(02-01-2022, 01:45 AM)epronovost Wrote:(02-01-2022, 01:28 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:(02-01-2022, 01:17 AM)epronovost Wrote: No it's actually determined by reasoned argument and to have those laws strike down you had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were indeed racist. They were demonstrated to be so several times and will most probably be demonstrated to be so several more times in the future. If you can meet strict evidential standards and convince an impartial and well inform panel of judges with reasoned arguments and peer reviewed expert opinions as support, you can establish that a thing is racist not only as a matter of opinion, but fact. Only an unreasonable person would claim to the opposite.
Okay, the Supreme Court determines fact and opinion. Just be consistent when it judges against your opinions.
That's not at all what I said.
What I said is that the arguments demonstrate facts (or not). The judges are only there to be witness, in service to, the argument.
As I mentioned those arguments were forcefully convincing to the point that several different courts, in different years, in different regions, all agreed that a set of nearly identical laws were all racist and thus illegal. To be arguing, without any argument or evidence, and without even knowing the slightest amount about the subject would be completely unreasonable. Any reasonable person would consider strict ID laws to be racist because they meet the definition of racism and such a thing was demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt before multiple different court of laws. What more could you want?
Could the judges be wrong and be tricked or even be biased? Yes, they could. That's why there are several level of courts to serve as replication and a case can be presented in different forms several times before a court. This is the case when it comes to many strict ID laws. They were demonstrated multiple times before multiple courts at multiple times that they were racist. Sure, one court can render a stupid decision. Hell, all courts can render stupid decision provided they must base them on stupid standards, but that's not the case here. They base it on a standard that matches the very definition of racism: does it harm disproportionately a racial group on purpose.
These demonstrated facts about the particulars ("statistically this or that will make it harder for the elderly and infirm to vote")may lead judges to the conclusion that the laws are racist, or they may not. These will be the opinions of the judges. Some judges will be of the opinion these are literally racist policies and laws, others will not. If pushed to the Supreme Court in any of these cases, it will be the opinions of those judges. That some ID laws have been struck down means all the popular and current state proposals are in fact racist? I think we need to revisit this in the near future to see, or look at exact states to be clear on exactly what is going on. Broad generalizations that states tightening their voting rules in various ways (IDs being desired by majorities) equals racism remains simply your opinion. I take it any state voter proposal that isn't struck down by the courts wasn't racist?
