(01-25-2019 07:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  First, some people need to be "disenfranchised." Those who should not legally or properly be voting need to be stopped from doing so.

Second, allowing people to vote improperly "disenfranchises" the rest of us who voted legally and properly, if they offset our votes.

Third, why would anyone fight so hard against requiring voters to be provide proper identification, unless they intended to have people cast fraudulent votes?

Because bad laws can have unintended consequences. If the law is written such that it doesn’t keep legal voters from voting due to new burdens, then it’s bad. Couple the laws with appropriate means to increase the ease to get IDs, or honestly, like Texas did and allow people to basically vouch for their own identify, and I think they can work well.

I just don’t like adding barriers to voting for eligible voters.

(01-25-2019 07:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 07:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  First, some people need to be "disenfranchised." Those who should not legally or properly be voting need to be stopped from doing so.
Second, allowing people to vote improperly "disenfranchises" the rest of us who voted legally and properly, if they offset our votes.
Third, why would anyone fight so hard against requiring voters to be provide proper identification, unless they intended to have people cast fraudulent votes?

Because bad laws can have unintended consequences. If the law is written such that it doesn’t keep legal voters from voting due to new burdens, then it’s bad. Couple the laws with appropriate means to increase the ease to get IDs, or honestly, like Texas did and allow people to basically vouch for their own identify, and I think they can work well.
I just don’t like adding barriers to voting for eligible voters.

And I just don't like removing them for ineligible voters. Letting ineligible voters vote disenfranchises those of us who are legal voters, because it may very well deprive us of the results for which we voted.

Actually, I don't like either one. A reasonable law strikes a balance. No law is perfect, you're probably going to have errors one way or the other, or maybe some of both, when you have to enforce any law in the real world.

I guess my other point is there isn't much you can do in this world without proper ID. Cash a check? No. Buy a beer? No. Get on an airplane? No. Get welfare benefits? No.

But democrats don't seem to care about these other difficulties? Why not? Obviously, they don't give a damn about these people. They just want their votes. No matter whether they should or should not actually be voting.

I think the only viable solution is to require ID and make it as easy as possible to obtain proper ID.

(01-25-2019 08:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the only viable solution is to require ID and make it as easy as possible to obtain proper ID.

Isn't that the system we have now?

Who doesn't have ID that wants it or needs it?

This piece seems very appropriate for the current tangent of the this thread's discussion.

58,000 Non-U.S. Citizens Voted in Texas State Elections, Attorney General Paxton Says

Quote:Further, the DPS said there were about 95,000 non-citizens they identified as having a voter registration record in the state.

Well, on the bright side only about 61% of those that are illegally registered to vote did so. But, at least it is easy for them to get valid ID. <whew, I was worried there.....>

It sure does look like those superhero effort at voter suppression tactics are working out just peachy-keen for those in the "'R' is for 'r'acist" party.

(01-25-2019 10:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This piece seems very appropriate for the current tangent of the this thread's discussion.

58,000 Non-U.S. Citizens Voted in Texas State Elections, Attorney General Paxton Says

Quote:Further, the DPS said there were about 95,000 non-citizens they identified as having a voter registration record in the state.

Well, on the bright side only about 61% of those that are illegally registered to vote did so. But, at least it is easy for them to get valid ID. <whew, I was worried there.....>

But, I am sure that those voter suppression tactics are working out just peachy-keen for those in the "'R' is for 'r'acist" party.

Same old story from the Democrats:

Texas Democratic lawmakers also urged caution, including Dallas state Rep. Rafael Anchia, who said "because we have consistently seen Texas politicians conjure the specter of voter fraud as pretext to suppress legitimate votes, we are naturally skeptical.

(01-25-2019 10:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 10:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This piece seems very appropriate for the current tangent of the this thread's discussion.

58,000 Non-U.S. Citizens Voted in Texas State Elections, Attorney General Paxton Says

Quote:Further, the DPS said there were about 95,000 non-citizens they identified as having a voter registration record in the state.

Well, on the bright side only about 61% of those that are illegally registered to vote did so. But, at least it is easy for them to get valid ID. <whew, I was worried there.....>

But, I am sure that those voter suppression tactics are working out just peachy-keen for those in the "'R' is for 'r'acist" party.

Same old story from the Democrats:

Texas Democratic lawmakers also urged caution, including Dallas state Rep. Rafael Anchia, who said "because we have consistently seen Texas politicians conjure the specter of voter fraud as pretext to suppress legitimate votes, we are naturally skeptical.

The politicians opposed to removing names from the registration lists will be exclusively Democrats. Why is that - principles or political expediency?

(01-26-2019 11:30 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 10:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 10:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This piece seems very appropriate for the current tangent of the this thread's discussion.

