No, it’s not racist, xenophobic, or unconstitutional to ask voters for valid ID; Update: Obama blasted ruling
The Supreme Court gives us more good news this morning: Indiana’s voter ID law has been upheld.
Half of the states have passed similar laws.
The race-mongers and open borders lobby will be in an uproar. CQ summarizes:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to show photo identification at the polls, in a closely watched case with important ramifications for the 2008 elections.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices upheld an earlier decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
Proponents of the Indiana law at issue in the case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, said the state’s interest in preventing voter impersonation fraud outweighs whatever burden might be placed on a small number of people. Opponents argued that the Indiana law unfairly burdens poor and elderly voters, who tend to favor Democrats but are least likely to have driver’s licenses or passports.
The Justice Department sided with Indiana in the case, agreeing that the voter ID requirement is constitutional.
You may recall that the woman who challenged the voter ID law in Indiana was, um, fraudulently registered to vote in two states.
D’oh.
La Shawn Barber excoriates liberal black leaders who lobbied against voter ID laws.
SCOTUSblog has full coverage.
Allahpundit takes a closer look at the ruling’s rejoinder to the Left’s argument that ID requirements impose an undue burden. One of the lib justices betrays his own.
***
Update: Barack Obama plies the Left’s bogus undue burden argument:
Obama said he was disappointed today in the new Supreme Court decision that has upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, calling it “wrong,” and emphasizing that the law could suppress turnout among minorities and poorer voters.
“I am disappointed by today’s Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s photo identification law — one of the most restrictive in the nation,” Obama said in a written statement.
He referenced his decision to file an amicus brief when Indiana’s voter ID law was first challenged, saying he did it because he believed that “it places an unfair burden on Indiana residents who are poor, elderly, disabled, or members of minority groups.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Pirate's Cove
- SCOTUS Upholds Photo ID Law, DUmmies And Assorted Leftards Not Happy | McCain Blogs
- UrbanGrounds
- Democrat Vote Fraud dealt blow by Supreme Court | The TIW Blog
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Supreme Court: No, of course voter ID laws aren’t unconstitutional
- Leaning Straight Up
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
- Baseball Crank
- ACLU Extremely Upset with Supreme Court Decision on Indiana Voter ID Law : Stop The ACLU
- Random-American » Supreme Court says states can demand photo ID for voting
- monoblogue
- Leaning Straight Up
- Liberty Pundit
- Plumb Bob Blog
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Supreme Court, Voter fraud
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularDoug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%Mudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
That’s like saying laws against homicide can’t be enacted until there’s a murder.
Clearly, the Court felt it was warranted to uphold the Voter ID law to ensure integrity in the voting box.
For you, Rusty, and others who oppose this, I ask once again:
Why is *my* right to a fair vote less important than the rights of criminals and the like to engage in fraudulent voting?
Today my husband started a new job. He had to show is ID and SS card otherwise he wouldn’t be put on the payroll. Oh, and my husband has never driven a car in his life (due to vision problems) yet he manages to get to the DMV when necessary to renew his ID. Silly how he thought he was doing what’s right and responsible, when so many think he’d be better off *not* getting the ID and claiming “intimidation” and “suppression”…
My grandmother, who will be 80 in May and who also never drove a car, manages to get to the DMV to get her ID too. She needs it to collect her winnings at the local casino.
Why is it that a getting a job, collecting your bingo money, buying alcohol and the like are so important we have to ensure the person engaging in such activities 1) is who he says he is, 2) lives where she says she lives, 3) is of age to purchase alcohol…
But the line is suddenly drawn at expecting the same at the ballot box?
If you oppose IDs for that, I guess it’s “intimidation” and “suppression” to expect anyone to go to the DMV for a road test or to obtain a license. Too much trouble, seeing as all Americans work 60 hour/week jobs without vacation, sick time, or any days off. Anyone caught driving without a license shouldn’t be prosecuted because, hey, we can’t *expect* them to do something as burdensome as obey our laws, huh?
If you are in Chicago or Milwaukee, I would say they could easily vote 20 times. Democratic buses will just bus them from precinct to precinct.
Let me get this straight …
1) Some people don’t have time to go get a government issued ID because of the hours the agency is open … which means …
2) Those same people also don’t have time to go register to vote since those offices are open the same or fewer hours than the government ID agency … so someone tell me …
3) How are those same people going to suddenly have time to go vote? …
The world doesn’t stop working just because it’s election day …
Just thought I would ask …
Good step in the right direction. The motor voter act is still nothing but a voting fraud machine. Once they tried to sign up my wife, who is a lawful permanent resident but cannot legally vote.
cpodug
I hope you are not holding your breath waiting for an answer from Rusty.
Or when you have thugs who go around slashing the tires on GOP-rented vans…they won’t get in that much trouble. Or have supporters engage in intimidation, vandalism, and harrassment. That works too.
Heck, until 2006, Wisconsin was one of the few states that didn’t require proof of residency to obtain an ID. Anyone could come here and get one. Illegal immigrants were coming from as far as New Jersey to get one.
Which is why, above, I said we need something like the “purple finger” – a clear and obvious mark made on everyone casting a ballot that would prevent them from voting again the same day. In addition to Voter ID.
When a right is important, you defend its integrity through just and equitable laws – which is what Voter ID does.
I’ve said before on other threads that I do enjoy debating Rusty and appreciate the level of respect given to me. So I expect an answer.
No, Rusty, you maroon. The word “disenfranchised” does not mean what you think it means.
Your dishonesty is tiresome. Nobody has said that you have to “earn” the right to vote. And I’m sure we’d all like to know how you think we can identify these “American citizens” without some form of ID.
Yep, voting is a right and in order to show you are entitled to that right, you must display your ID proving citizenship. Whew! That was tough! You see, what some of the libs are missing is that voting is a right of legal US citizens, not everyone else. Derf!
By the way, here in Kalifornia you don’t need anything other than a bill with your name on it as proof of ID. I moved here 6 months ago to take a really good job and was shocked when I went to vote in the Primary and was told no need to show my ID when I pulled it out.
The old women sitting behind the makeshift desk were also sure to remind my wife and me multiple times that we could vote Democrat if we were registered Independent (but not Republican) even though we clearly held Republican ballots as we waited our turn to vote.
He “answered” me further up the thread. His answer was “I’m not a legislator”.
Pretty gutless if you ask me.
No, it’s saying that you can’t make up a problem as a pretext for politically motivated legislation. Here’s what Justice Souter said in his dissenting opinion: “Without a shred of evidence that in-person voter impersonation is a problem in the State, much less a crisis, Indiana has adopted one of the most restrictive photo identification requirements in the country…. [T]he onus of the Indiana law is illegitimate just because it correlates with no state interest so well as it does with the object of deterring poorer residents from exercising the franchise.”
I keep thinking about old equipment and tools that just don’t function properly when they are coated with ferrous oxide.
flenser:
If I remember correctly, yours was in suggestion to other laws. Mine doesn’t deal with laws, but an expectation of a reason (or reasons) why Rusty (or lgm or Kovacs) thinks the rights of some (those who seek to fraudulently vote) trump the rights of those who lawfully vote.
So I think they’re different.
What do all the lefties bang on about “in-person voter impersonation”? I’d really like to know. It’s not as if that is the only type of vote fraud.
Great. One of the Nine Ninnies thinks that there is no state interest in the integrity of the ballot box. This is a fine example of where impeachment is neccessary.
Every other constitutional right, plus the so-called right to abortion, have restrictions on them of some sort. I’d like to hear the would-be Blackmuns here explain why they this particular right is different.
At what point did we permit these jackasses to start telling us what is and what is not a “state interest”?
and there was much rejoicing
yay
Right! Now you’re getting it… There are already laws on the books dealing other types of voter fraud, and the type that ID laws are supposed to address–”in-person voter impersonation”–isn’t a problem. Which take me back to my original question: aren’t pointless burdens imposed by the government something conservatives usually object to?
Well, you seem to be having fun revelling in both your “victimhood” and your “blackness.” Our society, like our culture, political life, and classroom, is controlled by pc politeness.
I find it funny how you, and others, do not directly address why it is wrong for “minorities” to lash out out at whites, or people they feel free to now slur. I felt that every day I was in a classroom and I had a disrespectful student who was a minority (black or Latino) call me a white b*tch.
No, it is pc correctness that allows people (on both sides) to use slurs, yet when they are challenged, they hide behind that same pc correctness (especially if you’re a minority).
I think it’s time to get beyond this Jim Crowe fear that many black voters especially have and update a lot of our voting laws. I see no problem. I do, however, see a problem with people who make excuses for voter fraud (Rusty/lgm) and those who don’t feel like voting or exercising their duties as US citizens.
Yes, a dissenter thought differently. What a surprise, Kovacs. Guess what? In an election system like ours, even one instance of voter fraud is absolutely unacceptable because it takes away the right of a legal voter to cast a legal ballot and have that vote count.
As to the argument about IDs being unaffordable, I ran the math on this above, but in more detail, here’s the breakdown of the cost of IDs in the state of Wisconsin:
So not only do most people work 60-plus hours a week with no paid time off of any kind, they also don’t get paid enough to afford 78 cents a month (or less) for an ID.
Wow, what a sense of logic.
You have yet to answer my question, by the way. Why is *my* right to a legitimate vote less important than the right of those seeking to cast a fraudulent vote?
And onerous burdens impose new hurdles that will probably keep at least some legal voters from casting a legal ballot and have that vote count (which is what Republican lawmakers are hoping for, of course). So please spare me your concern about taking away even one person’s right to vote.
EQ … many states also offer State Issued IDs that are not driver licenses and are either Free or very minimal cost way below that of a driver’s license …
The money is one issue but I am still waiting on a response over the “time” issue in my #196 …
They seem to have quit responding to their premise about standing in long lines …
The Court is not the party that offers evidence. The Court considers the evidence offered by the litigants and interprets that evidence in the context of established law then renders its verdict.
Why do you insist that ID laws are supposed to address “in-person voter impersonation” and nothing else?
It seems pretty obvious that (depending on details of implementation) ID laws can stop all sorts of voter fraud which cannot be stopped in any other way.
For instance, require ID to register, and we don’t get people on the roles who should not be there.
Apart from the fact that there is no “burden”, and that guarding the integrity of the ballot box is not “pointless”, sure.
I think that’s a level of legal detail which is over Kovacs head. He wants to argue philosophy, not law.
Fair enough. But that’s a semantic quibble–it doesn’t change the fact that the Court couldn’t really point to a compelling problem that justifies upholding the law. That was Souter’s point.
It is not the role of the Court to look at each and every law passed by a legislature and decide whether or not it is a response to a “compelling problem”. And strike it down if it thinks the law does not meet that criteria.
Mind if I ask where you get these notions?
He, and most liberals, want the illegal alien vote. Plain and simple. This ruling should not even have been necessary. It is existing law that you have to be a US Citizen to vote. The fact that it took the Supreme Court to reinforce the idea that you must show some proof of being a US Citizen only goes to show just how twisted and corrupt voting has become in this society where states like California not only ignore the law but help break it by allowing people to vote so long as they can show an electric bill showing they have been in the U.S. for a month. The smoke and mirrors that it is some kind of burden to show ID is not only lunacy but hypocritical to other rights given by the Constitution which is why Rusty and the other trolls have repeatedly ignored challenges in comparing the right to bear arms needing an ID to buy a gun. Liberal hypocrites… willing to sell their souls to get votes.
Legislatures do not exist and serve at the pleasure of the courts. If Kouvacs thinks otherwise, we really need to scrap the American school system. Maybe outsource it to Mexico.
To everyone who is not Rusty,
You are wasting your time. Even if there was a way to hand each and every person a photo ID for free on a silver platter, Rusty and the Dems would oppose it. No fraud, no wins.
By the way Rusty, is the moniker intended to be ironic?
Only if you spare me the rhetoric and lies that Voter ID laws pose an undue burden. It doesn’t, unless you also argue that having to produce an ID for anything from alcohol to driving is an undue burden. I mean, having to go to the DMV could intimidate people from driving, so we can’t expect them to do that, can we?
There are rights so important they were enshrined in the Constitution. Those rights are fought for and protected by other laws and individuals (like our armed forces).
Shouldn’t the right to fairly elect our representatives be afforded the same respect and protection?
I see this as a partisan issue, and it’s sad to think Democrats and liberals have to fight so hard for fraudulent votes. It indicates to me one of two things: either 1) Democrats have a rather unsavory constituency or the Democrats *think* their constituency is unsavory and 2) the Democrats don’t think they can win in an honest election.
Clearly, the Courts opinion disagrees with you:
The majority found the evidence in favor of the law compelling enough to rule in favor of it and found it was applied equally.
I’d be against a law that said blacks, Jews, women, or senior citizens couldn’t vote. But this law doesn’t do that.
It requires voters to prove they are who they claim to be.
Or, to put it another way, how would you feel Kovacs if I went to your polling district, gave your name, voted in your place and got away with it?
No doubt there are laws in place regarding voter fraud. Guess what? They aren’t working. It’s nearly impossible to find someone who votes under a fake name, at a fake address, or repeatedly. There literally is no paper trail.
So the states have an interest in re-vamping those laws to deter such behavior.
I have yet to hear a valid reason why Voter ID laws are not in the best interest of this nation.
It is not a matter of semantics. That is the way our court systems work.
As for Souter he is not ‘The Court’. Both of you are in the minority.
Photo ID?
Iz you crazy!!! I gots like 8 failures to appear and about foaty K in back child suppoat,I don’t even show my ID at the likka’ stoe.
JLP
Har!!! They just need to tell them that they’re card carrying liberal democrats, and they’ll get a pass!! Democrats don’t get fired for lying.
I don’t know about the other states, but here in Georgia, the ID is picked up at the DMV and looks like a Georgia’s drivers license. It would be hard to make a false one.
I’m 69 years old and have been voting since I was 18, and during all that voting, I had to show my drivers license and no one ever complained. Only the Democrats are complaining, since us Republicans are honest folk, and want only alive people and American citizens voting. Sorry LGM and RUSTY, but that’s how the cookie crumbles.
Straw man much? Of course it’s not the Court’s role to apply a balancing standard to each and every law passed by a legislature. Only the ones brought before them. And the issues I’m talking about are the issues the Court discussed in making the decision. Jeez, do you guys get your news from anywhere other than Malkin?
Geez, do you get your news anywhere other than the liberal MSM?
And that’s exactly what they did. They found the law fair and the evidence compelling enough to uphold it.
So what don’t you understand about this?
Oh, that’s right – liberals lost. Ergo, the system must be flawed, right?
DMV’s in far left California recommend APPOINTMENTS. Unless you are an idiot (sorry Rusty), it shouldn’t take more that 20 minutes to renew a license, even less to get a California ID Card.
It’s not the courts role to apply a “balancing standard” to laws brought before them.
Glad to hear it. Can I assume that at some stage you will talk about why you think that voting rights are in a different category than are other rights? You know, why you think that it’s not a violaion of peoples rights if they have to produce ID when buying a gun.
I’m sure you were getting around to it, just prompting you.
Bing, bing, bing! We have a winner!
Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one.
Showing an ID to open a checking account (in order for the US government to automatically process direct-deposit, bi-weekly welfare payments) will be considered “wrong.”
Boo-hoo. Grow up and get an ID. Hint: You need it for EVERYTHING.
Like I said earlier in this blog…
I get my news from the MSM, Cable news channels, and approximately 30 Internet sites. Many of these Internet sites are in Europe and many link to major wire services. Do you want a list?
BTW what are your sources?
#211 emjem24 wrote:
Um…first of all, my original comment was in regard to another poster writing about “wet backs.” It doesn’t surprise me that you consider using racial slurs appropriate, or that requests to refrain from using said slurs would elicit from you the complaint that it’s the imposition of “politically correct” behaviorisms. I don’t know how you were raised — and frankly, I don’t care — but I was taught that the use of racial slurs is wrong. It’s not an issue of “politeness” (to borrow your phrasing), it’s an issue of respect. The End.
You’ve brought this up a couple of times (never when it was remotely related to the topic at hand), and clearly, this incident left you with an indelible scar. I’m sorry that you dealt with hatred in the classroom — and frankly, hatred is wrong no matter the source. You and I disagree on pretty much everything, but I genuinely think dealing with that kind of animosity sucks, and I’m sure it sucked for you. I’m sorry it happened, and I would never say that it’s okay. I believe that racism across the board is wrong, and honestly, I’ve never said anything here that would lead you to believe that I think otherwise.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, and I doubt you do, either.
Today is April 28, 2008. The general election is in November. You who need picture I.D.s, get off your asses and get one…. you have all the time in the world. Too lazy, stupid, or crooked to get one?….. then you don’t have a right to vote. It IS that simple, people!
