I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[septimus]

Let’s discuss “Spirit versus Letter.”

The present sub-debate is about Kansas. Recall that Kansas implemented a method to prevent a class of likely-Democratic voters from voting. A federal judge ruled that this was illegal. Kansas followed the letter of the ruling by allowing those voters to vote for candidates for federal office, but avoided the spirit of the ruling: Kansas is preparing special ballots so those voters will not be allowed to vote for state offices — the federal judge has no jurisdiction there.

But I’m not concerned now with the spirit-vs-letter of that federal judge’s ruling. I’m discussing the spirit-vs-letter of our own subdebate here.

The spirit of the subdebate is: Was Kansas’ action despicable? Do Republican officials show contempt for the federal judiciary and the rule of law? Or is this democracy at its finest? — the Kansas state government won office with the support of 51% of Kansans and is just exercising its fiduciary duty to advance the interests of those 51% at the expense of the 49%.

Those who believe in spirit over letter want to address those questions.

But some of us deal only with the “letter” of the sub-debate and can’t grok its “spirit.” Our anal-retentive player will seize on a misplaced comma, or a hasty word choice as though that were the purpose of the sub-debate. Then, like a little dog who’s retrieved a stick and wants another biscuit, it looks up to its 4th-grade debate coach, Miss McKenna, as if to say “See how smart I am?”

This anal-retentive guy need offer no opinion on whether Brownback’s behavior was despicable or not. He’s not concerned with the spirit of the sub-debate; he thinks his task is complete if he finds a misplaced comma. Getting him to endorse or repudiate Republiopathic malice is a lost hope — there will always be another grammatical or word-choice error he can complain about.

So I’m glad our little Esquire Bricker decided to focus on the question of Spirit -vs- Letter. It is an instructive topic.

[elucidator]

Well, still, he explained for us the subtle distinctions to be applied when determining if a rebuttal is an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem is when the rebuttal focuses on the character and history of the advocate. Bricker’s response centered on the history and character of the advocate, which is the exact opposite.

I admit, a boor of little brain, this distinction eludes me. Perhaps it is just as well that my youthful inclination towards law school faded, apparently, I would not have been very good at it.

(“Faded” in that my grandmother flung herself at my feet, weeping, and begged me not to betray our family tradition of dirt-farmers and horse thieves.)

[Bricker]

@Trinopus

Bricker: You’re wrong. Something like that was tried in San Francisco, and, while many celebrated the spirit of the effort, even many gay rights activists conceded that it exceeded the mayor’s authority and could not be supported.

Your effort to tar the opposition with the brush of hypocrisy is a mega fail here. We have our ideals, but “due process of law” is one we don’t set aside trivially.

Not true. Many people here supported same-sex marriage as something that should be done regardless of the clear spirit of the law opposing it. Gavin Newsome’s specific effort garnered support here:

@jayjay

It’s amazing how incredibly TIRED I am to keep hearing “backlash backlash backlash backlash” as if it were a credible argument for forbearance in demanding our rights. If the American public is still so unprepared for full equality for gays and lesbians that they’re capable of being stampeded, like cattle, into fits of gaybashing, verbal abuse of queers, and the removal of what rights we have managed to wrest from their greedy little hands, then the American public doesn’t deserve to have gay folk among them, and I advocate a mass exodus to Canada or Europe if such a thing were to happen.

I’m sure if the “backlash” were to come to pass, homosexuality would be an asylum condition for emigration from the US into more enlightened and modern countries.

@MrVisible

Well, what do you know. Gay people are married in the US. And heterosexual marriages… dissolve? Explode? Combust?

Nope. The structure of marriage, the fabic of marriage, the institution of marriage, the sanctity of marriage… they’re all intact. All that’s happened is that more people can now participate.

For this reason, I think this is a massive step in the right direction. People need to see the reality of gay marriage, as opposed to the bizarre apocalyptic visions they’ve been constructing in their heads. The reality is pedestrian; two little old ladies, who’ve been together for half a century, who can now say that they’re married.

It’s a great day.

@presidebt

From Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail:

So there is no reason, IMHO, to wait for the “majority” to catch up. An unjust law, a difference made legal, is immoral, and we are not obligated to obey it.

I love the fact that those two women, who had been together 51 years, were allowed to marry. Can you imagine how excited they must have been? They got to get married for before they died, and that is a beautiful thing.

@SpoilerVirgin

Yes, this is civil disobedience. Civil disobedience by an elected official, which carries even more weight. I think the comparison to Martin Luther King, Jr. (who, whatever his failings, was not a brat ;)) is appropriate.

The only way to challenge an unconstitutional law is to break it. There must be a real case on which the court can base their decision. The Mayor (and the women who married) may suffer consequences, but they did what he believed to be the just and right thing.

I have always believed that forbidding gay people to marry is immoral and unjust, and today I am proud to live in a city whose public officials are willing to take a stand against injustice.

Besides, there’s just something beautiful about two women who have been together for 51 years finally being able to marry.

