksucking church teach you that?
In any case, Bricker, my stupid, stupid friend. Because your cult has so damaged your capacity for reason, the thing you miss, is that this solution, is worse than the problem.
It causes more distortion to the voting results than the nearly non-existent in-person voter fraud you fear so much.
But you know that, in fact that’s why you support it. Because you’re such a failure as a moral, thinking human being, that you cluck happily when something technically legal but dishonest favors you.
The Crawford holding was actually 'Valid neutral justifications for a nondiscriminatory law, such as SEA 483, should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators." Nobody is suggesting disregarding the law itself, although that may have been merely sloppy wording on your part.
You might have noted that:
A. The holding applies only to *nondiscriminatory *laws. As you may have noticed, voter ID laws are not nondiscriminatory even if a partisan Justice might wish it to be thought that they are.
B. The holding only claims that a bullshit excuse *should *not be disregarded. Your argument throughout this long tractor-pull of a thread is that the ability of a counsel or judge to dream one up trumps all other considerations, neener-neener, so suck on it, Dumbocraps. It doesn’t.
IOW, you’re wrong on the law as well as the morality, even if you can’t distinguish the concepts like fully-formed humans can. Or maybe you’re just lying and hoping the Debate Team judges don’t call you on it, like they used to back in high school.
As an amoral person, you can’t offer any useful opinions on morality.
Hmm, Bricker gloats, the court rules…
Say, Bricker, maybe you could rub our noses in your victory a little more? Probably no connection, but, shit, what can it hurt? Hoss.
Aren’t you the hypocrite that laughs at poor people being marginalized, and pretends he’s a Christian?
Oh do go on, you paragon of moral turpitude.
Why is Bricker asking Bricker what Bricker meant when Bricker wrote post hoc ergo propter hoc?
This critique, by the way, does not apply to the circumstances in which someone is explaining why they did something. See, that always happens post hoc. It’s kinda how time and space work.
So having discovered the Land of Specious Comebacks, will you be setting up a permanent base there? Can I reasonably expect no further attempts to respond intelligently, just reflexive “you’re amoral” comments?
My morality, incidentally, is superior to yours if I apply reason and you determinedly do not.
Any time your argument rests on your mistaken view that you understand morality, my response will be to remind you that you don’t.
If you have anything to say that isn’t grounded in your fatally anemic morality, please trot it out.
Look, he learned a new word!
Not its meaning, though.