I have no doubt that citizens of several states would happily vote for a referendum outlawing Islam. Would that make it constitutional? The rights of the individual are not subject to the will of the majority, which is what voter ID laws seek to subvert. Too bad you don’t have as much respect for voting rights as you do for The Second Half Of The Second Amendment.
Worse than that, he herein actively opposes the Equal Protection clause, while claiming to be a Constitutional literalist all the same.
There are excellent reasons we *have *a Bill of Rights, reasons which he can never comprehend.
Gotta love that part of the Texas law wherein a concealed-carry permit *without *a picture is perfectly cromulent, but a student ID with a picture simply won’t do. But Texas is browning, and the babies are a-birthing, and the demographic clock…tick-tock, tick-tock.
The Wall will not be broken, and it will not be hurdled. But it will crumble.
Which we know, because Voter ID laws have been repealed.
(Liberals are so used to manipulating meaning with language that in cases like Lobohan’s they come to believe that simply declaring a fact makes it true.)
What makes it constitutional is the Supreme Court saying it’s constitutional.
Crawford v Marion County.
Yes, by the way: the rights of the individual are absolutely subject to the will of the majority. What fantasyland you must inhabit to think otherwise. The best your side can do is impotently quote dissents and blogs. The actual law is made by the majority (of the legislature) and decided permissible by the majority (of the Court).
Gloat while you can, Counselor. Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
When i was a younger fool, my notions about justice and law were extreme and radical. Now, they are so ordinary and common as to be unremarkable. I’m a bit uncomfortable with my born-again centrism, but so it goes.
These laws wouldn’t be necessary if the Republicans weren’t losing. The victorious don’t fight rear-guard actions. Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
Procedure over morality.
This rationalizes the Japanese Internment and segregation.
But by all means keep up with this line of “reasoning”.
Over at Daily Kos, this line:
As a boor of little brain, these complex issues of legality often evade my grasp. I would appreciate some clarification from someone with more insight. If this is correct, it causes me to wonder, why not? Are the Supremes ducking the issue? Is it a “state’s rights” thing?
And if this is not a ruling on constitutionality, what the heck is it?
I understand that “Baby Doc” and his Haitian secret police used addition and subtraction to keep track of dissidents they tortured and killed.
Therefore, we should not use addition and subtraction. Because, they were used for something bad.
If only I had thought of this argument in third grade.
Which is, of course, about where that fallacy belongs.
It’s a question of procedure. (Faint-hearted person who fear decisions based on procedure should consider this a trigger warning.)
There was a trial over the Texas law. The trial ended with a judge finding the law constitutional. The law’s opponents appealed. In their appeal, they asked the Fifth Circuit to do two things: considering their appeal from the trial court’s decision, and stay the enforcement of the law until the appeal could be considered.
The Fifth Circuit accepted the appeal (as they must) but denied the request to stay.
The law’s opponents then asked the Supreme Court to stay the enforcement of the law while the Fifth Circuit hears the appeal. The Supreme Court also denied the request to stay.
So the scorecard, if you will, looks like this:
Federal district court says: (1) law is constitutional, and (obviously) therefore the law can be used.
Federal circuit court says: We haven’t had time to review the district court, and we won’t prevent the law from being used in the meantime. Submit briefs and argue the issue. After that, we’ll let you know in due course if we think the trial judge erred.
Supreme Court says: We agree with the Fifth Circuit. No stay while the issue is appealed. Get an answer from the Fifth Circuit and then ask us for certorari if you like.
Ginsburg says: I disagree with the majority. Crawford was wrong, this is wrong too.
He simply misunderstands the subtlety of your reasoning. Of course you are not claiming that an injustice that is supported by the Court becomes kosher simply because it is legal and “constitutional”! That would be stupid!
Nor are you advancing such a ridiculous idea such that our Courts have never supported and preserved injustice, that would be even more stupid! Regrettably, your aptitude for rhetorical dodgeball makes it hard to precisely see otherwise. Which, no doubt, you will scurry to correct.
A question, friend Bricker?
Do you think that my winning or losing the argument here has the power to retroactively change reality and make an unjust law dissapear?
Do you think that some abolitionist just needed to have a proper well thought out argument on a message board and slavery would have fallen into ash?
You’re such a dishonest coward that you need to feel around in the dark for any weapon you can find, and this clot of soft, moist shit is all you can come up with. I’m sorry, your maggoty, rancid handful of squishing cowflop isn’t a real argument. Please come back when you find a rock.
No, I’ve never said that. Yet you have repeatedly lied about it and asserted it so.
I assume you’d chuft at a sobbing child in the killing fields, that their tears didn’t make this unlawful. And you’d chuckle at a slave begging his master to stop whipping him, because hey, his cries aren’t changing the law. And some Jew being rounded up by the Nazis, well, they should have voted Hitler out of office.
You’re a piece of filth, that’s the main thrust of this post. I’m not suggesting I’m right by virtue of the totemic power of my words. I’m suggesting I’m right because my argument is better than yours.
That right there, is what you’re good for. Thanks for that summation.
Texan here, and one who opposes voter ID laws at that. Nonetheless I feel obligated to say that a Texas concealed carry permit does have a photo on it, is an official state issued card, and has as much personal info on it as a drivers license does. I’d expect to be able to use it in any situation calling for ID - in fact I used mine to set up a bank account once. Whereas a student ID isn’t held to any state standard that I’m aware of. There’s plenty of basis for complaint about the Texas law in particular but this isn’t one.
A recovering Texan myself. I have seen this “no picture” theme repeated from many sources that I trust. Or so I thought, upon review, I see many sources who find it offensive that a gun permit is more vote-worthy than a student ID, but none make any reference to photos. What they do reference is addresses, which student ids do not have.
That would be enough to recommend a “stand corrected” post, but in addition, we have the shared tradition of Texans for a strict and undeviating devotion to simple fact and plain truth.
I stand corrected.
Concur. Glancing about on the net, I see reflections of this view prevail. Point of fact being that nothing was really decided. Wasn’t going to be anyway, far too late. Texas is the brontosaurus, you run over its tail with a tractor, and its a week or more before the brainstem gets the message.
Small potatoes and weak beer appears to be the consensus.
Here is Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion.
Am I correct that Texas’ latest voter suppression would have been illegal until the Voter Rights Act was overturned?
Bricker, would you confirm for us whether this leftist slut is amoral?
[QUOTE=amoral leftist slut of a Justice]
Senate Bill 14 may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters (about 4.5% of all registered voters) from voting in person for lack of compliant identification.* Id*., at 50–51, 54. A sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are African-American or Hispanic. Ibid.
[/QUOTE]
Those numbers, are they by any chance from the recently released GAO report?
Been thinking about that lately, seems to me the Forces of Darkness’ grimly asserting the looming threat of voter fraud is faith-based, thus, immune to questions of fact. But on the other hand, they have the bald faced audacity to claim that other numbers, like who is going to be affected by all this…that those numbers are made up, so there!
But now we have boney fidos, pure D gummint approved numbers. Seems to me fair to suggest if one side has actual evidence and the other does not…
I know, crazy idea. Another crazy idea…
Yes, they do. His name is Ramon Cue.
:rolleyes: