The principle is that he deplores his party’s cheating when it’s too blatant for him to come up with a legalistic/Jesuitical argument to support it, but if he can, then it must be fine and any quibblers are therefore misguided. And, despite its fucking obviousness, nowhere does he acknowledge a possible connection between the overt and covert stuff, even though it’s being done simultaneously by the same people and with the same effect. Yes, he admits there have been a few misguided individuals, but still refuses to acknowledge anything more organized - it’s all just coincidence.
The importance of democracy, fairness, and justice is not, however, part of this “principled stand”.
But before that, they were constitutional. So they were okay, until they weren’t. Unless the Supreme Court overturns the ruling, in which case they always were.
I like the whine from the state attorney: “The sad reality is that much of Ohio’s election laws are no longer made by their elected representatives, but rather by unelected federal judges in response to politically motivated lawsuits.”
No…the constitution prevailed, as it always must if it is be the supreme law of the land. You’d think these assholes took high school civics once in their life, but apparently never.
IANAL, but I think it goes to the Appeals Court next. What I can’t remember is whether Bricksforbrains’s opinion overrides the Appeals Court, but is subject to review by Scotus. Or Scotus gets first shot, with Bricksforbrains having the final word.
The judge’s decision appears to be grounded in the Voting Rights Act, as opposed to the Constitution.
But I don’t have any particular opinion about this issue; it involves procedure and ID requirements for absentee and provisional ballots only. So if anyone is reading this as a refutation of any claims I have advanced, that view is mistaken.
If it makes you feel any better, objectively, GOP-created voting laws are typically unconstitutional. The decision by courts just affirms whether they are doing their jobs properly or not.
Finding voter fraud is easy, as long as you’re actually looking, which governments generally do not:
Because CBS looked into it, of course now the Board of Elections is going to also look into it. It continues to amaze me how voter fraud investigations never seem to get initiated except in response to journalists.
Also, note that voter ID laws wouldn’t stop dead people from voting. Dead people have birth certificates.
(A photo ID might help some. But, of course, the voter-suppressing laws in Ohio didn’t require a photo ID. They weren’t designed to ensure the authenticity of voting; they were designed to frustrate voter registration in the first place.)
California may be run by the libtards, but Siskiyou County is very strongly Republiopathic. (In fact, on September 3, 2013, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 in favor of secession from California to form a proposed state named Jefferson.)
Due to frauds and mischief by authorities and voters, elections in the U.S. often give different results than the results that would obtain in free and fair elections. Here’s a serious and relevant question: Estimate which are the ten types of fraud or mischief that affect electoral results most significantly.(Hint: If dead people voting makes your top ten list, you’re an ignorant dolt.)
You know, after all of this, I’m beginning to suspect that the OP may be entirely correct, that there is an organized and concerted effort on the part of Republicans to “stack the deck” against their political opponents. Maybe I’m jumping the gun on this, but its sure starting to look that way.
You misquote me, sir. I said that photo ID laws might help with the problem of dead people voting. I did not “concede” that “Voter ID” laws would do so. (I did not “concede” anything at all.)
I also used the word “might” which you removed from your mischaracterization of what I said.
Keep up the good work; everyone can see what your method of debate is.
Note that these newly-enfranchised voters will only be allowed to vote for federal offices. Twice as many ballot types now need to be prepared, ones with and without state and local offices. (Hmmm. Will votes subtotals be prepared by ballot type? Reulsts could be interesting.)
In the broad space of Republiopathic electoral malfeasance, that Kansas will allow some voters to vote only for federal officers since it was a federal judge who found their process defective may seem like a petty matter. But I find it to be a good example of the insolence and disrespect with which GOP officials treat the law of the land.
NETA for the Brickhead: Yes, yes, yes: Kansas may be legally entitled to prevent these voters from casting votes not dictated by the federal judge. Whatever gives the GOP an electoral advantage … neener neener neener … your side loses … ha ha ha.
But that isn’t the point. Following the letter of the law rather than the spirit is contemptible. Let me clarify with a simple example:
Imagine a judge ruling that Rick must desist from flinging horse-shit at George. So Rick switches to donkey-shit. Is this an example of Rick’s clever knowledge of the law? Or just an example of his continued contemptible behavior?