You do realize there's a difference between setting precedent and upholding a decision, right?
It "does not create a legal precedent" Meaning the court decision can be overturned at anytime and is not final, just like I said.
It
can be overturned, but as of now it seems that the lower courts ruling stands.
The entirety of the US Bill of Right
can be repealed, but they aren't currently.
You can quote lower court rulings and judges all day, that doesn't make it a final ruling by the supreme court.
And NOT ALL RULINGS ARE DONE BY THE SUPREME COURT. As I stated before; SCOTUS reserves the right of
certiorari, they can if they like simply NOT hear a case. Meaning that some cases will NEVER be appealed all the way through SCOTUS. That leaves the lower court rulings to stand.
My evidence shows you're wrong in your assumption and you have yet to address it. Like I said, until you do, I'll consider this matter resolved and that voter ID does not hamper minority voting in anyway.
I have provided ample evidence (now repeatedly so) for my position.
I'd love to see you address the situation in Detroit though.
Cherry picking? Sorry, I like to deal with the
preponderance of evidence. But if you like please do find cases where your point is supported and assume that larger studies are invalid because you could a case where the result was different. (HINT: This is why statistics is more powerful than anecdotal data).
Considering all recount measures right now have benefited Trump and he won the election because of the minority vote, I don't see a problem and the headline of this thread is very informative.
There is no problem. I am glad the recounts confirmed the election. My point all along is that the Right wants to fight every single case of voter fraud they can find even when it is less than 4% of 28 known cases (1 case). OH, until THEIR guy's election is called into question.
That's been my whole point all along: you have NO data that there is massive systemic voter impersonation fraud going on yet you want to "fix the problem". If your bar to "fixing the problem" is set so low
the only way you can appear serious about your own position is if you support the OTHER SIDE abiding by the low likelihood bar.
Meaning if you want to solve "voter id fraud" which is demonstrably low, then you must want to solve ALL voter fraud no matter how statistically unlikely.
Otherwise it makes you seem like there's some
ulterior motive to the whole voter ID law push.
With all recount efforts so far, it's showing that Trump won and Hillary lost.
Agreed. Trump won. Hillary lost.
Doesn't change how statistics work.