Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin's voter ID law

[Archer77]

sure, Democrats can make extra efforts in those states where these laws exist to try to mitigate the effect of voter suppression and I fully expect Republicans would launch counter efforts

How about we discuss whether there is a better solution such as a national voter registry,  a federal holiday for election day, free federal voter ID that works in all states, etc...

Any of these would ameliorate the effect that these laws have in suppressing the vote

Do you think Republican would be in favor of such measures?

Yes or no is fine

I don't care if Republicans would be in favor of any of those.  As I told you before any potentially effective strategy to facilitat access to IDs is fine by me.  It's not a hard process.

[Soul Crusher]

if their intention is voter suppression then anyone who cares about the democratic process in this country should care

My intention is not having my vote cancelled out by fraud, waste, scams, welfare thugs voting multiple times, etc

[Archer77]

diagram it for us then

I've given you the formula straight from one of the locations where you plagiarized text for your post

simply prove your point

I was giving you accepted definitions.  If I  had created my own you would have claimed I was making stuff up.   Regardless, you have a terrible handle on logic.  

[Straw Man]

I don't care if Republicans would be in favor of any of those.  As I told you before any potentially effective strategy to facilitat access to IDs is fine by me.  It's not a hard process.

Any potentially effective strategy would need their assistance or at the very least their lack of opposition

are you aware that Republican run many of the functions in these states that would need to be utilized to facilitate access to ID's

[Archer77]

My intention is not having my vote cancelled out by fraud, waste, scams, welfare thugs voting multiple times, etc

He's dead set on making the whole issue about evil republicans.  

[Straw Man]

I was giving you accepted definitions.  If I  had created my own you would have claimed I was making stuff up.   Regardless, you have a terrible handle on logic.  

well if you're going to complain to Ron about my abuse of logic then you might actually want to be able to prove it

fill in the blanks

The argument takes this form:

If A is true then it implies, causes, or creates, B.
B is, either subjectively or objectively, bad, immoral, or undesirable.
Therefore, A is false.

[Archer77]

Any potentially effective strategy would need their assistance or at the very least their lack of opposition

are you aware that Republican run many of the functions in these states that would need to be utilized to facilitate access to ID's

No it doesn't require republicans.  Private citizens have power and they need to exercise that power within their communities.  Not everything needs government intervention.

[Archer77]

well if you're going to complain to Ron about my abuse of logic then you might actually want to be able to prove it

fill in the blanks

The argument takes this form:

If A is true then it implies, causes, or creates, B.
B is, either subjectively or objectively, bad, immoral, or undesirable.
Therefore, A is false.

I have several times over multiple threads.  You simply don't have a handle on logic.  You're arguing from a purely emotional position.   

[Straw Man]

I have several times over multiple threads.  You simply don't have a handle on logic.  You're arguing from a purely emotional position.   

No you have not

you have claimed it but you can't prove it because you're wrong

What is A

What is B

Again, I've said that the intent of these laws was to suppress voter turnout and we have Republican admitting this and we have proof that it's actually happening

fill in the blanks of my alleged argumentum ad consequentiam

[Archer77]

No you have not

you have claimed it but you can't prove it because you're wrong

What is A

What is B

Again, I've said that the intent of these laws was to suppress voter turnout and we have Republican admitting this and we have proof that it's actually happening

fill in the blanks of my alleged argumentum ad consequentiam

I have proven it.  You've done it multiple times.  I've come to understand that you are not motivated by having a discussion.   Your desire is to derail threads with irrational and emotional pleading.  I've told you numerous times, to the point of exhaustion, that I wanted to focus on ID laws and not Republican motivations but you couldn't do it.  For you, the issue is a vehicle for a tirade against republicans. 

[Straw Man]

I have proven it.  You've done it multiple times.  I've come to understand that you are not motivated by having a discussion.   Your desire is to derail threads with irrational and emotional pleading.  I've told you numerous times, to the point of exhaustion, that I wanted to focus on ID laws and not Republican motivations but you couldn't do it.  For you, the issue is a vehicle for a tirade against republicans. 

you've done nothing more than copy and paste examples of argumentum ad consequentiam

you haven't and apparently are unable to provide a simple diagram of my alleged argumentum ad consequentiam

dude - if you're going to copy and paste the words of other and pretend they are your own then you should at least be able to step up and provide a simple diagram to prove your point....assuming you actually understand the argument you're trying to make

All you have to do is fill in Point A and Point B

why is that so hard for you to do?