58,000 Non-U.S. Citizens Voted in Texas State Elections, Attorney General Paxton Says

Quote:Further, the DPS said there were about 95,000 non-citizens they identified as having a voter registration record in the state.

Well, on the bright side only about 61% of those that are illegally registered to vote did so. But, at least it is easy for them to get valid ID. <whew, I was worried there.....>

But, I am sure that those voter suppression tactics are working out just peachy-keen for those in the "'R' is for 'r'acist" party.

Same old story from the Democrats:

Texas Democratic lawmakers also urged caution, including Dallas state Rep. Rafael Anchia, who said "because we have consistently seen Texas politicians conjure the specter of voter fraud as pretext to suppress legitimate votes, we are naturally skeptical.

The politicians opposed to removing names from the registration lists will be exclusively Democrats. Why is that - principles or political expediency?

Political expediency IS their principle.

(01-25-2019 07:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 06:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 05:53 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  FO: Republicans are not expressly attempting to disenfranchise poor people. That is a straw man.

Actually, I said "minorities" not "poor people", but yeah.

Quote:4th COA: Here's some remarkably compelling evidence that the Republican legislature intended to disenfranchise minority voters by taking advantage of their socioeconomic disadvantages.

No argument with that

Quote:FO: Well that's just their opinion.

Their opinion was that the law itself should be struck down, not because of its wording, but because of its intent. They didn't rule the application unconstitutional, but the law itself. I hate it when the courts do that. Yes, I know that horse left the stable a long time ago, but I still don't like it. It's like when gun rights activists oppose legislation that sets forth a reasonable restriction or requirement, with the argument that the intent of those proposing the law is curtailing 2nd amendment rights and the law will create a slippery slope toward that. There's what the law says, and then there's the way it could potentially be applied, and the 4th COA made no distinction and struck it down on the basis of conceivable future consequences.

Quote:I never got the ratchet thing, which is why I didn't reply.

The court went on to say that they didn't care how any future law was worded or how it could be applied, if they gauged the intent or possible application to be contrary to their opinion of what the law ought to do, they would strike it down.

I don't like judicial activism, especially when the judges are ranging so far beyond the wording of the law that they claim godlike ability to see and control the future.

To the latter point, without the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory, how would one be found unconstitutional if it was written without explicitly stating that it was going to discriminate by race, but was obviously intended to?

Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

Your argument, in another setting, is the "slippery slope" argument.

You would no doubt agree with gun rights activists that if the real intentions of those proposing firearms regulations is the eventual curtailment of 2nd amendment rights, then any law proposed by those with that intent should be struck down as unconstitutional, whatever the wording or immediate effect of that law might be. The NRA can count on your support in one of these legal fights.

(01-26-2019 11:34 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 07:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 06:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 05:53 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  FO: Republicans are not expressly attempting to disenfranchise poor people. That is a straw man.

Actually, I said "minorities" not "poor people", but yeah.

Quote:4th COA: Here's some remarkably compelling evidence that the Republican legislature intended to disenfranchise minority voters by taking advantage of their socioeconomic disadvantages.

No argument with that

Quote:FO: Well that's just their opinion.

Their opinion was that the law itself should be struck down, not because of its wording, but because of its intent. They didn't rule the application unconstitutional, but the law itself. I hate it when the courts do that. Yes, I know that horse left the stable a long time ago, but I still don't like it. It's like when gun rights activists oppose legislation that sets forth a reasonable restriction or requirement, with the argument that the intent of those proposing the law is curtailing 2nd amendment rights and the law will create a slippery slope toward that. There's what the law says, and then there's the way it could potentially be applied, and the 4th COA made no distinction and struck it down on the basis of conceivable future consequences.

Quote:I never got the ratchet thing, which is why I didn't reply.

The court went on to say that they didn't care how any future law was worded or how it could be applied, if they gauged the intent or possible application to be contrary to their opinion of what the law ought to do, they would strike it down.

I don't like judicial activism, especially when the judges are ranging so far beyond the wording of the law that they claim godlike ability to see and control the future.

To the latter point, without the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory, how would one be found unconstitutional if it was written without explicitly stating that it was going to discriminate by race, but was obviously intended to?

Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

Your argument, in another setting, is the "slippery slope" argument.

You would no doubt agree with gun rights activists that if the real intentions of those proposing firearms regulations is the eventual curtailment of 2nd amendment rights, then any law proposed by those with that intent should be struck down as unconstitutional, whatever the wording or immediate effect of that law might be. The NRA can count on your support in one of these legal fights.

Can you answer my original question?

If I were on the Supreme Court and some of these cases came up on appeal, I'd be sorely tempted to write an opinion tat some these judges need to take a leave of absence long enough to complete a remedial course in constitutional law from an accredited law school. Or maybe a big school civics class.

(01-26-2019 01:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 11:34 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 07:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 06:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 05:53 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  FO: Republicans are not expressly attempting to disenfranchise poor people. That is a straw man.

Actually, I said "minorities" not "poor people", but yeah.

Quote:4th COA: Here's some remarkably compelling evidence that the Republican legislature intended to disenfranchise minority voters by taking advantage of their socioeconomic disadvantages.

No argument with that

Quote:FO: Well that's just their opinion.

Their opinion was that the law itself should be struck down, not because of its wording, but because of its intent. They didn't rule the application unconstitutional, but the law itself. I hate it when the courts do that. Yes, I know that horse left the stable a long time ago, but I still don't like it. It's like when gun rights activists oppose legislation that sets forth a reasonable restriction or requirement, with the argument that the intent of those proposing the law is curtailing 2nd amendment rights and the law will create a slippery slope toward that. There's what the law says, and then there's the way it could potentially be applied, and the 4th COA made no distinction and struck it down on the basis of conceivable future consequences.

Quote:I never got the ratchet thing, which is why I didn't reply.

The court went on to say that they didn't care how any future law was worded or how it could be applied, if they gauged the intent or possible application to be contrary to their opinion of what the law ought to do, they would strike it down.

I don't like judicial activism, especially when the judges are ranging so far beyond the wording of the law that they claim godlike ability to see and control the future.

To the latter point, without the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory, how would one be found unconstitutional if it was written without explicitly stating that it was going to discriminate by race, but was obviously intended to?

Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

Your argument, in another setting, is the "slippery slope" argument.

You would no doubt agree with gun rights activists that if the real intentions of those proposing firearms regulations is the eventual curtailment of 2nd amendment rights, then any law proposed by those with that intent should be struck down as unconstitutional, whatever the wording or immediate effect of that law might be. The NRA can count on your support in one of these legal fights.

Can you answer my original question?

Which question is that?

(01-26-2019 02:05 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 01:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 11:34 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 07:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 06:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Actually, I said "minorities" not "poor people", but yeah.


No argument with that


Their opinion was that the law itself should be struck down, not because of its wording, but because of its intent. They didn't rule the application unconstitutional, but the law itself. I hate it when the courts do that. Yes, I know that horse left the stable a long time ago, but I still don't like it. It's like when gun rights activists oppose legislation that sets forth a reasonable restriction or requirement, with the argument that the intent of those proposing the law is curtailing 2nd amendment rights and the law will create a slippery slope toward that. There's what the law says, and then there's the way it could potentially be applied, and the 4th COA made no distinction and struck it down on the basis of conceivable future consequences.


The court went on to say that they didn't care how any future law was worded or how it could be applied, if they gauged the intent or possible application to be contrary to their opinion of what the law ought to do, they would strike it down.

I don't like judicial activism, especially when the judges are ranging so far beyond the wording of the law that they claim godlike ability to see and control the future.

To the latter point, without the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory, how would one be found unconstitutional if it was written without explicitly stating that it was going to discriminate by race, but was obviously intended to?

Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

Your argument, in another setting, is the "slippery slope" argument.

You would no doubt agree with gun rights activists that if the real intentions of those proposing firearms regulations is the eventual curtailment of 2nd amendment rights, then any law proposed by those with that intent should be struck down as unconstitutional, whatever the wording or immediate effect of that law might be. The NRA can count on your support in one of these legal fights.

Can you answer my original question?

Which question is that?

To the latter point, without the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory, how would one be found unconstitutional if it was written without explicitly stating that it was going to discriminate by race, but was obviously intended to?

Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

Quote:without the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory, how would one be found unconstitutional if it was written without explicitly stating that it was going to discriminate by race, but was obviously intended to?

lad, your question doesnt address the prospective finding embedded in the 4th Circuit opinion.

I dont think anyone wishes for a system for a system that '[withholds] the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory' as you state, and Frizzy isnt commenting or condoning that at all.

The issue is that the 4 COA says (in paraphrase) 'in this case we found intent to discriminate, therefore *any* changes that you might do (even prospectively) that dont seem kosher with the outcome of *this* ruling, even with zero evidence of intent, we will deem you in the wrong.' Your question misses the point of the issue.

If NC puts something new up the flagpole, let evidence of intent of *that* action be germane. But the ruling sets into place a predisposition in one direction only -- and disallows preemptively any evidence of NC acting in good faith.

