If we’re being that nitpicky he actually said indicated (a 9 letter word starting with “I”) not conceded (an 8 letter word starting with “C”). But if that’s what prompted you to post this:
You should really contact the PA Supreme Court. They’re apparently not tired of listening to people explain exactly how PennDOT is going to get IDs to everybody, seeing as how they’ve also indicated that they feel PennDOT might not be able to do it either.
(emphasis added)
Nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision, or in any admissions of
PA-DOT, says anything about the new, last resort ID being impossible to roll out in sufficiently timely fashion.
Might not. Yes, that’s fair. They certainly said that PA-DOT might not be able to.
Jeez, you sure get pissy when a court ruling fails to go your way, don’t ya?
He doesn’t like it when they are wrong.
I was thinking indictment, huh.
Maybe the court had gold fringe on it’s flag, so everything they stated is implausible. (11 letters)
Back when we thought it was an “L” I suspected the word was, “lalalalala.” Said whilst the fingers are in the ears.
It’s PennDOT, not PA-DOT.
Sorry, that was bugging me.
Just a quick question. Have any of the anti-voter ID people found anyone in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania either registered or eligible to register to vote who does not have the required ID?
First time hearing about this law? 
Lead Plaintiff Viviette Applewhite was originally excluded by the new law as was her co-plaintiff Bea Bookler. Applewhite has since been issued the proper ID to vote, not sure about Bookler though. The State of Pennsylvania itself estimates that 759,000 formerly eligible voters will be unable to cast a ballot in November.
The Supreme Court decision actually shifted burden of proof away from the plaintiffs in this case though so that question no longer really applies. The defendant is now required to show that IDs are readily available to any of those 759,000 people who might want one.
I don’t think any of them, not one, believe this.
Well, first off, I could always retreat to semantic purity, because there simply has to be one, out of so many, its virtually impossible that there isn’t at least one Republican psycho enough to believe that Bigfoot is registered to vote. So, by strict definition, I got that covered.
And there is no prospect, none whatsoever, that any of this can be proven. Even if you were going to do some sort of poll, who would you poll and how would you word the question?
But keep in mind, many Republicans sincerely believe that the vast majority of Americans are center-right, and largely in agreement with them. Which leaves them with the cognitive dissonance ringing in their ears when they lose. How hard would it be to convince themselves that they are only losing because the other guy is cheating? Some non-zero number must have done so, yes? We just have no clear idea how many.
Otherwise, we are left with motivations of a starker sort. If they don’t think they are trimming Democrat voters for laudable goals, such as stemming the onslaught of voter fraud, then they are doing for strictly cynical reasons. I pity stupidity, but I despise cynicism. The Eighth, and most Deadly, Sin.
Surely your years on the Dope, if nothing else, allow you to recognize snark when you see it.
ISTM They were tweaking the judge for accepting that assertion at face value, despite the evidence to the contrary. They were also virtually ordering him to reverse the ruling himself, rather than have the Supremes do it for him, by way of rubbing it in.
Well, that’s possible I suppose. Lawyer humor, huh? The only other explanation that occurs to me is that they are entirely sincere, but felt it had to be said, as if the implication were already present and needed to be answered.
There’s a pretty great gulf between “might not” and “impossible.”
But of course, on the Left Dope Message Board, someone can say impossible and have it pass without challenge. Because all you good lefties know what SHOULD be happening, after all.
My prediction is that the lower court will hold a hearing, the state will say that IDs are readily available to any who wish them, and the judge will again uphold the law.
I am willing to bet that the judge again upholds the law.
Any of you confident, cool snarky lefties interested in that bet?
I’m not taking any bets, because I have no idea what will happen, and neither do you. I think the odds are that it will be put on hold for the upcoming election, but I won’t say that that’s a certain thing.
I don’t gamble, but you are coming across with a hint of petulance in your response.
I don’t know who will uphold what. I’m not a lawyer. But anyone who would support a law that makes it harder for millions of people across the nation to vote in order to fight a problem that doesn’t exist, isn’t really impressing me with their neutrality or rationality.
But who said the law is neutral and rational?
Well, shit, if I won I’d be taking food from presumably adorable brickeritos! And if I lose, you’d probably give it to the Institute for Constipated Calvinist Jesuits.
There are no real consequences for you guys for being wrong. You don’t get the scorn you richly deserve, because all your fellow lefties are perfectly understanding of th situation, and all feel you SHOULD have been right.
Losing a bet would at least rub your noses in your error for a bit, but it’s always at times like these that the announcements about how you’re deeply opposed to gambling come pouring forth in deeply pious tones.