Supreme Court strikes down Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote

[The Brain]

Scotty is reporting that the goalposts cannot move any faster. He doesn't have the power.

[DGuller]

Scotty is reporting that the goalposts cannot move any faster. He doesn't have the power.

[Berkut]

No kidding.

I've answered your question Yi. Absent evidence of some kind of problem, I am going to assume there isn't a problem.

You do realize that if you hold the standard of evidence such as you are, the proposed law won't solve your imaginary problem either, right?

After all, how can we be sure there aren't people simply counterfeiting whatever "proof" is required? If there were people counterfeiting their proof of citzenship, by definition we would not know about it. Therefore we need even more laws...ad infinitum.

[Admiral Yi]

What standard of evidence is that Berkut?  You're the one who said he knows something.  I never said you have to know something.

[DGuller]

I think Raz is rubbing off on Yister. 

[Admiral Yi]

Right.  Good point.

[DGuller]

Right.  Good point.

Seriously, pestering someone with endless questions, without ever making a discernible point and standing behind it, is a signature Raz debating technique.     Actually....

[Kleves]

The reason the law was struck down was that it was rather clear that the "problem" those in Arizona who passed the law want solved is the problem that people who tend to not vote for them vote too much.

While I can understand their concern with such things, I don't think the USSC should really take much account for such concerns.

if it was clearly not a political move to disenfranchise actual voters, then I am sure such laws would be passed and upheld without comment.

No, the reason is was struck down is because the feds have already regulated how voter registration works. Political motivation or the lack thereof shouldn't enter into it (though I haven't read the opinion).

[Admiral Yi]

Seriously, pestering someone with endless questions, without ever making a discernible point and standing behind it, is a signature Raz debating technique.     Actually....

Totally mischaracterizing my position, spicing it up with some gratuitous insults, then when confronted on it, claiming it was my fault for confusing you, is quintessential Guller.

Endless questions: I asked Berkut one.

Discernable point: the number of illegal immigrants who vote cannot be known.

Times I have run away from this discernable point: zero.

[The Brain]

Berk said we know something. Then suddenly it was about knowing otherwise.

[Admiral Yi]

Berk said we know something. Then suddenly it was about knowing otherwise.

You also both got punked for thinking Brain was on your side.

[Jacob]

Discernable point: the number of illegal immigrants who vote cannot be known.

If it cannot be known, how do you know it is a problem of a magnitude that requires action?

[DGuller]

Berk said we know something. Then suddenly it was about knowing otherwise.

You also both got punked for thinking Brain was on your side.

How do you know which side I'm on?  As far as I'm aware, I never posted anything other than insults in this thread.

[Admiral Yi]

If it cannot be known, how do you know it is a problem of a magnitude that requires action?

I don't.

[Jacob]

I don't.

So if the question is whether Arizona should require voter ID to prevent illegal immigrants from voting, your position is "I don't know"?