I don’t agree that “just,” and “justified,” are good synonyms for “legitimate.”
Well, I could probably find a dictionary cite but… so what? The limitations of your vocabulary are your problem, so when we talk about a law being unjust and unjustified and you want to say “stop calling it illegitimate!”, that’s just you trying to project your problems onto us.
No, it goes well beyond complaints that the law is unjust, or unjustified. Plenty of people in this thread have posted comments that are fairly taken to mean that they view Voter ID laws as not conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards of law.
So? If that’s how they view it, that’s how they view it. You’re free to try to educate them on how a bill becomes a law, citing Schoolhouse v. Rock (majority opinion written by Justice Able) if you like. It’s your casual and repeated slides into “well, obviously that means you want to overthrow democracy” territory that I’ll casually mock when it suits me.
How I always enjoy returning to this thread… it’s so nice to know that there are some things that will never change.
Bricker: my response to you concerning “well, the courts support it and therefore it is legitimate” is that courts can change their mind.
So on the one hand, if the question we’re asking, if the point of the thread, is “hmm, is this law currently legal?”, well, then the ultimate answer is what the supreme court says, period (assuming it eventually makes it as far as the supreme court).
On the other hand, if we’re discussing “is this law antidemocratic/unfair/sleazy/unamerican/reprehensible?”, then whether or not the supreme court upholds it is basically irrelevant. And one way to see that is because courts can reverse themselves. If the argument is like this:
Liberals: Here are a bunch of reasons why this law is sleazy
Bricker: Well, I recognize your complaints, and some of those issues are things which, if they were much worse, I might agree would disqualify the law; but I think that overall the law is ethical, and my trump card is that the courts agree with me
and then the courts change their mind, or establish a new standard for undue burden, as is certainly possible, then, what? Does that mean that all of our arguments WERE right? Or that they were wrong at the time but would be right if we remade them now, with a different precedent in place? Even though none of our arguments (well, none of mine at least) had anything to do with precise issues of legality to begin with?
Which is not to say that the courts will change their mind (although I sure hope they do, knock on wood), but if you look at any time in US history when the courts reversed themselves on something, there could have been people the day before the decision saying “well, I’m quite sure that my position is ethical… and my final piece of evidence is that the courts agree with me”.
That’s far too vague a phrase to really have meaning. Because at some level, pretty much everything every elected official ever does fits that category. Republicans lower taxes (and of course trumpet it to all and sundry)? Well, they’re doing it to further their own party’s electoral chances. Democrats put in some new social programs (and of course trumpet it to all and sundry)? Well, they’re doing it to further their own party’s electoral chances.
But this kind of interference in how elections work in order to tilt elections not by energizing supporters or convincing opponents to become supporters, but by trying to basically put a thumb on the scales of the election itself, is a far different kettle of fish, and FAR more dangerous.
And in recent years, there just has been little or no equivalent chicanery on the left, and certainly nothing on the same scale, despite your constant attempt draw an analogy to the MA legislature, which I’ve pointed out the numerous fatal flaws with so many times that I just can’t be assed to bother demolishing it yet again.
I admit it wouldn’t shock me even slightly to find out there was similar chicanery from the Democrats (not necessarily the “left”, as such) in recent years, even if we arbitrarily set a cut-off to not include Civil Rights era Democrat strongholds in the southern U.S.
Chicago alone is pretty third-worldian in its political corruption, to the electoral benefit of Democrats.
The NRA holds that such laws violate the constitution. That’s one of the definitions of “not legitimate.”
It gets worse! There’s a third definition, and that’s “Accepted and respected by the people.”
When very, very large numbers of people simply ignored the federal 55 mph speed limit, that undermined that law’s legitimacy. The people simply refused to recognize it.
I suppose the analogous response is election officials deciding the stricter laws are improper and declining to enforce them, accepting votes from anyone with any kind of identification, or if they give a name and address that appears on the roll.
Related, any juries at the trials of any such officials or voters charged with violating the laws deciding the law is improper and nullifying.
I’m personally okay with both of these, or at least can’t summon even slight concern for either.
That’s true.
Thus far, their challenges have generally – although not always – vindicated that view. So I’d say they’re on to something.
Ok.
And in turn I will patiently and doggedly deny their specious views.
Looks like we all have jobs.
IOW, keep repeating “No it isn’t”. 
This is a slight strawman, in that I’m not precisely saying that the trump card for the argument that the law is ethical is that the courts agree.
Instead, I am saying that there is no common ground by which we both can agree that the law may be judged as ethical or not ethical. Our discussions on that point amount to my assertions gainsaying yours and yours denying mine.
The “trump suit,” here, then, is not that the legality proves the ethics point – rather, it is that the legality is objectively testable (at least for a given point in time).
If the courts change their ruling in the future, our disagreements about the ethics will remain unsettled, but now you will be the one able to say that regardless of that disagreement, the objective finding of the law favors your view.
Is that how you characterize your actions? You can lie to us but I hope you’re not lying to yourself.
Well, I speak figuratively, of course. You can lie to yourself all the live-long day if you choose.
I didn’t know you could specialize in existential law.
There are a long list of things you don’t know, I feel sure, but this particular observation of yours is unrelated to anything I have posted. My statement was one of logic: existential, in logic, is simply a proposition that affirms or disproves the existence of a thing. This is not suitable for a legal speciality; it is a basic observation about the state of case law for a given proposition.
This is distinct from the perhaps more familiar philosophical existentialism school of Sartre and Kierkegaard.
I’m more unclear on how a “trump” could take the form of stating the duh-obvious.
A law was passed. A law exists. It is possible to verify a law exists. Duh. I look forward to Bricker’s next performance - proving water is wet.
I wouldn’t know, having only read them in translation.
It’s all fear and trembling unto death. Life is for the living.