Just like there ar elaws regarding illegal immigration, yet liberals do everything they can to keep them from being enforced.
Please cite your source. I want to see just one single quote where any lawmaker said this. The simple fact f the matter is that the Republican lawmakers want to stop all voter fraud.
If you can’t see the widespread potential for illegals casting votes, voting in multiple precincts or dead people voting and then actually see where this would be a problem, then there’s something wrong with you mentally.
#225 John Lee Pedimore wrote:
Way to destroy that “conservatives are racists” argument.
This is probably what passes for intellectual discourse in your circle.
Sadly, speaking from experience as an election judge supervisor, I had ACORN and other groups trying to push unregistered people through the voting rolls , every time I questioned or turned one away there was yelling and asking of my name. Don’t tell me there isn’t an overt plan to pad the rolls with illegal voters. It’s the battle plan of Soros and ACORN.
Ok, Rusty, now you’re just being ridiculous.
As many others have pointed out, there are few people who are legal US citizens who do not have a photo ID. 99% of the people who do not have a photo ID have absolutely no interest in voting (some might be willing to take the time to vote for the suggested democrat choice if they can score the $10 walking around money or 2 decks of cigarettes being offered by the local democrat get out the vote drive). Go ahead and identify the other 1% and we’ll take up a collection here to get them an ID.
Now you’re talking about people who work not being able to go to the DMV or library because they are ALWAYS working during the hours they are open. Since you’re from the “city”, please enlighten us rubes how many working people you know who don’t have an ID? Further, since the library in the town I live in (no, it’s not the “city”; it’s a relatively small town) is open 74 hours a week (12 hours M-F; 9 hours Sat; 5 hours Sun), how many people do you know who work 74 hours a week that don’t have an ID?
Stop being ridiculous.
I didnt see where he mentioned anybody’s race, you just inferred it. Tee hee!
#241 Jeddite wrote:
I’m going to guess you’re not just playing dumb.
I’m just well spoken, clean, and articulate, Lil Miss Outraged.
Do better, I mean really now. Is that supposed to be a witty retort?
DUR UR JUST PLAYING DUMB DUR HUR HUR HUR DURRRRRRRRRR.
Oh snap.
I just cranked off letters to my state (OH) Rep and Senator urging them to follow suit. They’re both R’s but we’ve got Strickland (D) as Governor so we’ll see if it works out.
If anyone can spare a few bucks, this would-be GOP Congressman is in a tough fight to keep a GOP seat in a special election coming up soon. Help him out. The Dems are pouring money into this race.
#244 Jeddite wrote:
Yes! This is an excellent example of how articulate and well-spoken you are. Sums you up perfectly…
Sorry, I was just trying to communicate in a level that you could understand. If you want me to talk [down] to you like an adult, you could stop throwing hissyfits every time somebody says something you personally don’t appprove of.
SUMS YOU UP NICELY LOLOLLOOLLLOLLLLL!!!!
We should be friends, nyk. Having an emotionally unstable woman by my side makes me look better by comparison. Let’s go bar-hopping!
Ok, all of you arguing about how SCOTUS giving a decision makes it “good” law? If by “good” law you mean that it is applicable as binding precedent… most of the time, in some cases, as the judge decides… then yes. If by “morally or philosphically good or logically sound,” NO WAY. You have clearly NEVER cracked a con law book, EVER. Go pick up Chemerinksy 2nd at your local library, it will greatly enlighten your views on the subject. Every law prof I’ve ever talked to criticizes our body of constitutional law for its inadequacies and blatant (yet still valid and binding law) contradictions, and rightfully so.
#248 Jeddite wrote:
Perhaps I might’ve understood were you “trying to communicate on a level…?”
Articulate: A New Definition.
And by the way, can we stop the trolling/flame wars? You’re degrading the whole MM site, never mind making fools of yourselves.
P.s. No one should be surprised at Stevens being in the majority – he’s too clinically pristine in his reasoning w/ respect to government power/discretion to go against this law.
Chemerinsky is a horrible recommendation!!! Liberal to the core and advocate of the living Constitution theorems, I’ll stick with Gerald Gunther, even after 30 years.
Too Funny!
Just don’t bar hop in New York City with her Jeddite if you’re just a “typical white guy”. You can’t take a chance on running into Spike Lee. He is quite proud of his bigotry when it comes to a black/white relationship.
Oh I forgot, he’s black and its his right to be a bigot, right nyk?
Oh dear. Before you go calling me names, please realize that I support the Second Amendment and look forward to the Supreme Court overturning my city’s ridiculous handgun ban.
That being said, guns and voting are very different. The former is a civil liberty. The latter is a civil right. Civil liberties are not absolute. Some European countries don’t have what I’d call enlightened views on gun control and free speech. But their people are still free. But once the populace loses the right to vote, then the foundation of the country is destroyed.
This thread went all sorts of crazy places.
Member-VRWC, it’s not as simple as a library being open. There are many hurdles to jump through to get an ID. If you lose your social security card and birth certificate, you are in some serious doo-doo.
And my hometown library, Yarmouthport, MA, is open a whopping 17 hours a week. So, again, it’s not that easy for some people.
I get your argument. A proportionally small number of people are going to get hosed and that’s ok by you if it prevents voter fraud. I, on the other hand, find it unacceptable for any US citizen to lose his right to vote. Especially when these laws have not been proven to prevent voter fraud in the first place. They make people feel better. That’s not enough of a state interest to warrant crapping on anyone who for whatever reason does not have government identification.
And, no, that doesn’t mean I want illegal aliens to vote. The idea that illegal aliens vote Democrat is laughable anyways. There’s obvious no proof of it and, until recently, the Hispanic vote was very much in play for both parties. So anyone stressing that us Dems are trying to game the system with illegal voters just appear dense.
Why don’t you just go away Rusty?
You really are frickin’ lame.
Hey sweetness, you might want to take a look at where you neglected to include a comma in that remark. Or a period. Or a semi-colon (looks like
. Any work.
See, I can play Grammar Nazi too! GRRRR IM OUTRAGED!!
This sums things up nicely:
The lazy and stupid have just enough of a right to vote as any of us. If you want to make this a government where only the smartest of the smart have a say, you’re going to end up with a whole lot of Democratic politicians.
It looks pretty grim, nyk. You’ve gone from crying about the use of the word “wetback” to crying about somebody using – and I’m being generous – “satirical” language, to crying about me making a typo. I mean, for a self-respecting woman of 2008, don’t you think you’re over-reacting just a smidge?
I can provide the dictionary definition of “smidge” for you, if you would like. My offer to go bar-hopping still stands. I’ll even buy your first drink. Might need to get you loosened up a bit before you start chasing off all the available manfolk.
See, I can be catty too (and better at it, might I add).
Yowsah! What the heck does that even mean?
Is the “right” to free speech also a civil liberty, and not a civil right? What exactly is the distinction between civil liberties and civil rights? What other civil rights do we possess, and what makes them rights, as opposed to the things in the “Bill of Rights”, which I suppose should now be called the “Bill of Civil Liberties”?
By recently, I’m assuming you mean the 1920’s. The Dems are not frantic to open the borders (utterly screwing the poor you profess to care about in the process) for any other reason but political power. You have become that which you hated.
What’s that lefty line? You can’t make omlettes without breaking eggs? One suffering person is a cause. A million of them are a statistic.
All laws discriminate. That is the very nature of laws. Laws against muder discriminate against murderers, laws against speeding discriminate against speeders.
And the nature of laws is also that some people will be affected by them whom the laws are not aimed at. Some innocent people will go to jail.
I’m sorry your mom and dad did not explain the facts of life to you, Rusty, but life isn’t all candy canes and flowers. Whatever we do, a few people will get screwed by it. Being an adolescent, you think this is a cosmic injustice. Get over it.
The Constitution of the United States does not require us to destroy the country in pursuit of your utopian fantasy world of perfect justice.
Though I notice that your notions of justice are highly selective.
Gosh darn my pretty blue eyes, I just can’t get over how brutally you called me to the mat, nyk, for typing “in” when I meant to say “on.” Good golly Miss Molly, I wouldn’t want to get into a riveting debate with you, Sally Jo! Don’t worry, I won’t call attention to how pathetic it is for you to dig your nails into something so minor because you’ve got nothing else to work with, nyk.
Oh wait… :/
Oh, re-he-heal-ly!
We already have so many “Smart” Democrat politicians, that they have remedied all their perceived societal problems in rapid succession. Right?
