Having the Supreme Court revisit Roe vs. Wade is the goal of a large part of the pro-life movement. Also, a rising tide of lower court rulings against abortion is in play, and has had some very significant effect on making abortions difficult to obtain. Why, then, should the pro-life movement be allowed to want this, but you will deny the same hope, wish, and desire to those of us who oppose Voter ID laws?
Seems like you’re setting yourself up as a meta-Supreme Court, decreeing what the Court (or the court system) can and cannot hear.
Might not even be necessary to change the ID laws all that much, maybe not at all. If the Republican legislators had conniption fits of egalitarianism and a fever for justice…nothing to it. Simply set up the mechanisms to ensure that anyone who wants acceptable ID can have it.
I would recommend the Minnesota approach, whereby one neighbor vouches for another. Take the photo, store a copy on computer, emboss the card and there you go. Easy-peasy juicy Lucy,
They could fix it. And, they could have written it so the problem wasn’t there in the first place. But they didn’t.
“Many”? Meaning that some did not. Does this mean that their laws are draped with the Court’s legitimacy, as well? Even though they are not exactly the same? Seems a mite sloppy. And of those that are “modeled”, how precisely do they conform to the model? Too precisely for a smart-ass lawyer to find any difference?
Why are you imputing to me the “large part” of the pro-life movement?
I have consistently said that although I favor an end to abortion, I would be opposed to that goal being reached by the Supreme Court’s action in, say, finding a constitutional “right to life” for the unborn.
So, no – I don’t play those reindeer games.
And I am not decreeing what they can and cannot hear. I am pointing out, from the real world, what outcomes are likely. The Court could possibly sua sponte declare Voter ID unconstitutional tomorrow. But that’s not remotely realistic.
No, that’s a fair point. The few states that have laws fairly described as going substantively beyond the scheme approved in Crawford do not enjoy that same presumption of federal constitutionality. But “any difference,” doesn’t help you, smart ass or not. These are not magic spells, requiring precise duplication.
Then: 2008 was the anomaly, with Obama’s coattails carrying all sorts of ne’er do wells to office with goofy ideals and a high tolerance for rewarding a culture of victimhood. 2010 was merely the correction to the electoral market.
It’s quite amusing to see you deny that **Bricker **is having abuse heaped on him while simultaneously calling him a huge pussy who can’t handle losing.
Well, maybe you should be out marching and speaking out against the laws that you find appalling and immoral? I mean, you are trying to change the laws of the country by posting to an anonymous message board, so there’s that. But maybe you could do more by actively and publicly fighting against such laws. Or helping people who can’t get IDs to get them.
But posting messages on a message board is just as good. :rolleyes:
Arguably, but I’d wager it was the relatively low turnout that let the more “enthusiastic” (i.e. pissed-off) voters prevail, so frankly I blame Democrat supporters for being lazy and allowing it to happen. I understand it’s become somewhat accepted that the president’s party loses congressional ground in a midterm, but this was just clueless. The celebrity-status of the president (and subsequent indifference when the presidency is not at stake) seems to make many Americans forget that their state and local elections have a much greater effect on their lives (and collectively, the country) than the quadrennial popularity contest that is a White House race.
Republicans viewing themselves as victims, though… sure, they’ve been doing that since the southern strategy and the recent “war on Christmas” and related nonsense is helping them along.
Does it matter? If the goal of voter ID laws is to give the appearance of legitimacy, but the law is perceived by a significant segment of the population as being a tool of voter suppression, then even if they’re wrong, isn’t the entire point of the law invalidated?
Because there is a difference between a perception before the fact, and a perception that arises after the fact. If the rules seem acceptable ahead of time and only seem unfair after you lose, you cannot be heard to complain.
Although on reflection… it could be fairly said that there was uncertainty ahead of time as to the precise results, and only after the fact can the law’s workings truly be known.
So, ok, you might have a good point. But ultimately the issue still comes back to how we as a society decide such questions as, “How do we address, or do we address, the concerns of a significant segment of society?”
Hold on a second there, hoss. You say these other laws “…do not enjoy that same presumption of federal constitutionality…”. Seems to me that’s a difference right there. Further, you assure me that “doesn’t help” me. Is that the unanimous opinion of all legal beagles, or the Gospel According to Bricker?
I didn’t mention you at all. I referred to the pro-life movement.
It’s not at all realistic, but, still, it’s what I’d like to see happen. It’s what I “want.” I also want universal health care and a pony. The point here is that I’m doing nothing whatever wrong in wanting these things, believing that this is what would be “right,” and voting for candidates on this basis, exactly the way the pro-life movement functions.
I’ll go slow, so that even a cousin-fucker like yourself can follow…
I’m not saying that Bricker doesn’t have scorn (justifiably, mind you) heaped upon him. I’m saying that he’s a bitch for complaining. He said I’m not making arguments, and I am. I am *also *calling him subhuman filth because of his positions. Hopefully that delves into the nuance enough that even someone with as few chromosomes as yourself can get a grip on it.
Geez, I’m so hurt by a moronic, anonymous message board warrior calling me names! Good job! I’m sure your mom’s basement needs someone to sit in it, so go back to your normal day-job. I’ll ask your mom how you are doing with it next time I see her.
I wasn’t trying to hurt you. I was trying to show you that you can explain something, that is to say make an argument, and at the same time mock someone for being a twat.
I’m sorry that it was, in actuality too subtle. We can hug, if you like.
P.S. She asked if you’d cup her breasts when doing rear entry, because she’s not getting much stimulation off your wang.
Sorry, I’d rather just mock you for being a twat. And I commend you on your use of a smaller font, at least you learned something in your “Message Boards for basement dwellers” class.