Anybody got a staplegun handy, or some duct tape? I want to attach the GAO report to Bricker’s forehead, so that it flops down in front of his eyes. That way, I may have some assurance that he might actually read it.
Evidence, Counselor, evidence. That official government report, does it qualify as evidence? Does it not clearly state that otherwise qualified voters will not be able to vote? Does it not state that such laws have repressed voter turnout, and that voter absence is primarily from the demographic least likely to vote Republican?
Does it not further state that no reliable evidence exists for in-person voter fraud being any sort of issue worth noting?
Where’s yours? Doesn’t something have to actually exist before it becomes a “valid neutral justification”? And what about "voter confidence’ in those all important super dooper close elections?
If the Republican candidate wins by a thousand votes, and two thousand probable Democrat voters have been suppressed, will you scurry down here to gloat about the “will of the people”? Knowing, as you surely must, that it is a lie?
I’m failing to follow along a bit, so to be clear; if somehow malevolent intent or motive could be proved, would this alter your position? I’m unsure if your point is that intention can be completely uncoupled from action/results or if it’s just uncertain intention.
No – I’m heaping scorn upon the absurd idea that motive of some of the people who voted for a law can possibly be the basis for deciding a law is unconstitutional.
Since Bricker’s brought the phrase “Designated Photography Locations” to my attention, I’ve found some interesting reading which I’ll report on later today. So far, India is well ahead of Texas on the issue of voter ID accessibility, though the opinion is admittedly preliminary. I can tentatively predict that Clothahump’s streak of bullshit-spouting will not be broken.
Whatever it takes for you to hold together your sense of superiority in the face of crippling failure. <3
If you think both parties are equal in their treatment of policy that effects the poor, you’re stupid. I appreciate that you think you have a point here, but it’s not very interesting.
What you call proof actually isn’t. Look, you think you’ve goat a rarefied view above it all, but you’re really just trying to feel above it all.
Don’t call me a racist you fucking cowardly piece of filth. You’re the one tacitly supporting making it harder for minorities to vote, and you pull that shit out?
Please don’t lie about me just because you’re unable to come up with an actual argument to support your thesis that, “buh buh buh… but both sides… are the same… [moist farting noise]”
Please don’t accuse me of racism unless you can back it up. It’s particularly dishonest. I haven’t called you a child molester. I can win this argument by defeating your stupid ideas. You should be able to fight back by attacking mine, not lying about me.
Nice that you want to emancipate people, after just making up a racism accusation against me. Subtle there. I don’t really care what you want, I just note that you’re unable to effectively argue for it.
You’re stupid. If the vote is compromised, everything else is on a shaky foundation. The government that manipulates voting to craft itself isn’t something that’s gonna respect your rights overly.
About Crawford. Judge Richard Posner says here that, had he known then what he knows now on the effects of these laws, effects demonstrated by the GAO report, he would have voted differently.
So, the result of Crawford v Marion County…which you swing around like it the Plus Ten Hammer of Thor…likely would have been decided differently had the empirical evidence offered by the GAO report been available. He’s wrong? You are certainly at liberty to refute his testimony, indeed, it would be entertaining to watch you try.
And a few points of clarity, if we may.
My questions:
Your answer, charming in its direct simplicity, is “No”. Singular, just “no”. Is that “no” to the first question, the second, or an all encompassing, sweeping declaration of refusal? The report does, in fact, clearly state that otherwise qualified voters were barred, suppressed, etc. At the very least, people who did vote before did not vote after the laws were passed, were they all fraudulent? Or have you any plausible explanation to offer?
Is the GAO infected with liberal hypocrisy, and not to be trusted? Or you have some compelling evidence that they are simply wrong? In your haste, you neglected to include any such support for your sternly negative reaction. Have you any? Is it a shame, then, that Judge Posner did not consult with your before he made such unfortunate remarks?
I think Judge Posner’s remarks are cogent and enlightening, and I take his point: if the law has no empirical evidence to support itself, and its challengers do not have any such evidence either, then a conservative judge might well be reluctant to overturn a law when neither side has empirical data to support their position.
But that is different now, yes? Now such official, government approved and empirical data does exist, and if more cases come before another court, you can bet your sweet ass this report will be entered as evidence.
Crawford, then, it appears, is a lot shakier than your authoritative “No.” might suggest. Especially since, without any effort on your part to support your judgement, your “no” rests entirely upon your own authority, brushing aside without comment Judge Posner, legal dilettante that he is…
And finally, this.
Oh, dear! Poorly worded, was it, you have a better suggestion? How about “discouraged”? “Hindered”? Have you got one that puts a more positive spin on injustice? Share, please. But wait until you have supplied at least some of your vast supply of empirical evidence that the GAO report is wrong.
I wait with bated breath. Largely because I have noticed in the past that when you make sweeping statements without supporting them, its because you don’t have any.
Amigo, I can tell you what Texas does. All you have to do is register. The vast majority of people do that when they get their driver’s license. OMG! A photo id that can be presented at the polls. Oh, the horror! I just realized how badly I have suffered for the last 20+ years by having to get my wallet out and dig out my DL to show to the folks at the polls, because I don’t bother to carry my voter registration card around with me (the one that the county mails to me every couple of years).
I hear all the whining about how hard it is to get an ID, and I have to call bullshit. It’s not hard. It’s not a financial burden of any kind.
This whole thing is bullshit. Why anyone would object to a law requiring ID to be shown to vote baffles me. The only conclusion is that they have a vested interest in having illegals and dead people vote, and probably more than once.
And with that statement, your streak continues. I’ll into Indian voter identification policies to either confirm or disprove my contention that you’re full of shit.
My admitted pre-analysis expectation is that you are. Feel free to view my results in that light.
You’re talking about the subject, connected to a legal matter. Wouldn’t the true irrelevancy be to not talk about the legal aspects to a subject that touches on legal matters? Regardless of whether the target of your scorn had some legal basis or not, to not discuss it on that basis seems like missing something important.
He’s relying on the same reasoning as conservatives apply to law, that if a thing is to be changed, then those who demand the change must provide evidence that the change is needful, but the defenders of the status quo need not. Judge Posner, in his recent remarks, underscored that very point, that the defenders of voter id law didn’t have any proof, but they didn’t need to, because it was already the fact.
Change is bad. Progress is OK, long as it doesn’t change anything.