...and judges don't side with or against a party, they side with the law.
This is another example of, likely unintentional, politicking.
This really more nit-picking than anything, but context is everything in making my case. The article states that judges decided against Republicans. And I found it in Twitter with a title stating that judges sided WITH Democrats.
Neither happened. The judge sided with the rule of law. Period.
While I admit it is nit-picking. It is also CRUCIALLY important that outcomes stop being framed this way. It only the has the effect of politicizing the legal system. Frankly, supreme court nominations would be a lot less controversial if we stopped making laws and their interpretation things which we classify as Republican or Democrat. It doesn't matter whether a judge is a Republican or a Democrat, their job is to interpret the laws as they stand.
There is absolutely a political side to the laws. They are established by politicians. So, certainly, each law may have a distinctly Democratic or Republican vibe to it. But, vibes change over time. And the ruling on the laws shouldn't be considered to fall one way or another.
Republicans knew (or ought to have known) that their attempts would be shot down. Just as Democrats likely knew it would have. The fact that it happened as stated in the law doesn't make this a win or a loss for either party. It was a Hail Mary toss.
And, as always, the bigger question is; why?
I can't answer that, but I certainly can speculate.
The first thing that comes to mind? Exactly this. Drawing up interest from the masses on topics they aren't qualified to discuss or smart enough to understand the implications of. Now, I'm not saying that people are stupid (even though, generally they are). Regardless of relative intelligence, the average person DOES NOT hold the requisite understanding of the constitutional and state laws at play here.
But, people like to fancy themselves geniuses at whatever topic is popular. And, they see the team they identify losing. And they think they understand the points well enough to get behind it. Don't be surprised if a few years from now, Republicans are campaigning on changing these laws and both the politicians and the people are citing incidents like this as proof that the current system is broken.
The truth is... under the covers, allowing these votes is one of the single most American you could possibly do. While it is true that a large number of mail in votes come from typical targets of voting suppression, they also come from another very important group that is not the majority; deployed service workers.
These lawsuits would literally see American Army, Navy, Air Force and other service members denied their rite to cast a ballot.
The "sounds good argument"... if they can't make it to a polling station they shouldn't be allowed to vote. The outright lies tend to imply that these votes may not have even been cast on election day. But, both arguments are weak lies. There are a great many reasons for someone to be unable to make it to a polling station. From health issues, to transportation issues to the specific kinds of identification available.
The ability to count votes in a timely fashion becomes harder and harder every year as the number of US citizens grows, yet the number of offices being voted on remains static. It means each voting station receives an increasing number of voters and each position potentially adds new polling stations each year. There is the potential for clerical errors, electrical issues and so forth.
But, if you're an American citizen who values their vote. Then you would be an idiot to champion a cause which would see the sanctity of the vote weakened.
And yet, that is exactly what these lawsuits and the rhetoric around it is designed to do. To drum up support for the weakening of voter rights.
If you wish to see these laws changed and you live to see the world you're fighting for. I hope you realize on that day when you're the person whose vote isn't being counted that you helped bring this about.
This is about using aggregate data to determine which groups are most likely to swing one way or another and changing laws to exclude those groups. Just as some of the law changes could exclude active service members from voting just to keep the poor or other groups with limited access from voting. You too, may one day be on the same side as those in power, but live in the wrong neighborhood, or being in the wrong pay bracket, or have an unpaid parking ticket and see that used to invalidate your vote.
Lawsuits, especially those revolving around politics shouldn't be so heavily covered in the news. And outcomes shouldn't be reported as being in favor or against a political party. The judge isn't trying to play politics. They are simply trying to uphold the laws established by the framers of the constitution and the governments which followed.
This really more nit-picking than anything, but context is everything in making my case. The article states that judges decided against Republicans. And I found it in Twitter with a title stating that judges sided WITH Democrats.
Neither happened. The judge sided with the rule of law. Period.
While I admit it is nit-picking. It is also CRUCIALLY important that outcomes stop being framed this way. It only the has the effect of politicizing the legal system. Frankly, supreme court nominations would be a lot less controversial if we stopped making laws and their interpretation things which we classify as Republican or Democrat. It doesn't matter whether a judge is a Republican or a Democrat, their job is to interpret the laws as they stand.
There is absolutely a political side to the laws. They are established by politicians. So, certainly, each law may have a distinctly Democratic or Republican vibe to it. But, vibes change over time. And the ruling on the laws shouldn't be considered to fall one way or another.
Republicans knew (or ought to have known) that their attempts would be shot down. Just as Democrats likely knew it would have. The fact that it happened as stated in the law doesn't make this a win or a loss for either party. It was a Hail Mary toss.
And, as always, the bigger question is; why?
I can't answer that, but I certainly can speculate.
The first thing that comes to mind? Exactly this. Drawing up interest from the masses on topics they aren't qualified to discuss or smart enough to understand the implications of. Now, I'm not saying that people are stupid (even though, generally they are). Regardless of relative intelligence, the average person DOES NOT hold the requisite understanding of the constitutional and state laws at play here.
But, people like to fancy themselves geniuses at whatever topic is popular. And, they see the team they identify losing. And they think they understand the points well enough to get behind it. Don't be surprised if a few years from now, Republicans are campaigning on changing these laws and both the politicians and the people are citing incidents like this as proof that the current system is broken.
The truth is... under the covers, allowing these votes is one of the single most American you could possibly do. While it is true that a large number of mail in votes come from typical targets of voting suppression, they also come from another very important group that is not the majority; deployed service workers.
These lawsuits would literally see American Army, Navy, Air Force and other service members denied their rite to cast a ballot.
The "sounds good argument"... if they can't make it to a polling station they shouldn't be allowed to vote. The outright lies tend to imply that these votes may not have even been cast on election day. But, both arguments are weak lies. There are a great many reasons for someone to be unable to make it to a polling station. From health issues, to transportation issues to the specific kinds of identification available.
The ability to count votes in a timely fashion becomes harder and harder every year as the number of US citizens grows, yet the number of offices being voted on remains static. It means each voting station receives an increasing number of voters and each position potentially adds new polling stations each year. There is the potential for clerical errors, electrical issues and so forth.
But, if you're an American citizen who values their vote. Then you would be an idiot to champion a cause which would see the sanctity of the vote weakened.
And yet, that is exactly what these lawsuits and the rhetoric around it is designed to do. To drum up support for the weakening of voter rights.
If you wish to see these laws changed and you live to see the world you're fighting for. I hope you realize on that day when you're the person whose vote isn't being counted that you helped bring this about.
This is about using aggregate data to determine which groups are most likely to swing one way or another and changing laws to exclude those groups. Just as some of the law changes could exclude active service members from voting just to keep the poor or other groups with limited access from voting. You too, may one day be on the same side as those in power, but live in the wrong neighborhood, or being in the wrong pay bracket, or have an unpaid parking ticket and see that used to invalidate your vote.
Lawsuits, especially those revolving around politics shouldn't be so heavily covered in the news. And outcomes shouldn't be reported as being in favor or against a political party. The judge isn't trying to play politics. They are simply trying to uphold the laws established by the framers of the constitution and the governments which followed.
Comments
Post a Comment