I’m willing to keep trying.
(Hey, if your side won’t give up trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade, why should my side give up trying to overturn voter suppression?)
Because they are not necessary to the act of voting. Who has a car only so they can drive to vote? The car is not necessary to vote. But if you must have an ID to vote, and that ID costs money, then the ID is necessary, and is a cost.
Once again, you attempt to use rationality to pervert logic and twist reason. The sort of mental gymnastics that gave “Jesuitical” its pejorative meaning.
Heck, Bricker should be thanking us for providing negative feedback on his flawed reasoning. He sure isn’t going to get that from Fox News.
They should sit at his feet and take notes.
I don’t suggest you should stop trying to change the law. That’s absolutely part of the democratic process.
I suggest you should stop claiming the existing law lacks legitimacy.
I’ve posted here since 1999. You will certainly find posts from me urging that abortion law be changed, but you won’t find a post saying that the existing law is not legitimate.
I didn’t suggest that the entire cost of a car was imputable to voting:
(Emphasis added)
Is there a difference between saying a law is illegitimate and saying it is wrong, or for that matter stupid, unfair, passed under false pretenses and/or counter to the principles of democracy?
Of course, now I’m curious how many times anyone other than you has even used the term “legitimate” (or “illegitimate”) in this thread. I don’t offhand know how to search a specific thread for a specific term, but I’ll look into it later.
Yes, of course.
The meaning of the word illegitimate is “failing to conform to requisite laws or rules.” Wrong, stupid, unfair and the like all speak to value judgements about the wisdom or the utility of the law.
Asking the legislature to scrap the law because it’s stupid, or because it fails to supply the desire results, is the exercise of democracy in a representative democracy. I obviously don’t completely agree with those calls, although I would support some basic changes, such as a time limit – the law cannot change voter ID requirements until it’s passed AND there has been an intervening election, giving the electorate under the old rules an opportunity to speak against the change. And of course I have long supported replacing a photo ID with a fingerprint, which would do an even better job of proving that a particular individual was the one that voted, and has the benefit of being even easier to obtain for most voters.
Ah! So, the behavior of the Republican legislators in these matters has convinced you that they are sincerely committed to putting voter ID into the hands of voters as easily and conveniently as possible? Have you any evidence of this worthy civic virtue? Or are you taking us on another wholesome and helpful diversion?
Nothing I wrote above allows any such inference, nor does it allow the opposite inference. You said, “So…” as though what you wrote somehow followed or contradicted what I said.
Good! Then can we return to the all-important issue of the actual meaning of “legitimate”? Then, perhaps, we can get away from the piddling and insignificant issue of whether or not it truly sucks for a political party to tilt the electoral playing field in its own favor. I admit that I am pretty much stuck on that point, even to the exclusion of semantic precision.
No, elucidator, you only dislike it when you perceive your interests, your favored party, is threatened. Your sanguine reaction to the Massachusetts senatorial appointment example shows this clearly. Your side does the dirt because they are forced into it by evil Republicans; good for them!
Yes, of course, liberal hypocrisy, your Trump card.
So, what then? The Republicans weren’t going to do this, but then thought, “Hey, these guys got it coming for their foul behavior in the Great Massachusetts Massacre!”. You have said that “some” Republicans had sordid motives in this, do they get a pass, then?
And what about their innocent dupes, the blameless Republicans who were misled into this thing? Nobody told them, nobody advised them of the disadvantage they were putting on the Dems? Really? I guess they get a pass too, then, being just innocent lambs frolicking amongst the daffodils?
Just between us girls, who are no better than we should be…do you really think this whole liberal hypocrisy schtick of yours works? Or is it just all you’ve got, outside of semantic nitpicks?
It is an effective rebuttal to your implication that what offends you here, and what you wish to talk about, is the terrible tragedy of officeholders using their political power to further their own party’s electoral chances.
You sense that your argument would be much weaker if you said, “I favor Democratic elected officials using such tactics, but not Republicans.”
Interestingly, only Yogsosoth has had the fortitude to say anything similar. He has forthrightly said that he favors applying different rules to Democrats and Republicans, given his confidence in the general rule that of the two, Democrats are on the side of angels.
I’d support a “don’t be a fucking asshole” rule and if that happens to catch Republicans twenty times more often than Democrats, so be it. Reducing the overall level of fucking assholery is more important than trying to ensure parity.
So would I… assuming we all agree that I get to define what “being an asshole,” is.
Actually, haven’t some voting restriction laws been struck down by courts? You made it sound as if the appeals process had never overturned any of these laws, but haven’t some courts, in some cases, found these laws too restrictive?
So, yes, at least some of those laws have been found to be non-legitimate.
Also, “legitimacy” can be group-subjective. Many of us never recognized Jim Crow laws as “legitimate” even when they were the law of the land. Large numbers of people never recognized bans on male homosexual activity – “sodomy” laws – as legitimate, even when the Supreme Court (in one of their greatest blunders) upheld them.
(Just as the NRA does not accept any gun control laws, as existing in California or New York, to be legitimate.)
Funny, that was my condition, too.
Sure – those have been discussed in this very thread, in fact, and as I said at that time, I was perfectly sanguine to see a state court decide that its state constitution had some guarantee that was violated by the version of Voter ID that the state had passed. That, too, is a matter for the democratic process, and I’m fine with it.
I think the NRA seeks to change those laws, yes. But why do you say they call them “illegitimate?”
Tricky. I suggest there’s a valid distinction to be made between “legitimate” (passed by a legislature, signed by an executive, sustained by an appeal court) and “legitimate” (proper, just, justified, fair).
Bricker rather pedantically assumes all uses of the word, direct or implied, refer to the former case when he gets cornered, hence his fallback position of “And I bet you want to seize power and replace all legislatures and courts with your own decrees!”