Do you not know how the law works?
I am not a lawyer, however I am a patent coordinator meaning I've had at least a small number of law classes.
Just go look up with Legal precedent means. Its clear you don't know what it means.
The concept of
stare decisis is pretty straightforward and there specifically to maintain some degree of order. Courts can rely on precedent in future rulings.
That does not mean a given lower court ruling that is still standing is no longer valid. It means that, in this case, IF SCOTUS were able to rule one way or the other it would establish a precedent. If they affirmed the lower court it would set precent that others could rely on, if they overturned the lower court it would establish a precedent.
As it stands now
the lower court ruling IS STILL VALID, and no precedent is set.
But the lower court ruling IS STILL VALID.
The lower court decision can be overturned at anytime. Seriously, just look up the definition.
I understand that...
but it has not yet been overturned. ANY court case that hasn't gone through SCOTUS can be overturned. And there are more court rulings out there that have NOT gone through SCOTUS than HAVE gone through SCOTUS...they are all currently valid until overturned.
I'm still waiting for you to refute my link. I'll just come to the conclusion that you can't or won't, thus I'll have to say you're wrong and the evidence shows it.
-sigh-
Do I have to refute it? It appears to be accurate. One election cycle in a state that enacted voter ID laws does not make a pattern. Perhaps it
isn't going to actively suppress the black vote. Yahoo! I will wait for more data. Right now it looks like
1) the problem barely exists so it begs the question "why fix it?"
2) if fixed it establishes the idea that we need to fix all problems no matter the size
You can't have it both ways. If we "fix" the voter ID "fraud problem" (even though it amounts to only a couple cases ever found in the last 15 years) then we HAVE to investigate any possibility of hacking of votes because evidence indicated there was a possibility of that.
But again, if you were following along I pointed out
repeatedly that studies fail to find significant numbers of voter identity fraud, meaning it is fixing a problem that doesn't seem to need fixing.
BUT, if we fix
this problem the concept is that we are fixing it because we HAVE TO. That sets the precedent that no matter how insignificant the likelihood of any given type of fraud is, we HAVE TO FIX IT AS WELL. At the very least we have to
investigate it.
Which is the point of the OP.
MY POINT all along has been: IF the GOP wants to fix a nearly non-existent problem like voter identity fraud but they
don't appear to care about hacking the vote type fraud, then they obviously have an ulterior motive. That motive is
best explained by the most likely outcome of strict voter ID laws, meaning disenfranchisement.
It is not "guaranteed" that it will bring about disenfranchisement in all cases, but it is the only logical explanation why the GOP would worry about ONE problem while not worrying about the OTHER.