This is only one problem with Democrats…the ones with half a brain believe themselves to be the “enlightened ones,” when the only enlightened thing about them is the end of the joint they’re smoking! What a joke!
…”where only the smartest“… are… “a whole lot of Democratic politicians.” What a totally condescending remark.
…or were you joking?
#257 wrote:
…even when you’re so bad at it (”articulate.” Ha!). BTW, all your suggestions were wrong.
Ta ta, now, little man!
You’re better than that, Rusty. I have a BA, working toward my MA, and I’m a conservative.
Or was that a joke?
Because the evidence I’ve seen in this thread goes to the contrary – it is liberals defending the rights of the poor, the “uneducated”, the criminal to vote. Usually for them.
I hope I’m not too late to the party.
I haven’t read every last post, as they have grown large in number, but has anyone pointed out the ridiculous statements about people who work not having time to get an ID?
I have NEVER had a job that has NOT required an ID before they would hire me.
Ergo, people with jobs most likely already have ID’s. Sounds like a Red Herring arguement to me.
Just sayin’…..
Good point. Neither have I, and I’ve worked everywhere from McDonalds to Walgreens, to an insurance company to my current employer.
SHoward, #266
I didn’t see that mentioned and it is a very good point.
With Rusty, when he said people couldn’t leave work to get an ID, I think we all agreed that he’s just an idiot and on troll patrol.
Having looked back on the later posts, I have another comment to add: illegals voting.
This year I voted in my new state of Kalifornia for the first time. Here’s what you do: Walk into your assigned polling place and say:
“Hi, I’ Joe Smuckatelli. I live at 2121 Mockingbird Lane. Gimme my ballot.”
And they give you a ballot. Even if your are Juan Vladez of Tijuana.
Does this actually happen? Most of the longtime residents here say yes.
There is one thing I know for certain: Whenever the “undocumented workers” take to the streets to support anyone or anything, it is ALWAYS a liberal politician or idea. They don’t seem to get too bent out of shape at high taxes, but they sure do want gov’t benefits.
So you see, maybe “acedemic” hard evidence doesn’t exist, but I’m telling you people that live in ivory towers, the hispanics want democrats. Liberal ones at that. If they vote, they vote left. Rusty, you can bet your GPS on it.
(Sorry man, we haven’t chatted in a while and I had to say it…)
PS — Rusty really is a Second Ammendment supporter.
Just what we need, a clueless moron with a gun.
I didn’t mean it quite like that, rooster…but it was a funny comment;)
The Hard-Left of the Democrat-Socialists Party figure the Republicans stole the 2000 Election in Florida, they also figure the Republicans stole the 2004 Presidential Election in Ohio -SO for 2008 – The Democrats (it was suppose to be led by Hillary! the Anointed in a walk), plan to STEAL the ELECTION BACK in 2008.
Acorn was one part of the plan and getting Voter ID laws thrown out was another part of their plan.
Now, all they have left is Chicago where you vote early, vote often. [sigh]
I felt the leftist fraud when I worked at a County Board of Elections. ACORN & George Soros Stink!
If you’ll reread my comment, Rusty, my point is that your argument that working people are not able to get to a DMV or a library because they are ALWAYS working when these places are open is Bee Ess.
You started out talking about homeless people and the elderly and suddenly swerved over working people and their lack of access.
I’m on the north side of 60 and been working for 45 years in a variety of jobs from manual labor to professional. LEGAL US residents who work have ID.
So swerving into that line of argument was where you completely jumped the shark.
Most of the “smart” people I’ve met on the Left fail the one criteria for being intelligent…. using the brain rather than a “Feeeeeeeeling”. Feel sorry for a poor person, illegal person, and old person that can’t get a simple picture ID between now and November? You’re an idiot.
Of course, Obama filed an amicus brief because voter fraud is the Chicago way of doing business.
I guess that makes up for him going on FOX, at least.
I see you liberals are playing dice with words.
Second Amendment
Emphasis mine.
But you keep deluding yourself, go back and reread the part you quoted from me where I used your wording verbatim with guns instead of voting and put it into context that per the Constitution it is a right to bear arms. Once you realize it is a right just like voting is, you will see your hypocrisy where on one hand you decry that it is wrong that the poor who work 100 hour weeks don’t have time to get an ID to vote but yet you don’t decry the very same people who don’t have time to get an ID to get a gun. Both are civil rights per the Constitution of the United States of America.