@madonnaman

I was down at SF City Hall today and watched some of the USA’s first government-sanctioned same-sex marriages. It was an impromptu, but exciting and beautiful event. The news spread by cell phone and email. Fearful of the coming injunctions, couples started rushing to City Hall when they heard the news. Most did not even bother to change into fancier clothes – couples lined up for simple impromptu weddings, often in their street clothes and tennis shoes. None of these couples woke up today with the knowledge that they would be getting married later today and making history. There were no protestors against the equal marriages; everyone present was happy and supportive.

I know there’s going to be a backlash, injunctions, lawsuits, and constitutional amendments headed to the ballots. No matter which course we take, some resistence is inevitable. That doesn’t mean we can’t or won’t fight, however. I am absolutely convinced this was the right thing to do. Irrational and hateful discrimination is immoral. I applaud Gavin Newsom for doing what was simply the right, and only thing to do (I’m not normally a fan of Newsom – I voted against him and worked on the campaign of his opponent. But in this case he’s done the right thing and I support him 100% on this issue).

@Apos

But I do think having gay marriages on some books, even illegally, does get us something. Suddenly we have the family values crowd trying to break up people’s marriages. That’s a pretty powerful irony that the gay rights crowd can and should play to the hilt.

@KellyM

The only way to challenge a law in court is to break it, and sue when you’re not allowed to. You can’t just go to the court and say “We’d like to do this, will you let us?” because that’s a hypothetical situation and hypotheticals are not justiciable in most states. The Mayor of San Francisco, beliving that the law in question violates the California Constitution, elected to break the law in order to challenge it.

This is exactly civil disobedience by the Mayor and those in agreement with him, against a statute the Mayor believes to be in violation of the California Constitution; if he’s right, the law is a nullity. He is putting himself and his career on the line for this. And you have the gall to chastize him for upholding his conviction as to what the law of his state actually requires?

@Blalron

An interracial couples getting “married” used to be a willfull and deliberate violation of the law in many States also. If you were around during that time, and the mayor of a town in one of those states handed out marriage licenses to interracial couples would you have suggested to those couples that they elect not to get “married”?

John Mace and emarkp were the minority in speaking up for the law over the mayor’s action.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

Not true. Many people here supported same-sex marriage as something that should be done regardless of the clear spirit of the law opposing it. Gavin Newsome’s specific effort garnered support here:

John Mace and emarkp were the minority in speaking up for the law over the mayor’s action.

A fair reading of Trinopus’ post would be that he was talking about people IRL, not so much on this MB.

[elucidator]

Perhaps if the Counselor would make so bold as to tell us what he means by “spirit of the law”? Then, perhaps, we could drift away from this semantic niggling?

Does a law that is clearly and deliberately unjust have “spirit of the law”? Is this a negative spirit, a devil, then? As compared, say, with a law demanding voter ID, which has pure and angelic purpose: to bolster the divine cause of voter confidence?

Does it retain that sublime purity even if enacted for another purpose altogether i.e., to enhance the political fortunes of a partisan cause? And finally, is there any reason at all to dwell on this nonsense, save to afford the Counselor at opportunity to shift away from a lost argument to something more congenial?

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Perhaps if the Counselor would make so bold as to tell us what he means by “spirit of the law”? Then, perhaps, we could drift away from this semantic niggling?

Does a law that is clearly and deliberately unjust have “spirit of the law”? Is this a negative spirit, a devil, then? As compared, say, with a law demanding voter ID, which has pure and angelic purpose: to bolster the divine cause of voter confidence?

Does it retain that sublime purity even if enacted for another purpose altogether i.e., to enhance the political fortunes of a partisan cause? And finally, is there any reason at all to dwell on this nonsense, save to afford the Counselor at opportunity to shift away from a lost argument to something more congenial?

The spirit of the law is the distilled objective the law seeks to accomplish.

And as long as you keep asking me questions, I’ll keep answering them, so if you want to stop discussing the spirit of the law I suggest you stop invoking it.

[Bricker]

@John_Mace

A fair reading of Trinopus’ post would be that he was talking about people IRL, not so much on this MB.

If he was, that was misplaced: I was talking about people here.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

The spirit of the law is the distilled objective the law seeks to accomplish.

And as long as you keep asking me questions, I’ll keep answering them, so if you want to stop discussing the spirit of the law I suggest you stop invoking it.

Yes, but the “distilled objective” of the voter ID laws, according to you, is the sublime virtue of voter confidence. Yet, you also accept that “some” Republicans had malign motives in voting for it. Were their votes in keeping with the “spirit of the law”?

[Fear_Itself]

@elucidator

Does a law that is clearly and deliberately unjust have “spirit of the law”? Is this a negative spirit, a devil, then?

Eenie-meenie, chili-beanie, the spirits are about to speak!

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…And as long as you keep asking me questions, I’ll keep answering them…

No, you don’t. I’ve asked a number of pointed and direct questions which you have ignored. For instance, asking about your supposed statistical analysis of evidence that voter ID laws have a oppressive effect on minority voting.

So, no, you do not, you answer the questions that offer you some advantage, and ignore the others.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

No, you don’t. I’ve asked a number of pointed and direct questions which you have ignored. For instance, asking about your supposed statistical analysis of evidence that voter ID laws have a oppressive effect on minority voting.

