Guess it must have been immoral after all, huh?
Worth highlighting this bit for the “IDs are easy to get” crowd:
It may be easy for most, but that doesn’t mean those for whom it isn’t easy “just aren’t trying hard enough” or “don’t want it badly enough”.
I’ll just bump this in case our resident legal scholar hasn’t heard the news.
Why, when I was young, we walked 60 miles uphill in the snow just to find out if we needed to walk another 60 to get our IDs!
No opinion from Bricker yet? Looking back at this thread, it’s so odd how it went from legal discussion to ‘we won, nanny-nanny-boo-boo’.
Remember how many pages of argument and evidence it took him to go from
“Voter fraud is a huge problem, and there’s scads of it!”
to
“Well, no, not really, but it doesn’t matter because voter confidence”. The boy is all tuckered out.
[quote=“rooostra, post:9680, topic:624943”]
Fifth Circuit overturns Texas Voter ID law in en banc decision.
[quote=“magellan01, post:9687, topic:624943”]
Serious question: How many Dopers do you think will bother to click your link? The admirable magellan01 hints “Not exactly…” You couldn’t even construct a quote box, as evidenced by the fact that in my post it remains unrepaired. :smack:
I’m going with Zero.
Since magellan01 once gave me a list of ten links to try to prove a point, and I gave up after the first three disproved his point and he couldn’t be bothered to comment on my analyses, I’ll take a chance and click this one, just for the heck of it, analysis to follow.
Analysis - the article’s headline:
…is misleading, but in fairness to magellan01, the headline is probably all he bothered to read. The Judge in question, “Corpus Christi-based federal district court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, an Obama appointee” isn’t mandating the law be followed in defiance of the appeals court ruling - she’s rather listing a bunch of modifications the law must include to be acceptable in the interim. These are:
[ul][li]All Texas voters who currently possess photo voter ID or “have the means to get it in time” for the 2016 Election are expected to show it;[/li][li]No additional form of identification “that is easily counterfeited” may be allowed;[/li][li]Homeless and those able to demonstrate a legitimate impediment to acquiring ID must be allowed to use their voter registration postcard;[/li][li]Texas must execute a public education initiative about the ID requirements, exceptions and interim ID alternatives;[/li][li]Texas election officials must provide new training to poll workers on the original voter ID requirements and interim rules; and[/li][li]The interim plan must only focus on fixing the discriminatory effects of the law, leaving the question of whether it was written with discriminatory intent for after the 2016 contests.[/ul][/li]
These arguably gut the intent to bias the election, without actually accusing anyone of trying to bias the election. Will Texas Republicans agree to these modifications? If not, the legislation remains struck, I gather, and the subsequent tidal wave of in-person voter fraud will no doubt scour democracy from the land.
The Fifth Circuit fashioned a set of remedies for particular cases; i don’t have any heartburn with those remedies. I am fine with the law as amended by the cort’s decision.
I didn’t realize the star of Brewster McCloud had such clout.
Well, sure, take out the evil stuff,and its not bad at all! Why, if voter id laws did not have any voter suppression consequences, they would be cromulent! Good catch!
Funny, maybe that North Carolina law also turns out, we can now see, to have been unfair and discriminatory all along.
You guys keep picking on our constitutional scholar. Let me save him a click by paraphrasing his response:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[future post by Hypothetical Brickhead]
That court ruling was atrocious. Recall Blackstone’s Formulation: It is better that ten legal voters escape from voting than that one fraudulent vote be suffered. Even though swamped by the properly enfranchised otherwise denied, that illegal vote will raise questions and prevent citizens from having confidence in the sanctity of their electoral result. And so what if the South Carolina law unduly affects people with particular genetic markers or hair texture? You liberals are always insisting there’s no such think as race. The South Carolina law was passed by a duly elected legislature. Democracy in action. Your side lost, ha ha ha, until liberal nincompoop judges demonstrated their sins and immorality.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the finest and noblest living constitutional scholar, would quickly put those judges in their place, except he can’t do it alone. The liberals (probably?) murdered Scalia and subverted our beautiful court. Since no more centrist or immoral Justices will ever again be approved in our lifetimes, we can hope that the right sort of people are equipped to rebalance the Court with Second Commandment methods. Ha ha ha ha.
TL;DR: Eat shit, immoral liberals! Go, go, Karl Rove!
Awesome news for the good guys! Here’s more coverage:
From article"
“A federal appeals court decisively struck down North Carolina’s voter identification law on Friday, saying its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls.”
From me:
“Yeah, no fucking shit.”
And also from me:
“Anyone with any god damn sense could have told you that!”
Seems like if they had simply stuck to their voter id method, they would have gotten clean away with it. “Valid neutral injustification” having already passed the court. But they got greedy, they added in other shit that tipped their hand, restrictions that applied too specifically to minority voters.
Looked at from that point of view, the Counselor need not have a problem. He has retreated into a bunker of insisting that he is only concerned with the validity of voter id laws. He doesn’t need to take any position on these other legal embellishments. Could even go so far as to denounce, renounce and condemn them simply by declaring them irrelevant to his core position.
And, of course, just because some Republicans had malign motives doesn’t mean etc. etc. etc.
Actually, his real answer is likely to be “well, the court has ruled, and I respect its ruling”, or words to that effect. Which, while obviously far less objectionable on the surface, is in an insidious sense kind of worse. In that his position to begin with wasn’t “well, I like some stuff about voter ID laws, but am troubled by other parts, let’s see what the courts say”. It was “I love these laws, they’re great, they’re the law of the land, I know that none of them present an undue burden, and you guys can suck it”.
When one of these laws are found unconstitutional, his response SHOULD be “gee, that shakes my confidence that many of the other similar laws, proposed at around the same time by similar people for similar reasons, are just fine… and it provides some level of evidence that maybe the impure motives that I’ve acknowledged many of the framers of these laws probably possessed might have found their way into the laws themselves”, or something like that. Which, so far, he has not (as far as I know) done.
Don’t hold your breath. He throws around the word “immoral” so much, that one suspects there’s a vague familiarity with the concept of Right and Wrong. But it may just be trained as an effort to pass the Voight-Kampff test.
Yes, that’s certainly a recent retreat for me, huh?
From 2012, in this very thread: