Well, better he spend his time ranting at us here instead of in a courtroom where he could do some real damage.
The Honest Republican. Signs and Wonders. The End Times are upon us!
I think Johnny was forced to use his real name.
If they had the power to persuade people to vote for them by reason and argument based on sound principle, no doubt they would. Or maybe it’s just too much work. Or maybe the unpersuaded are just by definition too dumb to be allowed to vote.
A man of his age is entitled to be addressed as Mister. Even if he’s black.
So is the judicial process a valid part of democracy or not? The fact that Bricker was careful to specify only the legislative process earlier makes me wonder if he recognizes the function of the Judiciary or not.
What possible difference could it make if the ruling were 5-4, 6-3, or 9-0?
The result is still the same, is it not?
You are a reasonable poster on this message board. Do you not hear the whining when posters declare that things they don’t agree with are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
It happens almost daily.
It was just yesterday, and you even responded to that post. Did you forget already?
It is still the same as to what is actually the law of the land. It is very different as to how reasonable or unreasonable someone’s opinion is.
If a law has not yet reached the supreme court, and we are arguing about whether or not we believe it will be upheld, and I say yes, and you say no, and then it turns out that the decision is 9-0 one way or the other, then that suggests that one of our arguments was WAY off, and if an identical law makes it up to the court in 10 years time, when 2 or maybe 3 justices have been replaced, it’s very unlikely that it will be overturned.
If you don’t see that situation as any different from a 5-4 split, then I think you’re being a bit obtuse.
You have the wrong posts. This is my question from 9246:
It was a follow-up to this:
Which was in response to this (note the specific phrase “legislative process”):
Which incidentally was in response to this:
Which was prompted by this:
The problem with Bricker’s style of trying for precision to the point of pedantry is that when he is precise, it’s a major tell that he’s knowingly leaving something out. Bricker specifically says “[it’s] calling for the laws to be struck down outside the legislative process” in the context of this being a bad thing, even indicative of a desire to overthrow democracy, and he apparently is 100% serious about that - wanting a law to be struck down means you want to be a dictator. I thought it worthwhile to ask if he thought the judicial process was part of a functioning democracy or not. He mentioned it specifically in post 9209, but it somehow escaped him in the subsequent process.
I’m sure he’ll admit that it is, if pressed, but he needs to be pressed at times.
If the court is charged with deciding whether or not the ID law is too “burdensome”, what evidence do they consider? Or is “evidence” even relevant?
The Pit is available even unto you. And while you’re about it, why not also Pit people who say “less” when they mean “fewer”?
So his real name is not the name he has been using his whole life, but rather the name that appears on his birth certificate, which as far as we know, he had no way of knowing, and no reason to know, was different from the name he’s been using his entire life? (Bear in mind that he was born in 1942, presumably in Mississippi, likely to at-best-semi-literate parents.)
And, a key point he makes is that he is legitimately worried that screwing around with his ID will potentially adversely affect other government services which he actively needs in order to survive.
And your response is not any amount of empathy or sympathy or “I support the voter ID laws but also believe that a provision should be made for reasonable exceptions”, it’s just a casual implication that he’s been somehow defrauding the system all this time by not using his “real name”?
Even after all this time, I’m kind of stunned by the naked lack of empathy.
An excellent question. Were actual stories from the lives of people such as Mr. Randle/Randall discussed? I guess to a certain extent they could not have been, because they hadn’t happened yet, but could they be evidence in an appeal of some sort? Ie, the law is proposed, it is challenged, it goes to the SC, the SC says “not burdensome”, then an actual election cycle happens, the law is appealed, here are 10 cases of the actual burden that actually happened in real life, maybe now the court will change its mind?
No idea if it could happen that way at all. Seems like it SHOULD be possible however…
Are you actually serious? Someone’s opinion about reasonableness depends on the SCOTUS vote count? Really?
I’m stunned by your casual acceptance that a man born with the name “Johnnie Marton Randall,” can simply decide that his name should be “Johnny Martin Randle,” and require that government agencies bow to his will.
Everyone else in the free world has to get a name change through the courts, but Randall, according to you, can simply show up and announce his true name.
In California, at least (and I believe it’s true in other states) you can change your name on your own, and use the new name in many official documents. For some documents, you have to include your old name and a DBA. But in other documents, you can change your name as you will. Voting registration – again, in California – is one of those. I can register to vote as “Magister Euripides MacGonigle” and so long as the data is otherwise correct and true, and so long as I don’t register in other names also, it’s valid here. No one looks these things up; there is no cross-check against the census.
This is what happens, hundreds (thousands?) of times a day, when people get married and change their names to match their spouse’s names. No court appearance is necessary.
(Rude names at your expense, just because.)
Either way, did you miss the part you quoted (emphasis added):
So, in the history of the free world, the number of persons who have successfully managed a legal name change, in all the various jurisdictions, precincts, provinces, departments and ridings…in the aggregate, mind you!..is less than one, specifically, zero.
That is preposterous. Thereby, having proven you wrong on a trivial and largely irrelevant and tangential point, I invoke the** Bricker** Principe of Rhetorical Victory and declare your argument a seeping puddle of stinky goo.