Answer: I haven’t been able to do that.

So, no, you do not, you answer the questions that offer you some advantage, and ignore the others.

What others?

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Yes, but the “distilled objective” of the voter ID laws, according to you, is the sublime virtue of voter confidence. Yet, you also accept that “some” Republicans had malign motives in voting for it. Were their votes in keeping with the “spirit of the law”?

No, their votes - votes cast with malign intent – ran contrary to the spirit of the law.

[Bricker]

Review the bidding:

in 2012, the OP said:

@BrainGlutton

Shame on you all, and STFU forever.

Four years later, more states have operational Voter ID laws than did in 2012!

So I declare positive progress for the good guys, and embarrassing loss of ground for the opponents thereof.

Four more years! Four more years! Woo hoo!

[Trinopus]

@Bricker

Not true. Many people here supported same-sex marriage as something that should be done regardless of the clear spirit of the law opposing it. Gavin Newsome’s specific effort garnered support here:

You fail again. I said, “Many opposed it.” Pointing to people who supported it does not rebut this claim.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Answer: I haven’t been able to do that…

Oh, you poor dear! How humbling that must be for you! As a mathtard, I understand. Of course, it leaves the unfortunate impression that you were ducking the evidence, since you had every confidence, apparently, that you would have no problem. When did you find out?

Of course, there is another option that does not directly depend on one’s math skills, which is to refer to expertise. You know, look online for criticisms of the proferred evidence (as I have). See if there are critiques (as I did). Because, as you know, this is an important issue, and if the evidence is solid, then some people might even change their minds! Like, for instance, you.

I’m guessing you didn’t. Just guessing, of course. Because if you did find a smoking gub, something that calls that evidence into valid question, you would have been right down here to rub our noses in it. Either that, or you have recently developed a generous and forgiving nature, and did not want to embarrass us.

Or not. Could be that you simply were bluffing, hoping that we would all forget that you even said such a thing. As most of us did, apparently. Be that as it may, the evidence stands, yes? That voter ID laws have had an oppressive effect on minority voters. May we take it as a given that you accept that as fact, since you are unable to rebut the evidence?

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Review the bidding:

in 2012, the OP said:

Four years later, more states have operational Voter ID laws than did in 2012!

So I declare positive progress for the good guys, and embarrassing loss of ground for the opponents thereof.

Four more years! Four more years! Woo hoo!

Can you point to any of us that ever said something along the lines of “There must never be voter ID, because voter ID is bad!”. My recollection, which you are welcome to clarify, is that we were opposed to voter suppression by means of these laws. Which was explicitly stated in the title of the thread.

I and many others here have said “Voter ID is totally kosher if done right. Done by conscientious persons determined to prevent any partisan advantage.” We offered alternatives, outreach programs and the like. Voter registration drives would be obvious, an outreach to those who want to register but have problems that the state could easily resolve IF!..voter confidence were truly their goal.

Clearly, it was not. Few (if any?) efforts were made, further, efforts were made to make voter registration more difficult, not less! Hell, they even slimed the League of Women Voters, fer cryin’ out loud!

“Some” Republicans have malign intent in all of this, what about the rest? Where are the Republicans who spoke up? (Outside of the estimable Mr. Sensenbrenner …I daresay the Honorable Mr. Sensenbrenner, to distinguish him from his fellow Republicans).

If you are gloating about laws that do no have the malign effect that prompted this thread, why should we care? I don’t think its necessary, I think the system we use here in the People’s Republic of Baja Canada is satisfactory. But I have no real objection to soothing the tattered nerves of Republicans who cannot otherwise be convinced that when they lose, they lose fair and square. Good, says I, then they will have to make up some other dark fantasy about Democrats stealing elections. Creativity is to be encouraged.

Even if oppressive laws remain standing after review, these efforts have roused a lot of resentment, motivated people who might not otherwise have made the effort to leap all the hurdles and go to the polls. Trying to trim away a couple of percentage points to their ledger, they have had the directly opposite effect. Groovy.

[Bricker]

@Trinopus

You fail again. I said, “Many opposed it.” Pointing to people who supported it does not rebut this claim.

Then your claim is meaningless. “Many,” compared to what?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

Then your claim is meaningless. “Many,” compared to what?

“Not many”, I assume. Possibly “few”.

[Trinopus]

@Bricker

Then your claim is meaningless. “Many,” compared to what?

Compared to the “few” you said would object.

You keep digging yourself in deeper. Just admit it: you flubbed. You thought that liberal support for same sex marriage would cause them to overlook the letter/spirit of the law, and you were wrong.

This is for the same reason we didn’t like it when the county clerk tried to deny same sex marriage licenses, with exactly the same basis in law. We didn’t like that, either.

Don’t you get it? We don’t like this, because it could be used against us just as readily as for us.

We also happen to support the rule of law as an abstract good, no less than conservatives do.

You put your dick in the mousetrap. Man up and pull out.

[rooostra]

Fifth Circuit overturns Texas Voter ID law in en banc decision.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/20/3800430/breaking-texas-voter-id-law-struck-extraordinarily-conservative-appeals-court/