Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Completed Wisconsin recount widens Donald Trump's lead by 131 votes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="aachen_hexagon" data-source="post: 70559350" data-attributes="member: 393304"><p>I am not a lawyer, however I am a patent coordinator meaning I've had at least a small number of law classes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The concept of <em>stare decisis</em> is pretty straightforward and there specifically to maintain some degree of order. Courts can rely on precedent in future rulings. <em>That does not mean a given lower court ruling that </em><strong><em>is still standing is no longer valid</em></strong>. 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.</p><p></p><p>As it stands now <strong>the lower court ruling IS STILL VALID, </strong>and no precedent is set. </p><p></p><p>But the lower court ruling IS STILL VALID.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I understand that...<strong>but it has not yet been overturned. ANY court case that hasn't gone through SCOTUS can be overturned. <em>And there are more court rulings out there that have NOT gone through SCOTUS than HAVE gone through SCOTUS...they are </em><u><em>all currently valid until overturned</em></u>.</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>-sigh-</p><p></p><p>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 <em>isn't</em> going to actively suppress the black vote. Yahoo! I will wait for more data. Right now it looks like</p><p></p><p>1) the problem barely exists so it begs the question "why fix it?"</p><p>2) if fixed it establishes the idea that we need to fix all problems no matter the size</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>But again, if you were following along I pointed out <em>repeatedly</em> that studies fail to find significant numbers of voter identity fraud, meaning it is fixing a problem that doesn't seem to need fixing.</p><p></p><p>BUT, if we fix <em>this</em> 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 <em>investigate it</em>.</p><p></p><p>Which is the point of the OP. </p><p></p><p>MY POINT all along has been: IF the GOP wants to fix a nearly non-existent problem like voter identity fraud but they <strong>don't</strong> appear to care about hacking the vote type fraud, then they obviously have an ulterior motive. That motive is <em><strong>best</strong> </em>explained by the most likely outcome of strict voter ID laws, meaning disenfranchisement.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="aachen_hexagon, post: 70559350, member: 393304"] I am not a lawyer, however I am a patent coordinator meaning I've had at least a small number of law classes. The concept of [I]stare decisis[/I] is pretty straightforward and there specifically to maintain some degree of order. Courts can rely on precedent in future rulings. [I]That does not mean a given lower court ruling that [/I][B][I]is still standing is no longer valid[/I][/B]. 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 [B]the lower court ruling IS STILL VALID, [/B]and no precedent is set. But the lower court ruling IS STILL VALID. I understand that...[B]but it has not yet been overturned. ANY court case that hasn't gone through SCOTUS can be overturned. [I]And there are more court rulings out there that have NOT gone through SCOTUS than HAVE gone through SCOTUS...they are [/I][U][I]all currently valid until overturned[/I][/U].[/B] -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 [I]isn't[/I] 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 [I]repeatedly[/I] 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 [I]this[/I] 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 [I]investigate it[/I]. 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 [B]don't[/B] appear to care about hacking the vote type fraud, then they obviously have an ulterior motive. That motive is [I][B]best[/B] [/I]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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Completed Wisconsin recount widens Donald Trump's lead by 131 votes
Top
Bottom