[Soul Crusher]

Straw Queen - the princess of shell games. 


Need an id to get benefits of welfare but not vote and somehow that makes sense to this fool. 

[Straw Man]

Straw Queen - the princess of shell games. 


Need an id to get benefits of welfare but not vote and somehow that makes sense to this fool. 

Hey closet case

if you want to help out Archer then go right ahead and fill in the blanks

otherwise STFU

[JOHN MATRIX]

Lmao no wonder his name is 'straw man'....

[Dos Equis]

lol

[Shockwave]

Lmao no wonder his name is 'straw man'....

no doubt. I think he really believess that a couple guys w
hoping the laws supress votes somehow negates all the legitimate reasons for such laws.

My opinion, is that if these fucks cant het a federal ID thwyre probably not supposed to be voting anyway.

[Dos Equis]

^Misleading information (at least re: WI)^

A free ID card is available under Wisconsin law to anyone who:

    will be at least 18 years of age on the date of the next election and;
    requests an ID card for the purpose of voting.


https://kb.wisc.edu/vip/page.php?id=9762

If it's free then how can people claim this is some kind of financial burden?  Or that it prevents people from voting? 

[Soul Crusher]

If it's free then how can people claim this is some kind of financial burden?  Or that it prevents people from voting? 

Because them getting off their ass to get an id is a burden to the welfare thugs

[Straw Man]

no doubt. I think he really believess that a couple guys w
hoping the laws supress votes somehow negates all the legitimate reasons for such laws.

My opinion, is that if these fucks cant het a federal ID thwyre probably not supposed to be voting anyway.

There is no significant voter fraud but it's a nice side effect of maybe stopping ten people who might attempt voter fraud if we can also discourage (or make very difficult) 100k of legitimate voters from showing up at the polls

Pennsylvania’s GOP chairman, Rob Gleason, is pleased with how effective Voter ID laws were in the 2012 election. Despite President Obama’s victory, Gleason believes the laws did what they were designed to do: suppress the Democratic vote.

When asked by a Pennsylvania cable news reporter earlier this week if the laws affected last year’s elections, Gleason responded: “I think we had a better election. Think about this: we cut Obama by 5 percent…I think Voter ID helped a bit in that.”

[Shockwave]

There is no significant voter fraud but it's a nice side effect of maybe stopping ten people who might attempt voter fraud if we can also discourage (or make very difficult) 100k of legitimate voters from showing up at the polls

Pennsylvania’s GOP chairman, Rob Gleason, is pleased with how effective Voter ID laws were in the 2012 election. Despite President Obama’s victory, Gleason believes the laws did what they were designed to do: suppress the Democratic vote.

When asked by a Pennsylvania cable news reporter earlier this week if the laws affected last year’s elections, Gleason responded: “I think we had a better election. Think about this: we cut Obama by 5 percent…I think Voter ID helped a bit in that.”

LOL.

Oh man, you're just like this guy at my work who only hears and sees what he wants, and throws away everything but the argument he likes.

[Straw Man]

LOL.

Oh man, you're just like this guy at my work who only hears and sees what he wants, and throws away everything but the argument he likes.

Maybe you will consider the point of view of the the Reagan appointed judge who was the person who actually approved the first vote ID law in the country and has done a complete reversal of his opinion on the topic

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/gop_voter_id_law_gets_crushed_why_judge_richard_posners_ruling_is_so_amazing/

If you read just one top-to-bottom dismantling of every supposed premise in support of disenfranchising Photo ID voting restrictions laws in your lifetime, let it be this one [PDF].

It is a dissent, released on Friday, written by Judge Richard Posner, the Reagan-appointed 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge who was the one who approved the first such Photo ID law in the country (Indiana’s) back in 2008, in the landmark Crawford v. Marion County case which went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Posner’s ruling was affirmed.

If there was ever evidence that a jurist could change their mind upon review of additional subsequent evidence, this is it. If there was ever a concise and airtight case made against Photo ID laws and the threat they pose to our most basic right to vote, this is it. If there was ever a treatise revealing such laws for the blatantly partisan shell games that they are, this is it.

His dissent includes a devastating response to virtually every false and/or disingenuous rightwing argument/talking point ever put forth in support of Photo ID voting restrictions, describing them as “a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government.”

