Yes, asswipe, the intent of the legislators can be taken into account when reviewing a law, and improper intent can be part of why a law can be overturned.
The Connecticut creationism case is just one cite.
Christ, you’re an incompetent fuck-nozzle.
I realize you aren’t addressing me, but my 2 cents is that Obama got elected and the GOP when into Max Obstruction mode. Part of that is getting these pesky democrats to quit foiling the aristocratic designs of the GOP by voting their interest by erecting barriers to their voting at all.
He’s not even addressing your country, Yank.
The backlash of the 2008 election is interesting, but Samantha Bee makes the point on her show that the 2010 election was actually more important in many ways. It was then that the normal midterm indifference allowed the angry frootloopery to get a major toehold, with repercussions you’ll suffer for decades.
“Yank”? We can raise your rent, you know. Pretty much any time.
Not when there is a valid neutral justification for the law. Dummy.
Here is post 9078:
“Are about” is an ambiguous term, since it suggests there is exactly one intended result for each law, which each legislator shared. None of those laws are fairly described as “about” exactly one thing.
I disagree with inscrutable’ attempt to summarize these laws.
A protest! Yea! Maybe there will be chants. “Hell, no, we can’t vote!” “We’re here! We can buy beer! But not get free Voter IDs! Or vote absentee! It’s too hard for me!”
Out of a morbid curiosity, have you read Crawford? Do you understand that the plaintiffs raised the issue of improper motivation?
Do you understand they lost?
I didn’t say it was automatically grounds for overturning, only that it could be taken into account for overturning.
Illiterate pizzle.
The Connecticut creationism case? The intent was taken into account and was part of why the creationist law was overturned.
What’s your point?
The good guys won in that case. A creationist-sponsored law was struck down. The improper intent of that law was part of why the law was overturned.
You aren’t making any sense. (Fuck, you aren’t even trying to make sense.)
Are there more than one case referred to as Crawford? 'Cause I don’t think the Crawford Bricker has been wielding like a Number Ten Iron Hammer of Thor had anything to do with Creationism. It was there, IIRC, that the words “valid neutral consideration” first broke onto American jurisprudence like the dawn.
Just sayin’, close as I ever got to a sheepskin, it was still on the sheep.
It was a confusing exhange.
I referred to Dover (but I didn’t remember that as its name when I did.)
Bricker said, “Have you ever read Crawford?” That led me to think that Crawford was the name of the creationism case, and that we were talking about the same verdict. Only later did I remember the name “Dover.”
So, the lines of communication were crossed.
Still, Bricker is a dolt, and I’m still right, because improper legislative intent was a part (and I never claimed that it was more than part) of why the creationism law in Dover was overturned. Improper legislative intent can “poison” a law. It’s up to the courts to determine how “poisonous” a law can be and still remain constitutional. There is no “zero tolerance” rule, just as there is no “zero tolerance” rule in the exclusionary evidence rule. Prosecutors have made mistakes, and yet defendants have still been convicted. A prosecutorial mistake does not automatically result in an acquittal, either in the immediate trial or on appeal. But it can be taken into account.
(This was also a matter in Edwards vs. Aguillard, the 1982 creationism case that showcased Antonin Scalia’s hypocrisy.)
And I’m not a lawyer, nor a law student. I know a little more than what I see on TV.
21st century aristocrats aren’t bound by national boundaries, 'Nuck.
What if mind-reading technology were as trivial as gmail is today. Say we could know who Terri Shaivo would vote for, it would not even cost pennies, and her estate was paying for her internet connection. Under these circumstances (since there is no doubt about her identity), would you allow her (mind-readingly determined) vote to count?
Table pounding noted.
But why would you want them to vote absentee? There’s been far more voting fraud in absentee ballots than in in-person voting - surely this would decrease your confidence level? I mean, you’ve been saying all along that these laws are important to ensure that people have confidence in the voting system, and yet here you are suggesting that these people use a much less secure voing method. It’s almost as if - and I hesitate to say this - you don’t actually mean the “confidence” point and are just throwing up a smokescreen to cover the fact that what raises your confidence level are laws that give an advantage to your particular political party.
No, that can’t possibly be true. Because that would mean that the Great Hunter of Liberal Hypocrisy was in fact a lying hypocrite himself.
Do you understand WHY the intent was taken into account in the creationism case, and not here? Or did you just look at both, and apply your semi-primate reasoning skills to conclude that sometimes it’s possible and sometimes it’s not, depending on whether the “good guys” win?
Hey, maybe the Supreme Court should have applied the Eighth Amendment to the Voter ID case. It’s cruel and unusual punishment! After all, they did that in other cases!
Was that about the level of your reasoning?
If that analytical skill were a car, it’d be a lemon.
(And I am pretty sure it’s Louisiana and not Connecticut you’re thinking of).
I don’t. I offered it up because it rhymes with “ID,” and the Left’s protest chants are at their most puissant with puerile rhymes (or asinine alliteration, a’ course).
That said, though, why wouldn’t YOU welcome the tactic, since it avoids an onerous trip to the polls that takes away time from the seventeen different jobs that the aggrieved voter is simultaneously working – the ones that prevent the trip to obtain the free ID – and lessens the need to comply with ID requirements.
Assuming the technology also determined her desire to vote, as opposed to abstain?
Yes.
But I would not extend that option to the able-bodied populace. In my view, the franchise works best when it requires the expenditure of some actual effort. In your example, though, we have someone who unambiguously cannot physically vote, no matter her effort, but wants to.
Because it screens out the undesirable, unworthy or undeserving?
You meant Kitzmiller v Dover et al, a case arising in Pennsylvania and decided by a district court which sets no precedence?
Is that the one that you were referring to as the “Connecticut creationism case?”
Or did you mean Edwards v Aguillard, the Louisiana case ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court?
Do you have any clue whatsoever what factor was present in the Edwards case, and the Dover case, that allowed legislative intent to come into play that isn’t present in Voter ID cases?
Not grapefruit. Not lime. Not orange. Not kumquat. Not tangerine. And not Mangshanyegan.
Think hard, dopey.
No. Because it requires skin in the game. Because it makes the voter a partner in the civic burden.