If you’re going to quote me, quote the context. I said that voter ID laws, as currently written, are unconstitutional, because they have the intent and purpose of disenfranchising a specific sector of the electorate.
I agreed with the others that such laws could be constitutional if they were actually crafted to be neutral.
Quoting without context is a form of fallacious dishonesty.
Except that they are not unconstitutional, since they’ve been upheld by the Supreme Court.
You mean those five unelected judges you object to? Since when do you support their authority?
The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s Voter ID. So when you say that law is unconstitutional, you’re talking about your wish, or your opinion, not the actual state of the law of the United States. Correct?
But you don’t mention that. You just claim it’s unconstitutional without making clear that it’s merely your view, and the opposite view is the final decision of the Supreme Court.
That sure seems like some context that should be mentioned.
Why? Is someone likely to be confused?
Somebody stupid, maybe.
Opinions and facts are two very different things. But there are posters on this MB who apparently can’t tell the difference.
Trinopus himself is confused. So is septimus.
Such laws, by violating the equal protection clause, violate the constitution.
We’re in a situation where a law can violate the constitution and be constitutional at the same time. Kinda weird.
Agreed. There’s a lot of context here. Violation of the equal protection clause, and violation of voter access laws is one of the biggies.
Do you seriously hold that the Supreme Court has never ruled improperly?
I know they have the authority to interpret the Constitution…but do they have the actual knowledge and wisdom? (ETA: split decisions are an interesting indicator of a deeper divide, and real room for disagreement. Some day, a future court may reverse one of these decisions. Will you then reverse yourself and, like Orewll, say, “The law was always unconstitutional?”)
In any case, all of this has been argued already; we’re just going around in circles. I caught D’Anconia in an error, quoting me without adequate context. You have not caught me in an error, only in a disagreement.
Also, you’ve got soup stains on your necktie.
Thus is the liberal grasp on logic laid bare.
Were you dropped on your head as a child? Despite your declarations, you don’t get to decide what is constitutional.
This is an example of argument-from-ignorance: they are wrong because they could be wrong.
That method simply eviscerates every decision – they are wrong about abortion, flag burning, and the Affordable Care Act! Why? Because they have ruled improperly in the past, of course.
I’m not making any claims about any “meta” rightness that may exist. I am saying that Voter ID laws are constitutional, right here and right now, as a matter of established factual law. Your contrary claim is opinion and speculation about what might happen in the future.
Agreed. The best defense I have for this view is that it has happened in the past. For a period of time, states had the constitutional right to ban homosexual acts; then, in a reversal, states no longer had that constitutional right.
Meanwhile, I also think you are putting too much emphasis on the one case, Indiana’s law, without weighing stricter and more invasive laws from other states. Indiana’s law may have been less of a violation than other states’ laws. Remember, some of these laws have been overturned. There is no clear consensus, and even the court is tightly divided.
The Brickhead can’t even parse reasoning as simple as:
Oh well. No wonder the Republiopathic Party has gone to hell.
ETA: To save Brickhead a click, here’s his answer:
“Nanner nanner nanner. Scalia and the other four scum have spoken. Nanner nanner nanner.”
It’s true that other laws may go further than Indiana’s – and, indeed, I certainly don’t suggest that every possible Voter ID scheme is constitutional. I argue merely that Voter ID laws that are generally similar to Indiana’s are generally constitutional, and I argue against General claims to the contrary. I am happy to discuss the particulars of any given state you please.
As to your first point, it’s certainly true that the Court has explicitly reversed its own rulings. But I trust you see the difference between an observation that it might happen and a claim that because it might happen, we can announce that it HAS happened.
Who gets to decide whether a law is constitutional?
Are they? They don’t seem to be operating under any delusions that SCOTUS rulings don’t “count” or something, though they may be of the opinion that some decisions are wrong. That doesn’t quite meet the criteria of “confused” to me.
Futile, possibly. Moot. Idealistic, sure. But “confused” ?
Are you trying to insist that everyone who expresses an opinion must clearly label it as an opinion, lest someone actually be confused?
Bricker is a legal-lookup bot incapable of ordinary human cognition. It thinks that the legal status of voter suppression laws is all we’ve been discussing for 9000+ posts. :eek: It’s not even a Version-2 bot capable of forming or interpreting legal opinions — it just prattles “Neener neener neener! Scalia and the four Scumbags! Neened neener neeer!” over and over and over.
Don’t try to enhance its vision with examples of malleability like the overturning of the Plessy v. Ferguson decision — it might blow a circuit or try a divide-by-zero.
The real mystery is why, if they’re not ready yet to bring out the Version-2 Brickhead, the bot programmers don’t just flip the off-switch.
After all this time, and 1000’s of posts, Bricker still completely lacks any clue what the issue is! Perhaps we Dopers are to blame for assuming that it was a bot of above average intelligence. To make amends I’ll post a YouTube of less than 3 minutes that should acquaint Bricker with some of the basics … unless his attention deficit prevents him from even finishing it. The YouTube is by a former cabinet official who is now Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He also has a law degree (though I suppose that’s not saying much if it’s really true Bricker has one).
HTH
I’d say it may be necessary, or it may be unnecessary.
In cases in which the opinion is obviously opinion, it’s not necessary. Here, when the opinion masquerades as settled fact, it’s absolutely necessary.
In fact, here’s the proof: Trinopus (and Septimus) has yet to specifically acknowledge that these statements are opinion even now, after this detailed discussion. They are both still confused and think they are discussing verifiable fact.