He showed someone whose opinion was that the law was intended to stop legitimate people from voting – a person who was not a legislator and didn’t vote to pass the law. I cited a person whose opinion was that the law was intended to discourage illegal voters from voting, and he was a legislator and did vote for the law.
Evidence suggests the cincerns if the man he cited are more significant than the concerns of the man you cited.
I am not in the least surprised that your attempt to weigh the evidence compels that conclusion, given your weird, Kant-esque deontological view of legislative motivation.
But I don’t share it.
And neither does the majority of the electorate. Luckily.
I didn’t express a conclusion, Kantian or otherwise.
Don’t know much about Kant, only read him in translation. But I think he also accused you of having false teeth.
I can’t say I know of any view Kant ever expressed about legislative motivation (or something analogous), so I’ve no way of knowing a particular observation is “Kant-esque”, in that regard.
Possibly, but my question of what his “Hmm…/Well?” point was in the first place remains unaddressed.
Really? Never heard a thing about Kant’s view of how motivation affects morality?
Ever hear of Kant?
Philosophy?
The letter K?
Just trying to figure out where to start.
Be that as it may…
We have the testimony of this legislative aide. Myself, I tend to be mite suspicious, if only because memory is the only fact. Given the avalanche of evidence already amassed, this snowflake can be overlooked.
In contrast, we have a genuine Republican legislator. Who tells us that they were only about stopping illegal Democrat voting. But soft! We already have expert testimony that “some” Republicans have malign motives in all this hugger-mugging. How are we to know that he is not one of those? Does Bricker have a list, and his name does not appear thereon?
Because if he is one of the few, the shameless, the malign…his word don’t count for much, now does it?
I believe I said “I can’t say I know of any view Kant ever expressed about legislative motivation (or something analogous)”, but if you want to assume a broader unfamiliarity and if it will lead to an response to my “what was your point” inquiry, be my guest.
I like how you pretend that your nonsense diversions are actual reasoned arguments.
You’re a pigfucker, Mr. Bricker. And smelling like pigshit is just part of the game, I suppose.
I’ve taken the liberty of emphasizing parts of the quote Bricker responds to. Evidence is that our Esquire has trouble reading.
I’m too lazy to consult Merriam-Webster. Does “minority” mean “illegal”? Does “college” mean “felon”?
Bricker, we’re now up to 9000 posts in this thread, 2216 of them by you. If you can post more than 'Luci on a topic, it must be dear to your heart.
From time to time I detect a glimmer of intelligence in your diction; I’ve often wondered if that hypothetical intelligence is matched with any sincerity, compassion, true grasp of democratic principles, or even comprehension of the real world. Among your 2216 posts have you ever come close to admitting what many of your fellow Republiopaths admit — that the vote suppression measures pushed through by GOP legislatures are intended to produce better GOP electoral outcomes ?
ETA: While I’ve got your attention, I’ve always wondered what a sentient Republican “thinks.” Are you rooting for Cruz or Trump? Going to write-in Ann Coulter?
A glimmer? Aw, shucks.
I have answered both questions you ask before.
Again: I am a textualist, not an originalist, because I don’t believe the intent of the legislators is directly relevant. What’s relevant is the words they passed into law and what those words mean. So when you ask what was “intended,” by the Voter ID laws, the answer is that there are undoubtedly some Republican legislators who intended to produce better GOP outcomes. And there were others who undoubtedly intended to restrict fraudulent voting, come what may, and there were others who merely sought to assuage public confidence in election results. But I don’t care what their intent was. I care whether the words they actually voted for are legitimate law.
And they are.
I have also answered the “what if,” presidential vote. I was rooting for Rubio, and then for Kasich. If the ultimate result is Cruz v Clinton or Cruz v Sanders, I will hold my nose and vote Cruz; if it’s Trump v Clinton I will vote Clinton and then shower like I was Lady Macbeth.
If it’s Trump v Sanders I will probably pick a third party… given the Libertarians a little boost, maybe.
I like how you pretend that anything you don’t know is a diversion.
Especially given the vast number of “diversions” you encounter every day you draw breath.
The tiny protuding part on top of his skull that tells him what to say and do?
I doubt it surprises anyone that you’ll take shelter in form if it helps you avoid recognizing the flaws in function.
Where did I do that? I was talking about how you are either unable or unwilling to discuss the topic of this thread.
Who is talking about this and the other laws being illegal? If anyone other than you is, it’s certainly not the thrust of this thread.
The general thrust of the thread is about how the laws are immoral, and a power grab.
You’re, from what I see, the dipshit who keeps arguing that the laws are legal. So what? A laws legality has nothing to do with its morality, or if its a power grab. It’s been pointed out to you that slavery was legal.
But stupid Bricker keeps chirping his song, because stupid Bricker isn’t able to discuss something on the merits. So he discusses it in the framework he understands best. It’s legal, because Bricker knows the law, so he has to harp on it. Because he knows he’s wrong, so he has to frame the debate so that he’s right.
Says the guy who evaluates shit based on the law, even when that’s not the question.
Thread: This law is immoral because it’s used to hurt poor people for political gain.
Bricker: The law is legal!
And so on, and so on. Years we’ve been at this, and years you’ve been failing, and flailing for some argument that disguises that fact. You’re a punk bitch, Bricko.
The boy is as stubborn as a boulder, but twice as smart.
Bah.
The laws are not immoral.
There you go.
Not everybody can meet your daunting ethical standards. Take BG, for instance. Kind of guy, if you presented strong academic evidence that damages his case… Well, he’s just the kind of guy would do a quick song-and-dance, shuck and jive about how he’s gong to examine the evidence. Check it out, make sure its methodology is sound. And if its paradigms are all in order, he might even change his mind!
That would be the last you heard about it from ol’ slippery BG. Just a quick dive down a hidey-hole so he could keep pretending that he’s making an honest argument. Really, no better than he should be…
Just out of curiosity, would a law that repealed all existing abortion laws (state and Federal) be comparably not immoral?