SCOTUS 6-3 decision upholds restrictive AZ voting laws

[Dill]

(07-12-2021, 01:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, sure, of course it is. So is your whole voting system with machines and whatnot, or Russians hacking into this sysem in all 50 states. It certainly appears cynical to refuse all efforts to harden the systems against things like hacking attempts and then demand a voter ID law to make elections secure.

Only issue is, comparisons like that don't make the proposal inherently bad.

As for the politics behind it, if I were Biden or someone else high up in the ranks, I would use this as a negotiation chip. Something I feel Democrats could be more inclined to do more often. ID laws in eschange for a federal voting bill, or something like that.

Comparisons are needed to establish priorities, though. And to determine where effort and treasure should be spent to greatest cost/effect.

The question is still why, with all the threats to election integrity currently posed by the GOP/Trump, we have to argue about how 'reasonable' it is to force people who have been voting for 60 years to now pay for all kinds of certification, not to mention the costs to each state. And such laws are generally passed with others targeted at certain demographics--like exclusion of curbside voting, reduction of voting/poll sites in "urban" areas to create long lines, and restriction of absentee ballots. 

Part of the problem is that many ignore data disproving mass election fraud if Trump says there was, And they do "see" voter fraud when Trump says there is.

The 2022 election will see all manner of organized challenges now, especially in swing states, where laws are being passed which will allow challenges, no matter how specious, to throw certification to state legislatures/offices controlled by the GOP. That means the challenges will not likely have to go through courts. 

The kind of evidence rejected by courts in the last election will be enough to trigger recounts and legislative determination of electoral votes.

I.e., claims of voter fraud raise anxiety about election integrity, to pass laws which allow state legislatures and officials to select a state's electors, regardless of actual vote count.  

In the last election, such laws would have given Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania to Trump.   

So for me the questions is not whether ID laws are inherently bad, but why we are even talking about them with this much greater threat/crisis looming?

[Dill]

(07-12-2021, 01:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: Aside from this aspect though, the counter-arguments appear a bit weak to me. One is saying that IDs are not necessary since fraud is not really an issue. Well, I have two problems with it, for one it is said often that every fraudulent vote is one too many, and I think that is a very sound principle to pursue. This might be more about psychology than about real outcome change through possible fraud, for sure.
The other thing is - how could one be so certain that the studies regarding fraud are that conclusive. To declare fraud a non-issue implies every single fraud case can be found out sooner or later, if only after putting additional research in. I feel it might very well just be that some are never found out, that some more elaborate schemes even pass by the researchers and their sampling. - And even if that cannot be so, I'm also not so certain that any status quo (=it rarely happens) will hold. The climate gets more extreme every day, and so it might be fair to assume that the number of people who are ready to find new ways to help their side in the future will only rise in time.

On the other hand, there are these people with no single picture IDs. And that is something I can't quite wrap my head around really. How can this even work? Without any ID, people can not apply for the ACA, can not have a bank account, they can possibly not rent an apartment or rent anything for that matter, they sure can not drive; are these really that many people? I can't really imagine that, this is close to not participating in this world. And if it's indeed a significant number of folks, would it not be reasonable to assume getting these people an ID would help then in more ways than one? With healthcare, especially.

Lastly, for the costs, yeah you can spend money better, but that is true for many things. Also, I figure money issues no longer apply to the US, the way you put one trillion here and one trillion there as if it were nothing. These few millions for voting IDs do not really scare me much. But sure, I am from a country where picture ID is an absolute necessity for voting and I would not want to have it any other way really. To me, it appears not pointless at all to establish such a rule. And even if it's only for increased confidence in the process more than anything else.

1. One fraudulent vote is one too many, but what if laws designed to prevent a few fraudulent votes end up blocking a greater number of valid votes? Voter fraud is the least cost-effective way to influence voting. You'd have to create thousands of such to make a difference in state elections. No doubt such fraud sometimes goes unnoticed, but the numbers would still be small. But purge voters who did not vote in the last election, weeks before the next, and you will insure that hundreds, perhaps thousands, will miss the next vote.

2. Sure, there are people now incentivized to commit voter fraud. There were at least three cases of intentional fraud in PA during the last election--all voting for trump. https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/03/politics/pennsylvania-probation-illegal-ballot-trump-2020/index.html
https://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/story/news/2021/04/30/bucks-county-2020-election-fraud-arrests/4896309001/
These cases received extremely light sentences--probabtion--compared to the jail time given thisTexas voter who unintentionally voted illegally. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/us/texas-provisional-ballot-appeal.html

3. According to the Brennan Center, some 21 million U.S. citizens do not have birth certificates and other documentation necessary to get those IDs without a lot of trouble. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf
Among these are people who had drivers licenses, but they stopped driving because of age and let them lapse. There are also many, like my sainted mother-in-law born in rural MT, who never had a birth certificate. Her own brothers and sisters could not establish whether she had been born in 1917 or 1918. She had a bank account, a driver's license, and worked for over 40 years as a school teacher.

4. As far as "helping" people, especially the elderly, get ids and the like. There are organizations doing that. Sure it's a good thing. Recognizing such help though, which would circumvent demographic targeting, is what gives rise to the charge of "soft bigotry," as recognition of the plight of many elderly without proper documentation is transmuted into an implicit claim that Blacks in general are less able to negotiate state bureaucracies than white people. 

Thus in states like Mississippi, with its long, continuing history of voter suppression, people who fight suppression of the black vote can be cast as "racist" by the people striving to suppress it.

5. Individual states do not put "one trillion here and one trillion there." 50 million is a big bite out of a state budget for Minnesota or Georgia. And the point would be what--to ease the anxieties of people ginned up by Trump lies?  

[hollodero]

(07-14-2021, 01:51 PM)Dill Wrote: The question is still why, with all the threats to election integrity currently posed by the GOP/Trump, we have to argue about how 'reasonable' it is to force people who have been voting for 60 years to now pay for all kinds of certification, not to mention the costs to each state.

*(inserted)So for me the questions is not whether ID laws are inherently bad, but why we are even talking about them with this much greater threat/crisis looming?

Well, one has to argue it becuase that's what the Republicans choose to argue about. This is the political aspect. AS I said, and I observed this many times on many issues, Democrats are clumsy regarding those debates. They come out and cry never! and they call it racist, they rile up their base and then nothing moves, for better or for worse.

One could try to make this a federal issue - ID laws in exchange for this John Lewis act (or whatever). Negotiate that the costs are taken over by the federal government. Let McConnell say no to such proposals. That would be so much wiser, imho, than to go all "only over our dead bodies" on this and always be so fundamental. The main reason being that many moderate people see ID laws as not inherently awful and racist, but as a reasonable approach. There is some reason behind it, after all.

(07-14-2021, 01:51 PM)Dill Wrote: And such laws are generally passed with others targeted at certain demographics--like exclusion of curbside voting, reduction of voting/poll sites in "urban" areas to create long lines, and restriction of absentee ballots. 

That is not written in the stars though. State level, that's something else for sure, and for sure I agree that there is a lot of voter suppression going on in the US, on a scale that is incredible at times. But overall, these are differrent issues.

(07-14-2021, 01:51 PM)Dill Wrote: I.e., claims of voter fraud raise anxiety about election integrity, to pass laws which allow state legislatures and officials to select a state's electors, regardless of actual vote count.  

Which, again, has little to do with voter ID laws. This would have happened in any case, the absence of voter ID laws just makes it a tad easier to sell.

(07-14-2021, 01:51 PM)Dill Wrote: In the last election, such laws would have given Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania to Trump.   

That seems like a faulty conclusion. That only would have been the case if such laws had been surprinsingly passed the day before the election.

[hollodero]

(07-14-2021, 02:50 PM)Dill Wrote: 3. According to the Brennan Center, some 21 million U.S. citizens do not have birth certificates and other documentation necessary to get those IDs without a lot of trouble. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf
Among these are people who had drivers licenses, but they stopped driving because of age and let them lapse. There are also many, like my sainted mother-in-law born in rural MT, who never had a birth certificate. Her own brothers and sisters could not establish whether she had been born in 1917 or 1918. She had a bank account, a driver's license, and worked for over 40 years as a school teacher.

I seem to remember you told me that once, and well this is kind of weird. I still believe there can be a workaround in cases like this, one that could be negotiated.
(I say weird because I can not quite imagine how I could get a bank account, health care, or an apartment without any ID - Austria or the US - even if I claim that's how things went in the 60s)

(07-14-2021, 02:50 PM)Dill Wrote: 4. As far as "helping" people, especially the elderly, get ids and the like. There are organizations doing that. Sure it's a good thing. Recognizing such help though, which would circumvent demographic targeting, is what gives rise to the charge of "soft bigotry," as recognition of the plight of many elderly without proper documentation is transmuted into an implicit claim that Blacks in general are less able to negotiate state bureaucracies than white people. 

Thus in states like Mississippi, with its long, continuing history of voter suppression, people who fight suppression of the black vote can be cast as "racist" by the people striving to suppress it.

Yeah, I consider that a really weak argument. Pretty much every proposal can be labeled racist, for pretty much every proposal affects different demographics and different races differently. I can't possibly go as far as to declare a voter ID law inherently racist, and so can't any reasonable, moderate people.
On the other hand, this line of argument gets so overused. I recently read on CNN how Europe trying to be more climate-friendly disadvantages black people in the US somehow, and that now makes Europe inconsiderate at best. This is an extreme example of overusing that line, and not to say there aren't racist laws around, or racist proposals - but many issues, proposals and laws, taken on its own, are not really racist. These lines are too popular for my taste, and too much designed to rile up one side against the other side (as pretty much every argument made in the US from one side or the other is).

(07-14-2021, 02:50 PM)Dill Wrote: 5. Individual states do not put "one trillion here and one trillion there." 50 million is a big bite out of a state budget for Minnesota or Georgia. And the point would be what--to ease the anxieties of people ginned up by Trump lies?  

I see. As I said, I would negotiate all this on a federal level anyhow. It's about federal elections, after all.
The two points would be for me that a) it would indeed make fraud more difficult and b) these Trump lies would have a bit of a harder time to spread. The latter point is probably the more decisive one, it's about psychology more than real effects.

[Dill]

(07-14-2021, 04:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote: [b]I.e., claims of voter fraud raise anxiety about election integrity, to pass laws which allow state legislatures and officials to select a state's electors, regardless of actual vote count. [/b][/size][/color

Which, again, has little to do with voter ID laws. This would have happened in any case, the absence of voter ID laws just makes it a tad easier to sell.

Dill Wrote:In the last election, such laws would have given Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania to Trump. 

That seems like a faulty conclusion. That only would have been the case if such laws had been surprinsingly passed the day before the election.

1. I am arguing here that voter id laws did not suddenly appear because someone thought "hey, this would be a good idea--spend millions to address a non-problem." Few states had them before "big data" became integral to polling and campaign strategy post 2000. Then they were usually passed as part of a "package" of laws which targeted minority voters without mention of race. These laws have proved insufficient, hence the next step--legislation which can throw close votes to a GOP state legislature. These laws have something to do with voter id laws in that they are meant to keep party control of state and national elections.[/size][/url]

2. You are responding to hypothetical scenario here. Why would they have to be passed a "day" before elections. Why not a year before? You may have misunderstood my argument here. I am saying that if the laws passed or being passed now had been in place in swing states, Trump would have won the 2020 election. This hypothetical is intended to alert people to what can happen in 2022. It looks like the GOP is preparing to secure swing states with these laws.

That is a far greater threat than a few fraudulent votes which do not even effect the outcome of municipal elections.

[/size]

hollodero Wrote: Wrote:Well, one has to argue it becuase that's what the Republicans choose to argue about. This is the political aspect. AS I said, and I observed this many times on many issues, Democrats are clumsy regarding those debates. They come out and cry never! and they call it racist, they rile up their base and then nothing moves, for better or for worse.

One could try to make this a federal issue - ID laws in exchange for this John Lewis act (or whatever). Negotiate that the costs are taken over by the federal government. Let McConnell say no to such proposals. That would be so much wiser, imho, than to go all "only over our dead bodies" on this and always be so fundamental. The main reason being that many moderate people see ID laws as not inherently awful and racist, but as a reasonable approach. There is some reason behind it, after all.

Yes, nothing moves. Superminority control of the Senate.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-14-2021, 06:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, nothing moves. Superminority control of the Senate.

The Senate functions as designed.  It never ceases to amaze how many of the pillars of the United States the far left has disdain for.

[Dill]

(07-14-2021, 04:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: I seem to remember you told me that once, and well this is kind of weird. I still believe there can be a workaround in cases like this, one that could be negotiated.
(I say weird because I can not quite imagine how I could get a bank account, health care, or an apartment without any ID - Austria or the US - even if I claim that's how things went in the 60s)

That's what the "soft bigots" are trying to do, when they organize to drive people to get their birth certificates and other documents. And it can be an incredible amount of work and run around. Imagine you are a 90-year-old woman who married twice, and the first marriage was in another state, where you were born. Someone must drive you there to get the documentation. And you have to already have documentation from your current state to prove who you are before you get there. But you can't get that because now the required documentation is in that other state.

This is a problem for hundreds of thousands of elderly, especially in the South, where segregation meant many spent their lives doing work which required little or no documentation.  10 years from now this will not likely be a big problem, as most of these elderly will be gone. But now there are still thousands in every state. 

(07-14-2021, 04:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, I consider that a really weak argument. Pretty much every proposal can be labeled racist, for pretty much every proposal affects different demographics and different races differently. I can't possibly go as far as to declare a voter ID law inherently racist, and so can't any reasonable, moderate people.

No one is claiming voter id laws are inherently racist. So far as I know, the first one ever enacted was by South Dakota in 1950. I don't think that was about race. 

In the current case, Democrats and civil rights activists are not just "labeling" such laws racist. They examine how the laws follow or align with demographic data collected by the GOP. They have been, at times, successful in linking voter id laws to racist intent. That's why one of NC voter id laws was overturned by the 4th US circuit in 2016.  https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article92595012.html

What people are claiming is that one party is using big data to determine how laws might be passed, with no mention of race, to shave off percentages of the opposing party's voters.  That id laws are not "inherently" racist does not mean they cannot be race- and party-targeted. It does not mean that they are not in fact. 

[hollodero]

(07-14-2021, 06:17 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. I am arguing here that voter id laws did not suddenly appear because someone thought "hey, this would be a good idea--spend millions to address a non-problem."

Hm, voter ID laws are not specifically American (I don't know if any other democratic country holds elections without requiring photo ID, almost certainly no European country), they are not a new idea at all, and I still find it hard to call this a "non-problem". I see why it's effectively a non-problem, sure. But since importantly every illegal vote is one too many, it is an issue, albeit a minor one that does not effect outcomes usually. But that is a tricky argument. Eg. I could not cast five votes, get caught and and then defend myself in court that it made no difference anyhow and hence I'm persecuted for a non-problem.

(07-14-2021, 06:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Few states had them before "big data" became integral to polling and campaign strategy post 2000. Then they were usually passed as part of a "package" of laws which targeted minority voters without mention of race. These laws have proved insufficient, hence the next step--legislation which can throw close votes to a GOP state legislature. These laws have something to do with voter id laws in that they are meant to keep party control of state and national elections.

Yeah, I can very well imagine a bad intent. Or say one that one party proposes because it might help them. But bringing party motivation into a debate is always tricky.
We had that in the whole Puerto Rico debate. When democrats advocate PR statehood, one can always argue that they only do so because it would help them. Which might be true and probably is. Doesn't mean one should dismiss the whole idea just because of that motivation.

(07-14-2021, 06:17 PM)Dill Wrote: 2. You are responding to hypothetical scenario here. Why would they have to be passed a "day" before elections. Why not a year before? You may have misunderstood my argument here. I am saying that if the laws passed or being passed now had been in place in swing states, Trump would have won the 2020 election.