And that is just using your own words against you. I still think your very premise is lunacy, as I would like to meet the people you claim this effects since the numbers have got to be approaching 0.0001% of the voting population. Whereas with no ID checks you would have millions of illegal aliens voting unchecked and breaking the law in the process.
Hey nyk, is that supposed to be slapstick?
What is it you lefties have against FOX? Is an equal number of liberals and conservatives too biased for you?
You do know that Chris Wallace is a life long Democrat, right? That came out after Slick went bonkers on him and accused him of being part of the Right’s hit machine.
To be unfair, a requirement must be levied which is different for some than it is for others. ALL must have a photo ID to vote; fair as fair can be. Sorry, Obama, but if you haven’t figured out yet, you’re an idiot.
#278 SHoward wrote:
I’m amazed by this. And I don’t mean to be insulting — honestly…I mean this in the truest sense. Do you really believe FOX is fair and balanced? I consider it the equivalent of Pravda. It’s pretend news.
As opposed the majority liberal MSM (CNN, MSN, etc) who are skewed so far left that there might be some real news hidden somewhere in between all the opinion, distortion, and demagoguery?
No wonder Foxnews has the highest viewer ratings.
#278 SHoward wrote:
Yeah. But let’s be honest — political parties encompass people of like mind. But I disagree with lots of Democrats. In the same way that so many people here disagree with Republican leaders.
#281 Alaskangrizzly wrote:
Okay. All kidding aside. It literally AMAZES me that there are people so far to the right that they think the media is “left leaning.” The media is, at best, centrist. At worst, right wing.
Alaskangrizzly (and for the record, I’ve been to Anchorage twice (once during the light period, once during the dark)), I think FOX has high ratings because it loves salacious stories. And presents them…always.
It is no more pretend than any other news outlet. To my knowledge, FOX has never used model rocket engines to “prove” how unsafe side-saddle gas tanks are, nor have they ever relyed on fake documents to “prove” dishonesty in a presidential candidate.
They also include pundits from both sides during round table discussions. You can argue that other networks are fair if you want to, but to this observer it appears that FOX cannot be called un-fair. Even O’Reilly usually has on both sides, unless a liberal refuses to appear. Make all the excuses you want for that, it speaks more of the liberal cowards than it ever will of FOX.
Now that something is shown to disprove your theory, you’re changing the standard of proof? Is Chris Wallace a member of the Vast-Right-Wing-Conspiracy? How about Allen Colmbs? Bob Beckel? How many actual lefties that either host or appear on FOX do I have to name? And I watch these guys, FOX doesn’t just have them on as tokens. They get as much air time as anyone else.
You’re a pretty good writer, nyk, but you now appear to lack actual intellectual honesty.
And this is evidenced by what? The glowing coverage they give Republican candidates? The way, when a politican is caught in an embarassing crime, they hide his party if he’s a Republican, but cite it constantly if he’s a Dem? Numerous studies have been done on this, and the media leans left.
Of course, you probably think the colleges and universities are right wing as well.
You people are repulsive. What you know about Pravda would fit on a postage stamp, but it’s like “fascist” – just a word you picked up somewhere to use as a cheap insult.
As I scan down this thread, I notice that lgm, Rusty, the nyk take turns picking scabs on this issue.
lgm is a drive-by poster. No content. All drivel and lib talking points. Linda Richman from the SNL skit. Discuss amongst yourselves. . .
I really think that Rusty is a secret “community organizer” for all the homeless illegal-immigrant waiters out there. Now there is a voting bloc that would fill a small conference room. Even in a city, man.
nyk has an “a-ha” moment every once in awhile when a post fits his schema of the bigoted, judgmental conservative. Scrappy, yes. But also smarmy.
Yeah, heavens forbid that a candidate for President should appear on the biggest cables news show in the country. I mean, it might encourage some good progressive larvae to watch the show and actually be exposed to different ideas, before their empty little skulls have sealed forever shut like your own. We can’t have THAT!
#284 SHoward wrote:
“…but you now appear to lack actual intellectual honesty.”
No. I am always honest. I don’t think FOX is even-handed, and I don’t believe that (occasionally..or even, rarely) including the single, token Democrat in a discussion changes the tone of it.