Is this an absolute statement? What I mean is this: if it was determined that most supporters of this bill in the legislature voted for it because they wanted to reduce black turnout (and therefore Democratic turnout), would this change your opinion of it?
And do you understand the incredible outrage that the idea that any legislators crafted and voted for this bill with this in mind causes?
If “accept” means not oppose it by force, then yes. But I may disagree with it.
But I’m not really interested in whether or not you accept it – I want to know how you feel about it. Does it bother you if some legislators wanted to make it harder for black people to vote? Would you consider this disqualifying for your vote, assuming their opponent was a relatively generic Democrat who did not want to disenfranchise anyone?
I accept that the court has the authority to make the decision, and their decision has the force of law.
I accept that the reasoning the court used is valid, and that they came to the correct conclusion.
How one answers that question depends on what you mean by “accept”. I suspect you “accept” the decisions in the first, but not the second sense. Correct? So, are you asking iiandyiii to “accept” future decisions in the 1st sense only?
And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.
And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
…
[Abraham proceeds to negotiate Yahweh down]
…
And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.
And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.
…
Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;
And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s stipulate, temporarily for the sake of argument, that Bricker does not place himself above the God of Abraham.
The question arises: were there ten legislators who imagined their new law to be humane? Should we spare the brimstone on this perditious legislature?
Certainly many Republiopaths in a state like North Carolina are drunkards or mentally infirm. There’s Senator Jimmy Bob Hatfield in the corner, always drunk, but who moans out “Yea” when you shove him on the shoulder. And Representative Billy Bob Bootaille who never learned to read or write but gets re-elected because he always buys a round for all the girls at Minny Mae’s Tavern and Brothel.
But were there ten legislators so mentally incompetent that they didn’t know what they were doing it? I doubt it. Or does Bricker just set himself above Yahweh?
Shit, I wouldn’t be all that surprised if half of them really believe it, that these bills will cripple the Dems advantage in voter fraud. Everybody knows America is a center right country, a basically conservative country. There’s no need to prove that, everybody knows it. So, if the Dems are winning elections, it can only be fraud.
So, yeah, its all about voter confidence. Republican voter confidence. And, of course, the crucial value of incumbent stability.
I can understand striking down voter ID, but i wasn’t aware that early voting and same day registration were basic rights. That would be news to all the states that don’t have those things.
Ah, yes, the sacred value of “voter confidence”, the very “valid neutral justification” itself! Then, it follows that an insult to minority voters must, necessarily, impact their voter confidence, and degrade their sense of citizenship.
I note with special cheerfulness that this line of reasoning reflects the thoughts of some of our more intelligent and insightful posters! I refrain from mentioning any names, in deference to their blushing and becoming modesty.
Seems, from this vantage, that is exactly what some judges have done, they have analysed the actions of legislators, and derived a motivation. Apparently, they are of the opinion that intent can be ascertained by actions. Who gnu?
Ah! Pre-emptive accusation of liberal hypocrisy!
“I am certainly willing to accept judgements that counter my preferences, but I can’t say the same thing for you guys!”
Counselor, Counselor, Counselor! Still nothing? Where is that little scamp, anyway? Pokemon Go? Is it opera season already? Rabbit season?
There are other views of statutory interpretation besides mine. My view is that we best serve the notion of self-governance if we start with the proposition that the plain text of the law is what evinces the legislative intent. Other schools of thought are comfortable with divining legislative intent in different ways.
This should not be a surprise.
Pre-emptive?
This thread has been an excellent example of your unwillingness to accept judicial findings that you don’t like and valorizing those you do.
(1) for me as well, but I’m still interested in your feelings about this legislation and the legislators who crafted it, not just your opinions with regards to the letter of the law.
My questions, again: Do you understand the incredible outrage that is caused by the idea that any legislators crafted and voted for this bill with the motivation of making it harder for black people to vote? Does it bother you if some legislators wanted to make it harder for black people to vote? Would you consider this disqualifying for your vote, assuming their opponent was a relatively generic Democrat who did not want to disenfranchise anyone?
So, this “lefty brigade”? Does that include the judges who made these rulings? Do they know, you think, that they are in said “lefty brigade”? Should you advise them?
Could be that your disapproval will have the same puissant force it has on us?
(Hey, look, the only difference between “puissant” and “pissant” is “U”!) Well, sonuvagun!
Without being insulting to you… Equal Justice under the Law is a basic right.
Lots of religious people have days of the week where they aren’t allowed to do certain kinds of things. Imagine a state where the election day is moved to Saturday, and the reason is to make it harder for Jews to vote.
It would be foolish to say, “So where in the Constitution does it say we can’t move election day to Saturday?” The rule in the Constitution that would be broken is the Equal Protection clause, given that such a change would have the intent of disenfranchising a specific religious class of people.
Early voting isn’t a “basic right,” but having the same access to voting as everyone else definitely is.
I wonder, how big a factor it is that minority voters had already gotten Sunday voting, early voting, stuff like that? Which means to me that the Constitutionality of these things were never at issue. They already had been done, it was not a new “right” made up by a liberal activist judge, it was already there. Already decided when somebody decided to take it back.
What was at issue was taking them back without an acceptable reason, a “valid neutral justification”. Add to that the research the Pubbies did on the subject of voting patterns by race. Can’t even claim they didn’t know, they left their fingerprints all over it.
By the way, anybody ever read Jimmy Breslin’s The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight? Don’t know why that leaps to mind…
Shit, if the American dream were already fully realized, we wouldn’t need to be leftys! We could be conservatives, protecting a status quo that deserved it!