I got that, but it's not necessarily true. It would be true (I've done no research, so I believe you) if two silent premises came to pass. 1) these laws fell out of the sky and hence not a single person with no ID would have the chance to react. If these laws had passed a certain time before the election, I think it's reasonable to assume that some people would have reacted accordingly, meaning they would have gotten an ID before the election - so a certain portion of the people you claim would not have been able to vote probably would have been (for they have gotten their ID in the meantime)
- and of course 2) you also assume each and every one of these ID-less people voted for Biden. And while it seems fair to assume a majority of these people did, it's still elderly people that have a tendency to be more conservative. It's not only liberal old black folk that have no ID, after all - and probably not even every single old boor black person votes Democrat.

[hollodero]

(07-14-2021, 06:56 PM)Dill Wrote: That's what the "soft bigots" are trying to do, when they organize to drive people to get their birth certificates and other documents. And it can be an incredible amount of work and run around. Imagine you are a 90-year-old woman who married twice, and the first marriage was in another state, where you were born. Someone must drive you there to get the documentation. And you have to already have documentation from your current state to prove who you are before you get there. But you can't get that because now the required documentation is in that other state.

This is a problem for hundreds of thousands of elderly, especially in the South, where segregation meant many spent their lives doing work which required little or no documentation.  10 years from now this will not likely be a big problem, as most of these elderly will be gone. But now there are still thousands in every state.

Yeah, I get that. I am all in favor of making this process less complicated.
I have to ask a third time though, how do these people get health care, amongst other things? There has to be some kind of process to confirm their identity before they apply for ACA help (which probably almost every economically poor 90-year-old does). I would suggest the same process to get health care should be an eligible one to get a valid voter ID.

At least that could be negotiated. If, however, democrats go on full opposition, then Republicans write and if possible pass their own laws and these people fall through the cracks. That is one of the reasons why I'm pledging for not being so fundamentally opposed. Trying for a compromise (including an easier process for the elderly) would possibly serve these people better.

[hollodero]

(07-14-2021, 06:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The Senate functions as designed.  It never ceases to amaze how many of the pillars of the United States the far left has disdain for.

Ha, just to spread my disagreement equally... I would argue that the design of the senate relied on senators acting in good faith and willing to go for compromise, for the good of the country. Something imho the GOP abandoned when Mitch McConnell declared his and all of the GOP's senators full opposition to everything Obama tries to do, with the clear goal of making him a one-term president by blockade tactics. That is not how the senate was designed to work either. I can't blame democrats, or the left, too much when they react to this new reality.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-15-2021, 06:04 AM)hollodero Wrote: Ha, just to spread my disagreement equally... I would argue that the design of the senate relied on senators acting in good faith and willing to go for compromise, for the good of the country. Something imho the GOP abandoned when Mitch McConnell declared his and all of the GOP's senators full opposition to everything Obama tries to do, with the clear goal of making him a one-term president by blockade tactics. That is not how the senate was designed to work either. I can't blame democrats, or the left, too much when they react to this new reality.

So react against them, and don't invent "issues" that aren't actually issues.  Now you can see just on this board that they are  going to keep repeating it over and over.  Each state is sovereign and they get two representatives. 

In addition,  people in the middle of the country don't want people from the coasts, who  live completely different lives, deciding how they live.   

That's one of the reasons the tenth amendment is so important.   What's good for NY or Philly or LA isn't necessarily what's good for Wichita or St Louis. I mean people living in concrete jungles making decisions about wetlands is not only ironic, it's absurd.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-15-2021, 06:04 AM)hollodero Wrote: Ha, just to spread my disagreement equally... I would argue that the design of the senate relied on senators acting in good faith and willing to go for compromise, for the good of the country. Something imho the GOP abandoned when Mitch McConnell declared his and all of the GOP's senators full opposition to everything Obama tries to do, with the clear goal of making him a one-term president by blockade tactics. That is not how the senate was designed to work either. I can't blame democrats, or the left, too much when they react to this new reality.

Except there's a lot of supposition, and honestly potential contradiction, in this statement.  One, you assume McConnel is acting in bad faith and two, you assume that they didn't/don't think that Obama being a one term President is good for the country.  As much as I disliked Trump's public persona, and many of his actions, I still vastly prefer his nominating three SCOTUS justices to Hillary getting that opportunity.  This argument also ignores the millions of voters in deep red or blue states who do not align themselves with the majority position of that state.  In CA over six million people voted for Trump, and I'd say there's easily ten million or more in CA who lean conservative.  You think any of those ten million feel "represented" by Feinstein or Harris (at the time).  I'm not a GOP member by any stretch of the imagination and I have an intense dislike for both of them, they certainly don't represent me in any meaningful way.

(07-15-2021, 09:13 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So react against them, and don't invent "issues" that aren't actually issues.  Now you can see just on this board that they are  going to keep repeating it over and over.  Each state is sovereign and they get two representatives. 

In addition,  people in the middle of the country don't want people from the coasts, who  live completely different lives, deciding how they live.   

That's one of the reasons the tenth amendment is so important.   What's good for NY or Philly or LA isn't necessarily what's good for Wichita or St Louis. I mean people living in concrete jungles making decisions about wetlands is not only ironic, it's absurd.

As I was stating above, you see a microcosm of this in CA.  Outside of the Bay area and Los Angeles CA is a largely conservative state.  The other counties constantly complain about being dictated to by far leftists in the big cities (San Diego is pretty centrist and may even lean right slightly).  One example is that most counties in CA will not transfer criminals back to Los Angeles County for sentencing as is standard procedure because of Gascon and his soft on crime approach.  We shouldn't look at deep blue states as monoliths because outside those cities they tend not to be blue at all.

[*Nately120*]

Quick question, are conservative Californians conservative by any standard or just by CA standards? Would they move to Arkansas and be in their element or are they just not as liberal as the ultra left in CA?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-15-2021, 11:23 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Quick question, are conservative Californians conservative by any standard or just by CA standards?  Would they move to Arkansas and be in their element or are they just not as liberal as the ultra left in CA?

I think it's a mix.  As Bel has pointed out before I'd likely be more inline with Dems in a deep red state, or would have prior to the past two years.  But if you get into your more conservative counties like Kern in CA I doubt there's much difference between them and someone in Arkansas.

[Dill]

(07-15-2021, 09:13 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So react against them, and don't invent "issues" that aren't actually issues.  Now you can see just on this board that they are  going to keep repeating it over and over.  Each state is sovereign and they get two representatives. 

In addition,  people in the middle of the country don't want people from the coasts, who  live completely different lives, deciding how they live.   

That's one of the reasons the tenth amendment is so important.   What's good for NY or Philly or LA isn't necessarily what's good for Wichita or St Louis. I mean people living in concrete jungles making decisions about wetlands is not only ironic, it's absurd.

Mike, could you clarify this a bit? I am not sure I understand your point.

If the current structure of the Senate allows a superminority to block legislation desired by the majority, both in the Senate and in the country as a whole, then how does one "react against them?" 

Can you give me an example of an "issue" that is not actually an issue? 

How does the 10th Amendment suddenly become relevant here? 

[hollodero]

(07-15-2021, 11:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except there's a lot of supposition, and honestly potential contradiction, in this statement.  One, you assume McConnel is acting in bad faith and two, you assume that they didn't/don't think that Obama being a one term President is good for the country.  As much as I disliked Trump's public persona, and many of his actions, I still vastly prefer his nominating three SCOTUS justices to Hillary getting that opportunity.  This argument also ignores the millions of voters in deep red or blue states who do not align themselves with the majority position of that state.  In CA over six million people voted for Trump, and I'd say there's easily ten million or more in CA who lean conservative.  You think any of those ten million feel "represented" by Feinstein or Harris (at the time).  I'm not a GOP member by any stretch of the imagination and I have an intense dislike for both of them, they certainly don't represent me in any meaningful way.

I claim that a senate going in full blockade mode along strict party lines is not how this institution is supposed to work.

I don't follow the argument of conservatives not getting their way too. That's not how democracy works, and it was not a justification for engaging in said blockade tactics in the Obama tenure, just for example blocking a lot of judges and including a SC judge, like McConnell did. That is acting in bad faith and against the spirit of the senate. It's not about wanting Obama to be a one-term president (because sure he did), it's about what tactics were applied to reach that goal. And that's what I claimed, that refusing to compromise and try to work together is not good for the country.

