find me someone who can blindly follow the term "surgical precision" to describe a color blind rule/regulation/law that could also be implemented blindly based on income for example (and much more likely) and i will show a dolt

how exactly did repubs determine this would suppress the black vote vs say... i dunno... perhaps the welfare vote?..... while competing against a party that has strong support from welfare recipients

go ahead and give me some more surgical analysis about how they surgically discriminated here. its an absurd claim with little evidence. even less that anything about it had surgical precision

i will accept at your complete failure to tackle any of this as surgical ignorance. buh buh buh judge judy says...

I am not asking if voter ID laws or healthcare coverage are racist. I am asking what causes you to believe they are racist.

Is it because they affect one race more than another?
Is it because they supported by one race more than another?
Is it because one time a politician said they like the law because it hurts one race more than others?

Finish this sentence: "Requiring someone to have an ID to vote is racist because..."

The whole debate about what is or isn't racist tends to be unproductive because people dont agree on what the word means. If you think it's going nowhere then all you can do is find ground where you can agree on the semantics.

What do you actually disagree about here?

Bahbah do you even disagree that in practice voter ID laws do, and would, effect minorities highly disproportionately?

In this case the disagreement is not about ambiguities regarding "racism" whatsoever; when confronted with a court decision that NC's voter ID laws targeted black people specifically, bahbah's response is that all laws target one race or another to the same degree.

As you are a moderator of this forum who has expressed a desire to sponsor high-content debates about the subjects discussed here, I am asking you how the **** that is supposed to happen when this is the sort of garbage that flies as discourse here.

even chezlaw is aware that if you went looking for who is negatively impacted by a wide variety of laws and then filtered those people by age, gender, race, etc, you could find someone that is being "targeted" regardless of the intention or fairness of the law

just because the people affected by the law doesn't somehow evenly translate to population demographics, doesn't imply some grand injustice or conspiracy. different laws or rules should affect different groups, and if you want to go around grouping people by race, gender, etc, you can stir up some outrage among mouth breathing morons that cant comprehend the difference between inequity and inequality

just because a judge says so, doesnt make it true. if you cant articulate something, perhaps youre ignorant. spamming headlines, labels, talking points, or just blindly suggesting a judges opinion is indisputable, is the behavior of someone who has difficulty articulating arguments. the post you made to chezlaw demonstrates you need to step out of the bubble, and be able to actually articulate ideas and arguments. if you can't do that, perhaps youre not as clever as you thought you were

where is the evidence that anyone was targeting black voters?

Goofy - Are you sure bahabah is saying that? it's possible but it seems more likely to me that he is saying that all laws effect some racial group disproportionately. Not that they all effect some group equally disproportionately.

This is what the court opinion mickey was responding to was talking about, btw:

mickey's thoughts on that:

Please, chez, tell us how posts this bizarre are supposed to be handled in content land.

I'd suggest largely ignoring it. the debate about what is or isn't racist is hopeless between people who wont agree on what racist means.

If I addressed it then I would see if bahbah agrees that different laws can a) discriminate to different degrees and b) can have different useful outcomes. Its the significance of a) and the weakness of b) that makes Voter ID laws highly dubious

It's a law that is designed to be just common sense "on its face" but in reality has discriminatory effects. It prevents more African Americans, elderly, and poor people from voting than non-African Americans, non-eldery, and non-poor people.

It also sets out to solve a problem that doesn't exist (voter fraud). There were four cases of voter fraud out of over 120,000,000 votes cast in November. Voter Fraud is simply a non-existent problem. The only reason these laws exist is to make it harder for certain people to vote, and the makeup of those people skews African American.

"There are some instances when a law is just on its face and unjust in its application." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Like it would be one thing if Republicans legitimately wanted free and fair elections. But they institute these strict ID requirements, and then they go about MAKING IT HARDER to get an ID in counties that are black and poor. This is a strategic move to make it harder for certain people to vote, and it needs to be constantly called out. In fact, where are the Republicans calling this out? Has your party chased out every last person with common sense? Is this another purity test where you are a RINO if you even believe in free and fair elections now?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/politi...ton/index.html

Whattaboutism applied to laws. Achievement unlocked.

What was the last law dems introduced to help them win elections in your opinion?

My favorite part of voter ID laws is that the "small goverment" folks want more goverment for a problem they cant show exists to a point of needing a law then demand evidence that their unnecessary government hurts some minorities.

Of course I agree.

There you go again putting words in my mouth.

How the hell did you come up with that? It looks like you read my posts or something.

If a law having "discriminatory effects" and "sets out to solve a problem that doesn't exist" are the only 2 qualifications to make a law racist for you then you need to think about what laws aren't racist.

What? If there are other laws that are racist, they need to be changed as well, isn't that right? What is your actual argument here?

Laws that have a discriminatory effect are unconstitutional according to the Equal Protection Clause:

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Well I asked you a few times what qualifies a law to be racist and it sounds like your best answer is that "discriminatory effects" and "sets out to solve a problem that doesn't exist" are the only two qualifications needed to call a law racist. So then I said if that is the case then a hell of a lot of laws are racist.

So mickey would never, ever do this to anyone else, right?

LOL

And btw einbert left out the best reason for this law being racist, which is that the state legislature asked "hey what methods do black people use the most for voting" and then restricted those.

Goofy (or anyone that thinks voter ID laws are racist), what are the qualifications you believe make a law racist?

Making it considerably harder for minority populations to vote.

So you don't think a law allowing Hispanics to physically beat Asians for speaking in public is racist?

I am asking about all laws - not just laws pertaining to voting.

This is like asking someone to define pornography, which a SCOTUS justice famously declined to attempt because it's too difficult to come up with a broad, perfect definition. I'm fairly sure the NC legislature asking how black people vote and then restricting those methods qualifies, though!

Are you in favour of ID laws then and if so can you explain why?