Neither are the Republicans, for that matter. If what they really wanted was voter ID laws because voter confidence, but without any such dire implications and effects on voter turnout, they could have done it easily, with the wholehearted support of us Stalinists.
They didn’t. Because they didn’t want to.
But, anyway, I guess its time to move on, eh, Counselor? So, we can pretty much forget about that huge load of posts, because we changed the subject?
Because your question comes across as pointlessly rhetorical. Of course no one* wishes to break the system because we don’t like a current set of outcomes. See my post above. We’re arguing that the American legal system has produced bad results, not that the system itself is bad or should be overthrown.
This strikes me as classic projection, unless you’re Mike Turazi.
I’m certain that 95%+ of the liberal posters in this thread feel the same way. It is, frankly, bizarre that you would think otherwise.
I see no evidence that this is what Kimstu or any other liberal here wishes to do. If the question was ignored, it’s because it’s akin to “what dictator do you want ruling the lives of everyone on earth?” – and pretty much unanswerable.
It’s perfectly reasonable to criticize the morality of such legislative action, and that’s what I see in this thread.
Well, I think you’re completely wrong about that, but I doubt I’m going to convince you. Suffice it to say that, other than abortion, I’m much more likely to agree with you on issues of policy than I am to agree with Kimstu. But I would never accuse her of wanting to subvert the democratic or judicial process. That’s more Der Trihs territory.
For what it’s worth, I have no desire to subvert democracy to gain my political goals either. The value of getting what I want would be neutered by the malus of no democratic process; more than that, democracy is one of my political goals, anyway.
Also the bizarre part. That really does seem like the best word. It’s… weird that **Bricker **actually thinks this.
Obviously this thread has now totally moved on from this point, and this was only ever a tangent to begin with, but I do want to respond here… my point is not “here is specific phrasing that is good, here is specific phrasing that is bad”. It’s that I think you are vastly oversimplifying the matter if you think that a simple poll question is automatically good and meaningful, while a complex poll question is very likely a “push poll”, and there’s some firm dividing line between them. In fact, I think it’s a complicated and fascinating topic. For instance, there have been many recent exchanges like this “70% of people oppose Obamacare!” “yeah, but half of those only oppose it because it doesn’t go far enough!”, etc. Basically, public opinion polls about complex topic are generally meaningless, PARTICULARLY when it’s a complex topic of the form “here’s a thing we’d all like to do, BUT there are legitimate also reasons why we should not do it”. In cases like that it’s always going to be easy but deceptive to just ask “should we do X” as a poll all by itself and try to conflate that result with actual support for a specific implementation.
I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that the issue that Republicans chose to press on is one in which public opinion will be on their side because, in a vacuum, it’s a good idea. If you’re going to try to do something underhanded you’re much better off doing it under cover of something that people would generally and reasonably support.
Taking a step back for a second (I wonder how many times I’ve taken a step back this thread?), I think that one thing Bricker is not acknowledging (at least, not sufficiently) is that the honestly-held and not-prima-facie-ridiculous belief shared by most of us on the other side of the argument from him is not just that these laws are bad or immoral or racist or bad-public-policy, but that they fall into the category of things that should NOT simply be majority rules. 51% of Arkansas voters before Brown v. Board should not have been able to vote for segregated schools, and 51% of voters in Texas today (or 51% of members of the Texas legislature today) should not be able to impose discriminatory voter ID laws. So there is a sense in which Bricker is correct, in that I am refusing to accept the results of a democratic majority vote… but not in a “I don’t care what the voters say, I am right, my opinion should be enacted just because I say so” sense, rather in a “this is a matter with implications of discrimination and removal of civil rights, and therefore should enjoy additional legal and constitutional protections”. At that point, if all the levels of the court rule against me, my opinion (barring further data being added to the discussion) is still going to be that the courts should have intervened. Again, Bricker might (bizarrely) choose to interpret that should as me just wanting to have my way because. But in fact it’s some combination of “given my legal understanding of the constitution, I believe the courts ruled erroneously” and “I acknowledge that constitutional protections do not currently cover laws of this sort, but I think that we would be better off and fairer as a nation if they did”. Neither of which can meaningfully be described the way Bricker continues to describe the liberal position in this thread.
If someone was discussing a civil rights case before Brown v. Board that ended up supporting segregation, there are any numbers of ways they could phrase something like “That decision should not have been made that way…” or “there should not be segregated schools” that would clearly NOT be arguing for the immediate overthrow of all democratic institutions in the US, but WOULD be saying that the extant state of constitutional law was immoral and antithetical to root American values… which we generally now agree to be true.
Bricker must have been a truly awesome poster once upon a time if he still has even a neutral reputation now, since he’s been just awful these past few years. Heck, just in these last 24 hours he’s abandoned all reason to fight cartoon liberals only he can see.
I predict a december-ish fate for him; he’ll become so determined to once and for all prove that liberals are bad that he’ll fabricate or otherwise misleadingly present some gotcha bait for them but instead of being hailed as an exposer of folly, it’ll be bye-bye Bricker.
Interesting simultaneity of thought. I just came to post that Bricker suddenly reminds me of Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny who is received well at a court martial hearing until he breaks down and shows his true self.
So, let me wrap my head around this.
I read the above, and I “bizarrely” interpret it as hearing you say that even if the legislature passed the laws in accordance with our democratic processes, and the courts at the highest level judged those laws are NOT violative of our constitutional guarantees, you still believe that the laws should be removed, somehow,
But you’re not arguing against the representative democratic system we use.
I honestly have no idea how to reconcile those two claims.
And that’s why I ask: what are you saying SHOULD happen?
No, Kimstu has a habit of declaring that her opinions are indeed facts.
According to her, “commerce exists for the good of the public as a whole”. That’s simply not true.
But a moderator said it was OK for her to post like that. So much for fighting ignorance.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17835186&postcount=252
Trololol!
Thanks for joining to tell us that!
It gets even better later in that same post.
“Nanny Gummint is entitled to stick her nose in to make sure the public is being usefully served.”
Again her opinion, but stated as if were fact.
You are the very specialest of special snowflakes, aintcha?
In general, states have plenary legislative power, so Nanny Gummint is, in fact, entitled to stick her nose in.
Does the federal government have the same power? Under the Constitution, I mean.
You mean the power to do things intended to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?
No, that’s not what I mean.
Really? You have no idea? You cannot stretch your imagination to include “The laws should be removed by 1) Educating/convincing the people that the passed laws were poor, and thereby 2) Getting different legislators elected who will overturn previous legislation and pass new laws.”
Because that’s implicit in pretty much everything that gets said on a message board like this, when discussing laws one side doesn’t like. I still find it odd that you can’t see or acknowledge that.