Well, gosh-a-rooty, I’m in your favorite playground, the gymnasium of precise legalistic semantics!
The Dems had a case, because that particular law says what it says. They were “correct”, so far as that goes. The Pubbies also had some law to fling around, they were “correct” as well. Hence, ambiguous. Rather the whole point of the cited article.
Lots of different people wrote about that, lots of divergent opinion, several by persons with legal boney fidos. If there were no unanimity on behalf of so many legal beagles, what gives you the authority to declare winners? Haven’t you, in the past, advised us that only the Supreme Court can make such a finality? And yet, here you are…
Irwin Corey, Esq. the World’s Foremost Legal Authority.
There is no allegation that the overseas ballots were not filled out correctly by the voter.
The issue was the lack of postmarks. Because USAFPO mail is free, and requires no stamp, it is often not postmarked when processed by the mail system, but as I am sure you are aware, the person who mails a letter is not responsible for postmarking it.
Can you explain what particular error you feel was made by the voters in this case?
Yes, I have advised you that only the relevant Supreme Court can address the issue with finality, and I gave you the citation to the court case in which the Florida Supreme Court explained that the law you quoted was superseded by federal law and the requisite method of handling ballots was implemented by the Florida law I quoted.
The GOP only demands ID to vote in government elections. The GOP is happy to have you vote for your PTA officers or homeowners’ association board with no ID.
And you are among the worst of the dishonest rhetors with this tactic. If you used a similar confusing attempt in the field of climate science (“…lots of divergent opinion, several by persons with [sciency] boney fidos…” so why should we believe global warming?) you’d rightly be attacked by dozens of posters, mercilessly mocked for such an inaccurate and deceptive description of the (non) controversy.
There is no lack of legal consensus on the point: in Florida, absentee ballots do not require a postmark to be valid. Any “divergent” opinion is bullshit, without wiggle room, factually untrue. Wrong.
Oh, the Florida Supreme Court has the final say? You see, when I say “Supreme Court” I’m talking about that one in Washington, D.C. Fairly common understanding of the phrase, I believe.
So, what this means is that the US Supremes have not ever overruled a State Supreme Court? Is that an historical coincidence, or is it impossible to do so? Never happened, and cannot happen?
Anyway, what’s the Big Hairy Ass Deal, here? My original posting about this was not partisan in nature. I do think the whole Florida debacle was a travesty wrapped in bullshit, but that I lay squarely at the feet of the Supreme Court (U.S.). And as I said, my personal preference was that the votes be counted, fully cognizant that such a decision would benefit the Forces of Darkness. So, what exactly is your problem?
Are you so eager to hang my scalp on your lodge pole that you will attack my pants cuffs like a killer chihuahua on the slightest opportunity?
Thanks for your analysis, but my mistake in not being more clear in my question. It has to do with the automatic registration in conjunction with drivers licenses as implemented in Oregon, not a country or state wide automatic registration for everyone.
Well thanks for responding. But I wasn’t really interested in The Brennan Center for Justice’s opinion, nor your opinion of THEIR opinion. I’m simply curious about the objections to the driver’s license/automatic voter registration system as implemented in Oregon. Because of the highly visible partisan split during the voting, it just sparked my curiosity. Due to the fact the every single republican in both houses of the Oregon state government voted against it, it seems to me that there must be something inherent in the Republican ideology that is against voter registration tied to driver’s licenses. I’m simply asking you, as a Republican/conservative, what you think that might be, because without an justifiable (and I can accept a reasoned opinion while simultaneously disagreeing with it) explanation (other than catch phrases like “privacy concerns” without any substantiating information), it simply seems to me that Republicans, in Oregon at least, are simply against it because 1) They are automatically opposed to anything that Democrats are for or 2) They are against it because it will help more people vote, two things that cannot be admitted publicly for fears of public outrage.
The US Supreme Court is a final arbiter of federal questions, not questions of state law. The US Supreme Court can overrule state courts when the issue is federal constitutional law, or the application of federal statutory law in areas in which the federal government has exclusive power or has pre-empted state legislation.
In issues of pure state law the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, cannot overrule a state supreme court.
And as it happens, the specific question was indeed asked of the federal courts.
One Robert Harris (obviously no relation to Florida Secretary of State K. Harris) and some companions sued Florida to force them to stop following rule 1S-2.103(7) and follow the statute you quoted as authoritative, Section 101.67(2) Fla. Stat. (2000). For ease of reference, we will henceforth call that Luci’s Law.