Going back to Frizz's counter-example:

Assume the question is gun related, say --- the sale of bullets. Let's assume a court finds that New York state (North Carolina) was found to have acted in a manner that leads to the court to decide that New York (North Carolina) state's law was intended to curtail the constitutionally guaranteed gun (voting) rights of the targeted gunowners (voters).

If you support the North Carolina decision and mode of decision, then the previously found intent of New York (North Carolina) state to deprive gun ownership (voting) rights in the first case will be presupposed in any succeeding case that touches on gun ownership (voting) rights, no matter how itty bitty the restriction is in any new regulation.

To be honest, I can think of scores of gun regulations that have a rational basis; but the ratchet of prejudging them based on the NY Assembly's intent previously is pretty grotesque.

But, your question pleads for how bad it would be for the gunowners (voters) not to the be able to show evidence in any succeeding trial -- which is fundamentally not the question in the 'ratchet effect' that the 4th COA put into place.

(01-26-2019 02:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:05 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 01:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 11:34 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 07:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the latter point, without the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory, how would one be found unconstitutional if it was written without explicitly stating that it was going to discriminate by race, but was obviously intended to?

Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

Your argument, in another setting, is the "slippery slope" argument.

You would no doubt agree with gun rights activists that if the real intentions of those proposing firearms regulations is the eventual curtailment of 2nd amendment rights, then any law proposed by those with that intent should be struck down as unconstitutional, whatever the wording or immediate effect of that law might be. The NRA can count on your support in one of these legal fights.

Can you answer my original question?

Which question is that?

To the latter point, without the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory, how would one be found unconstitutional if it was written without explicitly stating that it was going to discriminate by race, but was obviously intended to?

Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

You could wait until it was applied unconstitutionally, or you could play god and assume it will be. You could also then claim to have prescient knowledge of future imtent behind laws that haven't even been drafted yet, while you're on your power trip.

(01-26-2019 02:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:05 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 01:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 11:34 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 07:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the latter point, without the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory, how would one be found unconstitutional if it was written without explicitly stating that it was going to discriminate by race, but was obviously intended to?

Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

Your argument, in another setting, is the "slippery slope" argument.

You would no doubt agree with gun rights activists that if the real intentions of those proposing firearms regulations is the eventual curtailment of 2nd amendment rights, then any law proposed by those with that intent should be struck down as unconstitutional, whatever the wording or immediate effect of that law might be. The NRA can count on your support in one of these legal fights.

Can you answer my original question?

Which question is that?

To the latter point, without the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory, how would one be found unconstitutional if it was written without explicitly stating that it was going to discriminate by race, but was obviously intended to?

Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

You are fundamentally misundertanding the ruling in the 4th COA decision. The aggrieved plaintiffs in the NC have every right in every circumstance to show such evidence. It is literally the State of NC whose evidentiary rights are being substantively abridged in the situation.

Your question has its polarity entirely reversed. Frizz's point never addresses any sort of plaintiff's rights being abridged as your question posits.

(01-26-2019 02:57 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:05 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 01:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 11:34 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Your argument, in another setting, is the "slippery slope" argument.

You would no doubt agree with gun rights activists that if the real intentions of those proposing firearms regulations is the eventual curtailment of 2nd amendment rights, then any law proposed by those with that intent should be struck down as unconstitutional, whatever the wording or immediate effect of that law might be. The NRA can count on your support in one of these legal fights.

Can you answer my original question?

Which question is that?

To the latter point, without the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory, how would one be found unconstitutional if it was written without explicitly stating that it was going to discriminate by race, but was obviously intended to?

Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

You could wait until it was applied unconstitutionally, or you could play god and assume it will be. You could also then claim to have prescient knowledge of future imtent behind laws that haven't even been drafted yet, while you're on your power trip.

In short, the 4 COA has stated that *any* law touching on the issue, if complained about, is unconstitutional as written. There is a huge difference between an 'as written' test and an 'as applied' test.

The 4 COA has made the 'as written' standard the de facto standard. In short, the ratchet has clicked in the direction of the plaintiff's; and cannot be unwound in the opposite direction.

One thing that's kinda cool about the immigration debate is seeing leftists take the position that American society is desirable. Their usual refrain is that our society is mostly damnable (dare I say, deplorable?), but on immigration their premise seems to be that American society is so admirable that it should be freely available to whoever wants it. That's worth something -- not much, but something.

(01-30-2019 09:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  One thing that's kinda cool about the immigration debate is seeing leftists take the position that American society is desirable. Their usual refrain is that our society is mostly damnable (dare I say, deplorable?), but on immigration their premise seems to be that American society is so admirable that it should be freely available to whoever wants it. That's worth something -- not much, but something.

Good point.

Democrats offer nothing

So much for compromise and good faith negotiating.

It's more important to defeat Trump.