Strict North Carolina Voter ID Law Thwarted After Supreme Court Rejects Case https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/u...-carolina.html

lol even the conservative SCOTUS is clowning on mickey

How'd I miss this?

If in fact the law was trying to target AA voters then I agree it should be struck down. However, I know there are a lot of stupid people out there so I'll reserve judgement if this law truly targets AA for when I see an article that goes into more detail of the discrimination.

SCOTUS couldn't even get enough judges to want to review the case, let alone to overturn it, but mickey is still reserving judgement lololol

Is he still reserving his judgement on marginal taxes too?

Tell me more.

Also averagejoe38 for mod obv.

Why not just read the case brief from the lower court? It has plenty of details beyond the surgical precision soundbite.

I am not from NC and therefore have no say over the matter so I'm not sure what benefit I would get from reading that law since I don't see how it could affect me. If I was a NC resident I would read it so I could vote against whoever proposed such a law next time they ran for office. I already said that if it is racist then we should get rid of the law.

"being educated on the topic being discussed" = confirmed not a benefit to mickey. Dude is reserving judgement on this whole case until he gets more info then refuses to ever consume more info. Willful ignorance at its finest.

How is educating myself on some law in some other state that isn't going to take shape a benefit?

Do I need to know every voter ID law that has ever been proposed in the world to be considered educated on the topic? Or do I just need to know the ones in the last 50 years that were proposed in the US? Or is it all the laws in the last 142 years that were proposed in the developed world?

It would help to not be ****ing clueless about the laws most relevant to contemporary discussion of voter ID, but you do you mickey

Part of the reason I don't post more often is because I either don't have the time or I don't have enough caring to read up on whatever subject is being discussed. I wouldn't poke my nose in saying how things are or how they should be if I don't know wtf I'm talking about at least a little. You sure have a lot of opinions on things that rely on your lack of knowledge, yet you refuse to do any basic reading? Laughable.

The basis for the judge saying that law discriminated against AA is the particular IDs that were banned were said to be used primarily AA. Why do I need to research each ID that was banned to see if it looks like politicians were targeting AA? Either they were or they weren't but answering that question won't change the fact that that law is not going to be passed.

My argument is that in most cases voter ID laws are not racist and they do serve a purpose. That doesn't mean I would support any voter ID law. If someone from my state tried to introduce a law about the issue I would read about it and form an opinion.

The opinion that all voter ID laws are racist is laughable. The last article posted here claiming such nonsense best examples of someone who wasn't able to vote included someone who lost their ID and someone who lived in the state for 2 years but never got an ID.

Please remember this is a content thread and not a place to make it an issue about a poster. Thanks

To be fair, whatever Kris Kobach proposed might not be racist, he just might be a racist who proposes voter ID laws.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ecution-215164

Kris kobach has a radio show in Johnson county its on the same station as tom Becky and the horse farming channel.

LMAO, and there go the goal posts! Until every law is proven racist he still hasn't lost! What a conservative.

How did the goal posts move? I haven't changed anything.

The **** you aren't. You want to reserve judgement on the NC law until you find out more, but you refuse to find out more. You're not reserving anything, you are completely ignoring the facts and playing the strawman like noone ever before. Only move you have I suppose.

That isn't shifting goal posts since that was my argument all along. I'm not "reserving judgment" on the law, I am simply saying there is no reason to research a law from a different state if the law is never going to take place.

I have always argued that voter ID laws aren't racist. However, that doesn't mean I think a voter ID law can't be racist. Allowing some IDs to qualify and other not is a way to make a voter ID law racist and it sounds like that is what happened here. If a lawmaker wanted to she could make any type of law racist.

Voter ID laws don't even have to be racist to be rejected. They simply have to be shown to be putting up barriers to voting for no reason with the additional strike if one wants to show, that they're being targeted to keep some group in power via reducing the democratic participation of some rival. Poll taxes were obviously racist but they were largely classist as well, reducing the democratic participation of the lower classes, both black and white, as to keep power centered in more aristocratic whites of the South. Local races in the north enacted lots of local voter restrictions depending on the characteristics of whoever was attempting to challenge power though usually races were secured through blatant voter fraud rather than attempts to restrict the franchise.

To my knowledge there has never been any proof ever presented anywhere to show that voter ID laws don't serve a purpose as the burden of proof that there is no voter fraud would lie on those making that accusation. The fact that it has been proven that voter fraud is only caught at the moment of the crime in rare instances and catching it after the fact is nearly impossible.

Conversely it means voter ID can't be shown to ever stop voter fraud, and in a system where the voice of the people is used to determine the legitimacy of that system people's voices should be protected unless a clear evidence can be shown as to why it should be restricted people should err in favor of keeping people enfranchised, otherwise we risk delegitimizing the entire political process by only allowing some small portion of the population to vote, transforming the grand ideals of one person one vote and a nation of free men choosing their fates into a feeble and decrepit autocracy where only a select few are practically able to voice their opinions in the name of all.

Your argument fell apart a while back when a government agency ran a study where they had people vote for someone else and almost all of them were successful. None of those people had an ID for the person they were voting for so requiring an ID to vote would have blocked 100% of those cases of voter fraud.

I believe the argument hit an impasse when you wanted evidence that certain racial groups didn't have genetic propensity for voter fraud and I just let the argument go because convincing someone that racial groups don't have a propensity for voter fraud means the issue has pretty much ran aground because it's much less logical to assume there's some genetic component to voter fraud than to assume that logic would be able to convince the person saying that otherwise.