And for similar ease, we’ll need a name for 1S-2.103(7), the rule that permits signed and dated ballots to be counted sans postmark, as well as requiring the counting ballots received within ten days after the election. How about, “Bricker’s Armed Services Support For Undoing Crazy Kiboshes of Luci’s Law?”
So Robert Harris and friends – perhaps a fellow traveler of yours? – sued to require Florida to enforce Luci’s Law and not count absentee ballots unless they were postmarked and received by Election Day. The State of Florida objected that Bricker’s ASSFUCK of Luci’s Law was legally required. They reminded the court that back in 1980, Florida was sued by the Attorney General of the United States to enforce the provisions of the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act.
Pay attention to this next part, elucidator, because it’s spooky. It’s like those guys in 1980 saw you coming. They predicted, with accuracy even Nostradamus would envy, your arguments.
I could paraphrase, but Senior District Judge Paul, the author of Harris v. Florida Elections Canvassing Commission, said it so well that any effort of mine would be a pale shadow:
Do you see that first sentence, elucidator, you lovable scamp? That’s not you! That’s what you didn’t do! That’s what Judge Stafford wanted to save you from. Judge Stafford knew you’d come along and not read the caselaw. So he ordered that the correct statement of law be enshrined in the state admin code, so that even a no-account shiftless low-life such as yourself could become aware of what the actual law was.
Of course, he didn’t reckon with the pure-D stubborness that would permit you to see the FUCKING LAW AND STILL DENY ITS AUTHORITY. If only Doctor Who could step in and take us back to 1980, Judge Stafford could realize that even his herculean effort to make the requirements of the law crystal clear would be ignored by you, and perhaps he could order that it be tattooed on your ass, in reverse so that it could be read by you in the mirror.
Judge Stafford’s decision may be found at 122 F. Supp. 2d 1317.
Your pal Robert Harris was sufficiently motivated to ask the federal circuit court to review this decision, even though it was self-evidently Wise and Good.
And lo, the Eleventh Circuit spake, and verily they did saith unto Robert Harris and his Ilk:
Harris v. Florida Elections Commission, 235 F. 3d 578 (11th Cir 2000).
The Supreme Court did not grant certorari review of this decision, meaning that is is the precedent-setting law of the land in the Eleventh Circuit, which perforce includes Florida.
There’s really nothing else that can possibly be said.
There is no ambiguity. There is no dispute among legal scholars. There is no anything, except crap written to deceive and obfuscate the issue by you and your friends.
You were factually, completely, utterly, absolutely wrong.
Your original posting was factually, completely, utterly, absolutely wrong. Having demonstrated this in precise, complete, excruciating, and sometimes humorous detail, the Big Hairy Ass Deal is your refusal to acknowledge error, and everyone else’s complete lack of interest in calling you on it.
Oh, you poor dear. Are you sure you are quite happy here?
So, what we have here is that the Democrat lawyers in Florida were woefully ignorant? Uniformly, unanimously stupid? They never had any sort of case, then, that a first year law student from Liberty University could not chop to pieces? And, further, they conned the New York Times into believing they did have a case?
Did it occur to you, even for a moment, that everyone’s complete lack of interest stems from a complete lack of interest, period? That you have exaggerated the significance of this beyond all reason?
And why do you have the need to keep referencing “friends…fellow travelers…” and so on? Unless your main objective is advance your premise of the honest conservative beset on all sides by evil minions. There must be a message board somewhere that would not torment you so heartlessly? Somewhere that your candor and honesty would get the universal approval that is denied you here?
Do you shave? If you do, have a glance. You’ll see your problem, and it isn’t me.
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you. And when they call you out on errors that they totally wouldn’t call anybody else out on. And when they don’t treat you as nicely and politely as they treat 'luci. Or some other people. I forget who exactly. Probably liberals.”
“That’s nice Lord, but you don’t have to turn ALL the water into wine.”
I’m unhappy about some things; happy about others.
You, on the other hand, should feel like a pig in mud, since this environment allows to you to spew misinformation with no real social consequence. You have such a high regard for the truth that you use it sparingly, to steal the words from Connor’s mouth.
What they had was a piece of text they could seize on to create a public stir, and what the New York Times had was reporters highly sympathetic to their cause who were disinclined to question the issue.
Did it never occur to you to wonder where the follow-up stories were, by the way? I mean, ultimately the courts read the law correctly. They didn’t split on the issue. What was the NYT’s excuse for printing claims that were roundly rejected by courts?