Which judges you prefer, or many conservatives would prefer, does not really matter for that assessment. Trump got his conservative judges appointed fair and square, Obama got denied his nominations unfair and unsquare. No matter how many people were happy about it or don't feel represented by the people that won elections.

[Dill]

(07-15-2021, 06:04 AM)hollodero Wrote: Ha, just to spread my disagreement equally... I would argue that the design of the senate relied on senators acting in good faith and willing to go for compromise, for the good of the country. Something imho the GOP abandoned when Mitch McConnell declared his and all of the GOP's senators full opposition to everything Obama tries to do, with the clear goal of making him a one-term president by blockade tactics. That is not how the senate was designed to work either. I can't blame democrats, or the left, too much when they react to this new reality.

Acting in bad faith didn't begin with McConnell. But under him it has become rather a de facto party policy--but even then not the first time in Senate history.

Outside a few exceptions like the ratification of Amendments or overriding a presidential veto, the Senate was designed so that ordinary legislation could be passed by a simple majority. 

The Founders felt very strongly about this, after their experience with the Articles of Confederation, with allowed a minority to constantly block legislation.

[Dill]

(07-15-2021, 05:45 AM)hollodero Wrote: I got that, but it's not necessarily true. It would be true (I've done no research, so I believe you) if two silent premises came to pass. 1)  these laws fell out of the sky and hence not a single person with no ID would have the chance to react. If these laws had passed a certain time before the election, I think it's reasonable to assume that some people would have reacted accordingly, meaning they would have gotten an ID before the election - so a certain portion of the people you claim would not have been able to vote probably would have been (for they have gotten their ID in the meantime)
- and of course 2) you also assume each and every one of these ID-less people voted for Biden. And while it seems fair to assume a majority of these people did, it's still elderly people that have a tendency to be more conservative. It's not only liberal old black folk that have no ID, after all - and probably not even every single old boor black person votes Democrat.

Just a quick not here. My hypothetical was not referring to voter ID laws, but to the far greater problem posed by legislation which throws an election challenge to a GOP dominated state legislature and/or state offices. Thanks to those laws, a close Dem win could be overturned by a legislature picking the electors.  

Also, regarding last point. No one presumes all elderly voters vote Democrat. In some states it is the reverse. I am speaking of states in which demographic info revealed an overall loss of Dem votes, even if some Republicans can't vote as well. So no, no one is assuming every ID-less person would be voting for Biden. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-15-2021, 01:07 PM)Dill Wrote: Mike, could you clarify this a bit? I am not sure I understand your point.

If the current structure of the Senate allows a superminority to block legislation desired by the majority, both in the Senate and in the country as a whole, then how does one "react against them?" 

Can you give me an example of an "issue" that is not actually an issue? 

How does the 10th Amendment suddenly become relevant here? 

Yes. The makeup of the senate. If the Dems want to get rid of the filibuster then get rid of it and shut up. If you are still complaining about the population behind the senators, it is a disingenuous argument. Each state is sovereign and gets equal representation.

The tenth amendment is just another example of how lower populated states are protected from larger populated states running them over, and it's an understanding that people in different areas lead different lives.

[*Nately120*]

(07-15-2021, 01:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I claim that a senate going in full blockade mode along strict party lines is not how this institution is supposed to work.

I don't follow the argument of conservatives not getting their way too. That's not how democracy works, and it was not a justification for engaging in said blockade tactics in the Obama tenure, just for example blocking a lot of judges and including a SC judge, like McConnell did. That is acting in bad faith and against the spirit of the senate. It's not about wanting Obama to be a one-term president (because sure he did), it's about what tactics were applied to reach that goal. And that's what I claimed, that refusing to compromise and try to work together is not good for the country.

Which judges you prefer, or many conservatives would prefer, does not really matter for that assessment. Trump got his conservative judges appointed fair and square, Obama got denied his nominations unfair and unsquare. No matter how many people were happy about it or don't feel represented by the people that won elections.

Trump has already turned on Kavanaugh so maybe the left will soften on him like they did for Bush and McCain.