Posner is, by far, the most widely cited legal scholar of the 20th century, according to The Journal of Legal Studies. His opinions are closely read by the Supreme Court, where the battle over the legality and Constitutionality of Photo ID voting laws will almost certainly wind up at some point in the not too distant future. That’s just one of the reasons why this opinion is so important.

This opinion, written on behalf of five judges on the 7th Circuit, thoroughly disabuses such notions such as: these laws are meant to deal with a phantom voter fraud concern (“Out of 146 million registered voters, this is a ratio of one case of voter fraud for every 14.6 million eligible voters”); that evidence shows them to be little more than baldly partisan attempts to keep Democratic voters from voting (“conservative states try to make it difficult for people who are outside the mainstream…to vote”); that rightwing partisan outfits like True the Vote, which support such laws, present “evidence” of impersonation fraud that is “downright goofy, if not paranoid”; and the notion that even though there is virtually zero fraud that could even possibly be deterred by Photo ID restrictions, the fact that the public thinks there is, is a lousy reason to disenfranchise voters since there is no evidence that such laws actually increase public confidence in elections and, as new studies now reveal, such laws have indeed served to suppress turnout in states where they have been enacted.

There is far too much in it to appropriately encapsulate here for now. You just really need to take some time to read it in full. But it was written, largely, in response to the Appellate Court ruling last week by rightwing Judge Frank Easterbrook which contained one embarrassing falsehood and error after another, including the canards about Photo ID being required to board airplanes, open bank accounts, buy beer and guns, etc. We took apart just that one paragraph of Easterbrook’s ruling last week here, but Posner takes apart his colleague’s entire, error-riddled mess of a ruling in this response.

Amongst my favorite passages (and there are so many), this one [emphasis added]…

The panel is not troubled by the absence of evidence. It deems the supposed beneficial effect of photo ID requirements on public confidence in the electoral system “‘a legislative fact’-a proposition about the state of the world,” and asserts that “on matters of legislative fact, courts accept the findings of legislatures and judges of the lower courts must accept findings by the Supreme Court.” In so saying, the panel conjures up a fact-free cocoon in which to lodge the federal judiciary. As there is no evidence that voter impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it’s a problem turn it into one? If the Wisconsin legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials? If the Supreme Court once thought that requiring photo identification increases public confidence in elections, and experience and academic study since shows that the Court was mistaken, do we do a favor to the Court-do we increase public confidence in elections-by making the mistake a premise of our decision? Pressed to its logical extreme the panel’s interpretation of and deference to legislative facts would require upholding a photo ID voter law even if it were uncontested that the law eliminated no fraud but did depress turnout significantly

And this one…

There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens

And remember, once again, this is written by Richard Posner, the conservative Republican icon of a federal appellate court judge — the judge who wrote the opinion on behalf of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals approving of the first such Photo ID law in the country in 2008, the very case that rightwingers from Texas to Wisconsin now cite over and over (almost always incorrectly) in support of similar such laws — now, clearly admitting that he got the entire thing wrong.

One last point (for now): Our legal analyst Ernie Canning, who (along with me) will undoubtedly have much more to say on this dissent in upcoming days, suggests we award The BRAD BLOG’s almost-never-anymore-bestowed Intellectually Honest Conservative Award to Judge Posner. And so it shall be.

Now go read Posner’s dissent.

You can read his entire dissent from October 10, 2014 here
http://bradblog.com/Docs/JudgePosnerDissent_PhotoID_WI_101014.pdf

[tonymctones]

LMFAO HHAHAHAH this is one of the funniest strawman threads I have seen in a while.

[tonymctones]

Thank you Archer, thank you shock and most of all thank you straw...you delusional fucking retard!!!! hahhhahahah

[Straw Man]

Thank you Archer, thank you shock and most of all thank you straw...you delusional fucking retard!!!! hahhhahahah

Archer is giving you a run for the money as a dopey logic professor

I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate that he actually understands argumentum ad consequentiam and use his own words to demonstrate that my statements on this thread are an example of such.

there are only two parts to the equation so it should be really easy for him

[tonymctones]

Archer is giving you a run for the money as a dopey logic professor

I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate that he actually understands argumentum ad consequentiam and use his own words to demonstrate that my statements on this thread are an example of such.

there are only two parts to the equation so it should be really easy for him

you remind me of a guy in my fantasy football league who suggested a trade and then promptly reject said trade when I submitted it acting like I was a jack ass for thinking he would consider such a thing forgetting all along that he was the one who brought it up.

hahha youre so fucking lost in this argument straw you dont know whats up or down.