Of course. You made a factual misstatement, and I called you on it, and you refuse to admit error. Naturally you wish to minimize the issue now.
“A piece of text”? Section 101.67(2) Fla. Stat. (2000)? So, it wasn’t actually a law, then, just “a piece of text”?
Gosh, how did it come to have that fancy ass name, Section 101.67(2) Fla. Stat. (2000). Seems like a lot of dignity to bestow on a piece of text. Was it Mother Jones? The Brennan Center?
What do you call a law that’s been negated by court decision, or by another law?
“A law,” fails to capture the impotence of the section. But if you call it a law, and don’t reveal that it’s been castrated, then your listeners will assume it’s in force.
So I think someone interested in honestly and accurately describing it would not say merely that it was a law.
Well, I finally got the time and opportunity to compose a detailed reply to Bricker’s 8325. I hope the nesting doesn’t make this unclear.
To be honest, I don’t know what the “walking-around money” reference means or what significance it has, and I’m actually prepared to let this go in light of how Bricker’s original comment started with “I imagine”. I’ve started comments similarly and have always taken “I imagine X will happen…” to mean “I predict X will happen, but I have no immediate means to prove it nor am I especially invested in it”, i.e. it’s a bit of off-the-cuff speculation. What I object to is the empty rhetorical concern that a voter might not “care” enough. It’s a vapid and useless claim. Bricker, you may as well just express concern about how “those people” will ruin society. How will they ruin society, is the kind of question I might write in reply, with no real expectation of a detailed or factual answer.
The last paragraph of the text you quoted was along similar lines to 8301. My question of whether or not trying to increase the size of the active electorate (which in some circumstances may benefit Democrats) is actually morally comparable to trying to decrease the size of the active electorate (which in some circumstances may benefit Republicans) was not addressed by you. Your writing suggests you believe the two are morally comparable (that is to say, when you use your favoured tactic of “Democrats do it, too!”) but I question this and invite you to question it as well.
No. It wasn’t. I see this has been addressed since, but I don’t think you ever did answer the actual question. Iggy and manson72 have, though, for which I thank them.
This constitutes “love” to you? Gosh, Bricker, you’re so romantic. When you proposed to your wife, did you say "Well, you meet with my evident approval, and I see no downside, so will you marry me and make the among the midrange of contentest men on Earth?
Now, I’ll happily assume “love” in your original comment (“I’m a little surprised at the love for this initiative being shown here”) could have been replaced by a more accurate but less evocative phrase (“I’m a little surprised at the clearly more emotional than rational support for this initiative being shown here”), but even this rather tepid reworking is unsupported. Frankly, your comment strikes me as rather mealy-mouthed; accusing unnamed persons of vaguely-defined offenses, and upon examination the accusation is demonstrably false. I’m a little surprised you thought your cites bolstered your claim.
You don’t really have a “point”, as such, you have a tautology; voting is sui generis because voting is sui generis. Certainly voting has some unique aspects to it, but the observation that it is sui generis is not meaningful in itself - it could be used to justify any conclusion and it certainly doesn’t usefully answer Fear Itself’s question:
Bricker: Voting should not be too easy, or else citizens will think it cheap.
Fear Itself: Is that true of all Constitutional rights; should they have restrictions put on them to fend off the possibility of being viewed as “cheap” ?
Bricker: No, voting is unique in this regard.
Bryan Ekers: How so?
Bricker: What a silly question. Voting is unique.
If this is acceptable:
A. Voting is sui generis, therefore putting obstructionist regulation on it is acceptable, even if this is not true for other Constitutional rights.
Why not this:
B. Voting is sui generis, therefore any politician who advocates putting obstructionist regulation on it should be charged with treason, even if this is not true for other forms of legislation.
And as with your “esteem too lightly” reference, you are resorting to empty rhetoric in lieu of anything verifiable. I think we get it: you feel voting should be a test of citizenship, that the voters must earn their chance to vote. This isn’t any more debatable than your religious beliefs.
No, but it’s likely the best response I could have expected.
That was my conclusion as well. When he said that, I pretty much knew I had won that point, and all I need to do was let that turd stink. When your adversary can’t justify his position other than to say “it’s special”, you know they are boxed.
On what possible objective scale might we weigh the issue?
Why are your feelings that voters must be given every incentive to register and vote a matter of established and scientifically verifiable fact? Or are they?
Why is my rhetoric on the point empty, and yours full of factual verifiable goodness?