“We may never know” doesn’t represent a rhetorical fallacy so much as a bare fact. The investigation was halted, for whatever reason. We may be forgiven for our suspicion that it was halted as a favor to the defendant. And for noting that if the defendant was entirely aware of his own innocence, he would most likely want a thorough investigation.
Be that as it may, when the words “Texas” and “justice” get thrown together in the same sentence, they usually try to squirm away from each other.
Another example of why it was so important for the Republicans to block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination:
5-4, and you know who.
If there’s one thing that Republicans fear, it is having lots of people eligible to vote.
Republicans fear a country in which the plain text meaning of the law can get changed because a judge likes another result better.
Thankfully, that fear was averted today. But the danger remains.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Counselor:
IOW no.
I think the decision says that the Ohio procedure follows the rules you quoted in the National Voter Registration Act exactly, hence it is acceptable.
Whether that’s true or not, I can’t say.
I’m not sure whether the problem is that Congress allowed for a procedure to remove voters from the rolls, or whether Ohio implemented it in an unfair way. What do the dissents say?
“Goddamn shit piss fuck!” but in polite legalese.
Yeah, ok. Because Republicans regularly bemoaned Scalia’s tortured reasonings to get the result he wanted.
The Ohio procedures conformed precisely to the removal requirements listed in the NVRA. Read 52 USC §20507(d)(1)(B). Ohio removed voters who (1) didn’t vote for two years, which triggered (2) a card sent to their address, requiring them to verify their address, and (3) who subsequently failed to vote for four years after that.
The law says (with red emphasis added by me):
Can you explain how (or if) you believe Ohio’s scheme fails to meet that standard?
So, legal and Constitutional?
If someone is registered to vote, and they never vote, so what? There is no harm. The only reason to remove the name is to -fingers crossed- prevent that person voting should he try.
It pains me to say this but there are certainly legitimate reasons to attempt to keep the current rolls up to date; otherwise the number of voters who no longer live in the precinct (or have died) will rapidly outnumber the ones who do live there and vote, which can cause administrative problems and inefficiencies (although implications that it will lead to people voting in multiple areas do not appear to be justified in any material way).
And the reason it pains me to say this is that the Republicans have made a habit of taking perfectly rational ideas regarding voting and applying them in a manner designed to skew heavily in a way that will disadvantage those likely to vote Democratic (e.g. requiring voter IDs but selecting as accepted IDs those which are far more likely to be held by GOP-voting demographics than Dem-voting ones, or closing ID-issuing centers in Democratic-leaning areas, or selecting for certain names more likely to belong to minority voters when conducting purges of ‘inactive’ voters and leaving others alone), all the while claiming that it’s all perfectly legal, Constitutional and innocent.
Good point. Then a just law would require the careful and deliberate removal of the names of dead people. Anything else is Republican sleaze.
Sort of. The law can be just and reasonable in itself, but applied in an inequitable and malign way. Many Jim Crow laws had this as a issue; for example, requiring people to be able to read (in order to read the ballot) sounds perfectly fine on the face of it*, but deliberate unequal application of literacy testing was used to disenfranchise legitimate voters, up to and including making black voters read Chinese or fail the literacy assessment.
Actually, they have accepted IDs that are issued by government institutions and have a higher degree of reliability than the IDs typically proposed by liberal activists, when they propose ID at all. If it’s true that these are more likely to be held by GOP-voting demographics, it’s because GOP-voting demographics are more likely participants in mainstream society tasks like licensed driving.
In a word, “white”. Its OK, you can just say it, everybody pretty much knows.
It’s nice of him to admit that the GOP are deliberately working to exclude marginalized populations, many of whom have been marginalized by conservatives in the first place.
True, and owning guns, but not going to school.
Moved this discussion from a GD thread to avoid it becoming another Bricker nitpick fest.
Why? It was a democratically passed law which solved an important problem of preventing voter fraud. Now I suppose one might be able to argue that it may have unforeseen effects which would inconvenience certain voters, in a way that happens to provide electoral advantage to our side, but that shouldn’t matter as long as it has a rational basis. No one is being prevented from voting. I suppose you also could argue that there would be better ways of dealing with the issue of voter fraud that wouldn’t disenfranchise so many people, or be so one sided, but that wasn’t that law that was passed.
Basically just the same as the Ohio law.
So all we need are a couple of justices on the Supreme court who don’t have their judgment muddled by activist thinking and then you will have to admit that you were wrong and it wasn’t unconstitutional at all.
Way, way back in the early pages, in a rare spasm of candor, he noted that “some” Republicans have malign motives in all this. He has his moments. But they are moments.