Of course. Go right ahead.
Law’s still in effect, though, isn’t it?
Yes, and I’m entitled to criticize (even mock) the utter uselessness of such laws and the climate of fear some Americans succumbed to, letting themselves be cynically manipulated by those seeking electoral advantage.
Basically, I laugh at how stupid you are for supporting such an obvious bait-and-switch, and the “bait” was just xenophobia and paranoia in the first place.
This “objectivity” thing. The burden is not “objectively” too much a sacrifice to make for the all-important value of voter confidence. And how, pray, is that “objectively” to be measured? Is there a metric system for it, full confidence is 1 Bricker, half that is 500 millibrickers? What is the objective criteria by which it is measured? What is the measured value of these voter ID laws, has the Bricker Quotient of a given state been measurably enhanced by the introduction of voter ID laws?
Any cites on that? Or is it that any standard pulled right from the very ass of a black-robed lawyer becomes magically “objective”?
Without such measurement, in what way is this “objective”? What is the measure of the burden that is to be compared? Is a five percent increase in “burdensome” acceptable if there is a five percent increase in the Bricker Quotient?
Bricker casually claims access to it. Anyone else… well, obviously they want to abolish the legislature and the judiciary and set themselves up as dictator.
Cite: multiple occasions of Bricker accusing people of such in this and other threads.
In our system, a burden is objectively permissible when that burden is assessed by the legislature, accepted by the executive, and approved by the courts.
So, objective fact, so far as the phrase has any meaning to you, is determined by legislation? And you’re not kidding?
Whether a particular burden, under the law, is undue, however, is determined by court decision. And that determination is conclusive.
The existence of that determination is a matter of objective fact.
Well, until the legislature and/or courts change their minds. Then that decision become objective.
And we were always at war with Eastasia.
You’re prevaricating, sliding from one sense of “objective” to a different one.
Then that determination becomes the controlling one, and it becomes objectively correct to say that that decision is the controlling one.
No. We were at peace, then we went to war, in this analogy.
No. What is objective here is the existence of the determination that the burden is is not undue as a matter of law.
There is no “other sense.”
Well, certainly not in the sense that there is an “objective” measure of voter confidence, no way to determine the extent of the threat being addressed. No way to know if these laws aid in that noble endeavor, or not. We have an objective measure of voter fraud in terms of reported incidents, but we are free to regard them as trivial (us) or really, really super dooper important (you). That is, of course, an entirely subjective response.
As for objective measures of its effects, we do have that one recent study, you may have heard? Oh, silly me, of course you have, you had some concerns about its validity. Did you check around on the interwebs, check to see if there were any serious rebuttals or criticisms? I did. Guess what I didn’t find! Go ahead, guess!
So, we have a law intended to curb a crisis we may very well not even have, and good reason… good objective reason!..to believe that the cure is worse than the disease.
But yes, of course, you’re right, as an objective fact, those laws do exist! Good catch, there, Bricker, had no idea you majored in Tautology.
No doubt he’s also capable of claiming that laws requiring abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges are aimed solely at protecting the health of pregnant women. He may even have convinced himself.
Well, except the sense in which you said:
If you refuse to see (or simple simply refuse to admit that you see) the distinction between these two, I can’t force you, but I’ll describe them in simpler terms.
-
No one will find it too difficult to cast a vote. Objectively true or objectively false?
-
Some state governments have made determinations that the difficulties of some voters is not a concern they recognize and/or they’ve decided another issue (“preventing voter fraud” in theory, securing electoral advantage in practice) is more important after “weighing the harms”. Objectively true or objectively false?
I’ve no objection whatsoever to saying (2) is objectively true. Pretending that this proves (1) follows suit - or even that the decision in (2) is a just one - is something I leave to you.
Bucko.
Still, he is totally right on that one point, the law is a fact. An objective fact, which is even more of a fact than just a fact! And he is also right about the procedure by which laws become laws, the elected representatives, the courts, all of that. No getting around that, he’s entirely correct there. Nailed it, no doubt about it!
Objectively false. Some person in the country will find it too difficult to cast a vote if it’s raining on Election Day. So I think it’s certain that some person will find obtaining a free ID to be too difficult, and not vote as a result.
But we, as a societ, have determined that we are unwilling to cater to that person.
Objectively true. And not just “some state governments,” but the U.S. Supreme Court has also reached this conclusion.
If only that were true.
<never mind, have to rewrite>
Well, some legislators have indeed made that determination on behalf of parts of your society and it’s kind of pathetic that some members of your society - yourself included - have decide a “fuck those people” attitude is just fine in service of a phantom goal. To me it represents an abandonment of principles but, hey, there are numerous flavours of democracy and yours just got a little more sour.
And that’s unfortunate. So was Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Oh, it is. My criticism of your thought processes, such as they are, in no way restricts your ability to form said processes as you wish.
If the documentation required to get the free ID isn’t free, the free ID isn’t free.
There are people in this country that think that requiring land ownership to vote isn’t too burdensome.
And if your only game is that these requirements are legitimate because they are enacted through the system, you have my pity.
That argument could be applied to any aspect of the system. The time needed to go to the polling place and stand in line, the gas used to drive there, the quarter in the parking meter while you’re parked there – all of those are costs. But they are sufficiently attenuated from the act of voting to not raise the inference that voting costs money.
So?
In a representative democracy, how do we make legitimate rules?
In a representative democracy, how do we make legitimate rules?
In a constitutional democracy, how do we nullify illegitimate rules?
By convincing a majority of your fellow citizens that your view is the correct one and the law is truly illegitimate, or by showing the judiciary that the law conflicts with constitutional guarantees.
Here, both have been tried and neither has worked.