Florida's Election Officials Questionable Behavior During the Recount is Harming Rick Scott

[Final-Fan]

NightlyPoe said:

Final-Fan said:

Ahem, yes.  Yes, the fact that you pointed out mail-in fraud as a potential problem is what I was referring to when I said SpokenTruth "validated your previously-stated position" to some extent.  However, in this thread it appears to me that you have focused on defending laws purporting to protect against in-person voter fraud, and you have argued that such fraud is enough of a problem to justify the laws and the burden they impose.  

I have not focused on anything.  I have a concern about voting fraud in many areas, including absentee ballots.  In your post, you focus on mass attempts at voter fraud.  Yes, this does seem to be an easier way to do it.  However, voter fraud around the margins makes a difference as well.  So, an argument over which is bigger is not really one I'm interested in happening because I don't wish for either to happen.

In fact, you went so far as to say "voter suppression laws are not a thing", contradicting the verdicts in court cases such as the North Carolina one with the infamous "surgical precision" line.

Ah yes, the 4th Circuit.  You do know that the 4th Circuit and the DC Circuit are the crown jewels in Democrat obstruction efforts on Bush's judicial nominees.  Literally just 10 years ago, the 4th Circuit had a reputation as the most conservative circuit in the country.  Now it is one of the most liberal.  That case was decided by a Clinton and two Obama appointees.

Anyway, I'll point out that North Carolina actually won at the district level and may well have one at the Supreme Court if the case had gone through.  No matter what the case, though, simply pointing to one line by one judge in one decision and marking it as proof that what that one person's opinion is would be absolutely true is itself a folly.  Particularly when there doesn't appear to be any new election law you can pass that doesn't run into claims that it disproportionately affects minorities.

This seems either deliberately disingenuous or incredibly narrowminded.  It doesn't matter which is bigger?  Why wouldn't it, when the one that we have actual evidence is happening is the one NOT receiving legislation purportedly designed to stop it?  Let me rephrase my question from earlier:  do you think it's not unreasonable that they are focusing almost exclusively on in-person voter fraud despite repeated failures to produce evidence of it being a significant problem, instead of focusing on stopping fraud schemes such as this one? 

One person's opinion?  How many judges did you say were on that court?  I was under the impression that an opinion joined by multiple justices or judges could fairly be called their collective "opinion".  And it's not like this is the only law that has been struck down in recent years for the reason that it was unconstitutionally restricting voters' franchise; are you really claiming that it's just because of biased Democratic judges, and that the rest of the judicial system is simply choosing not to call out their bullshit? 

As for "if the case had gone through", when the Supreme Court chose not to hear it, why do you think that [edit: choice] doesn't imply that they didn't think the decision as it stood was likely to be in error?  Do you disagree that this would be the neutral presumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary? 

Last edited by Final-Fan - on 06 December 2018