The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Fail.||Date: 10/30/2013 10:28 AM|
|Author: SaintPatrick1||Number: 1907660 of 2152028|
Here's a hint for the future, Anniesdad, don't present as a foundation of a point you would like to make, a quote taken out of context which the author has penned an article disavowing the intent.
It's just not right to do that, even on a rinky-dinky board like this.
I Did Not 'Recant' on Voter ID Laws
BY RICHARD A. POSNER
To my considerable surprise, one sentence—I should have thought it entirely innocuous—in the book has received unusual attention in the media and blogs, much of it critical. The sentence runs from the bottom of page 84 to the top of page 85, in a chapter entitled “The Challenge of Complexity.” The sentence reads in its entirety: “I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion (affirmed by the Supreme Court) upholding Indiana’s requirement that prospective voters prove their identity with a photo ID—a type of law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.” (The footnote provides the name and citation of the opinion: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 472 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007), affirmed, 553 U.S. 181 (2008).)
To understand the sentence in context, one must read the portion of the first sentence of the paragraph in which it appears. I say that “the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have managed to enmesh themselves deeply in the electoral process without understanding it sufficiently well to be able to gauge the consequences of decisions.” I did not say that my decision, and the Supreme Court’s decision affirming it (written, be it noted, by the notably liberal Justice Stevens), were wrong, only that, in common with many other judges, I could not be confident that it was right, since I am one of the judges who doesn’t understand the electoral process sufficiently well to be able to gauge the consequences of decisions dealing with that process. I may well have been wrong in Crawford, because laws similar (I do not say identical) to Indiana’s represent a “type of law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention” (emphasis added)—“now” referring to the fact there has been a flurry of such laws since 2007, when my opinion in the Crawford case was issued, and they have been sharply criticized.
|Copyright 1996-2017 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|