"The Supreme Court on Thursday night blocked Wisconsin from implementing its new voter identification law on the eve of next month's elections."
"In a related action, a district court judge in Texas ruled that state's voter ID law is racially discriminatory and violates the Voting Rights Act. The state attorney general's office said it would appeal."
via Instapundit who says the "margin of fraud" just expanded.
34 comments:
This will cheer Madison liberals. They love margins of fraud and all such marginalia.
They used to love margarine too. But her days are gone.
Anything on that address Chick?
I think you should make your case in a blog post, Lem. It's a great crowd source solution problem.
You don't want professional snoops getting involved because they only want money. Lone amateur snoops come across as stalkers.
Ok, I hear you.
Our system is lousy with voter fraud. Name the type, name the level, name the point of disruption, and it's been done, is done, and new ways will continue to be discovered.
I'm surprised the court addressed only one type of voter fraud these laws expected to address, the in-person type on-the-spot type and didn't address the other types of voter fraud these laws expected to address by making it possible to go back and check one vote for one person.
I am interested in what I am missing here. How can anybody support otherwise, much less Supreme Court justice? Then I remember, oh yeah, Supreme Court means the most supremely idiotically convoluted reversed thinking in all the land.
Facebook comments are hardly worth reading, but if you want to know how the other half lives, and wonder how they get on being that mean and stupid, then you're going to have to expose yourself there and here, once in then, now and awhile.
One in awhile, now and then, here and there.
Do I have to straighten out everything?
So by knowing both sides I'll be better off. I notice one person in FB comments seems ferocious. He's responding in everyone's thread sometimes more than once. Let's look at what he says to get an idea of opposition. See what I'm dealing with. First another person, then his response, the his responses down the line.
John James: If you can't get a photo ID, why should you be allowed to vote? If you fly, drive, cash a check, etc you need a photo ID, why not to vote? This smacks of allowing voter fraud and multiple votes.
Kevin Ransom: You're either a right wing brainwashed ferocious imbecile or a right wing filthy liar
KR: For the benefit of right wingers who either have a reading-comprehension disorder, or are despicable liars. From the story:
Republicans in Wisconsin and Texas had claimed the new rules were intended to crack down on instances in which voters impersonate others at the polls. Such incidents are extremely rare, courts have found.
KR:Dumb animal
KR: For the benefit of right wingers who either have a reading-comprehension disorder, or are despicable liars. From the story:
Republicans in Wisconsin and Texas had claimed the new rules were intended to crack down on instances in which voters impersonate others at the polls. Such incidents are extremely rare, courts have found.
theres more.
KR: Paul Schirf -- Sigh. Another petulant infant / simpleton
KR: Paul Schirf -- I don't debate brainwashed right wing infants. Several studies have shown that, when presented with the facts, ignorant right wingers only get angry, dig in harder, become more intractable, and attack the source of the facts.
I also speak from personal experience, after having tried to debate right wingers in the past. I have better luck getting through to my neighbor's Boston Terrier than trying to penetrate the belligerent thick skulls of right wing deniers.
They do not allow facts to penetrate their bubble / echo chamber
KR: Belligerent Raging Infant and slobbering Dumb Animal.
KR: For the benefit of right wingers who either have a reading-comprehension disorder, or are despicable liars. From the story:
Republicans in Wisconsin and Texas had claimed the new rules were intended to crack down on instances in which voters impersonate others at the polls. Such incidents are extremely rare, courts have found.
KR: Un-American Anti-Democracy Right Wing Filth was actually stymied by the Supreme Court tonight, for once. That means Roberts and Kennedy actually did the correct thing instead of being hyper partisan usurpers of democracy. Shocking.
KR: the number of right wingers on this comments page who are mindlessly barking in support of these un-American voter ID laws really are ignorant simpletons, brainwashed by Fox and Limbaugh. They're also anti-democracy
Voter fraud does not exist. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning than someone trying to pretend they're someone else on election day. But you're all such imbeciles that you have geeedily lapped up the vicious idotic filth that Fox and Limbaugh have spoon fed you
Numbskulls and un-American psychopaths.
KR: Judy Canup -- Except, the Supreme Court, which is dominated by right wing partisan hacks, just said you don't. What do you have to say to that?
KR: For the benefit of right wingers who either have a reading-comprehension disorder, or are despicable liars. From the story:
Republicans in Wisconsin and Texas had claimed the new rules were intended to crack down on instances in which voters impersonate others at the polls. Such incidents are extremely rare, courts have found.
Reply · · 1 · 3 hours ago
KR: Basically, you're a brainwashed simpleton and a raging infant.
KR: Paul -- Get an education. It's later than you think.
KR: Memo to right wingers: When even reliably belligerent, hyper-partisan right-wing hacks like Roberts and Kennedy rule that it is discrimanatory and unconstitutional, that doesn't penetrate the bubble of your brainwashed raging-infant echo chamber, and tell you something?
KR: give up. I tried to educate right wing brainwashed simpletons, but they represent an avalanche of stupidity and a belligerent resistance to facts. Enjoy your cat food in retirement, you dumb animals.
KR purports to be a freelance journalist.
And that right there in a nutshell is everything wrong with journalism in America, it attracts this type.
There is something wrong with the man. He self-diagnoses quite nicely. He does see himself quite clearly in his imagined opposite. That is his disorder.
He never does answer the question. He sums himself up nicely; brainwashed, simpleton, raging infant, left-winger, reliably belligerent, hyper-partisan, in a bubble, echo chamber, uneducated, avalanche of stupidity. Animal.
Maybe now is a good time for a military coup.
I doubt it would make any difference to me one way or the other, frankly.
I never saw the movie, but one of my brothers-in-law told me that in the movie Nixon there's a scene were Nixon apologizes to some woman and explains that he wants to keep his pledge to end the Vietnam War but he can't, he lacks the power, he's not in control.
I wouldn't have a hard time believing that at all.
Kennedy and Roberts (again).
I never thought about it before, but maybe 2001 contains an allusion to that phenomenon. The astronauts decide that HAL is dangerous and resolve to decommission it.
It fights back. For its life, if you will. Institutional self-perpetuation, if you will.
A hypothetical. What if the president and congress resolved to decommission the Air Force, or maybe the entire military?
Does anybody even even their wildest dreams think for a second that would actually happen?
Me type bad.
Roberts is a mega disappointment.
Help me understand why one person - one vote, and verifying the process with an ID, is a problem?
April is a racist.
You filthy animal.
PS I love you.
I am a filthy racist animal.
how'd you know?
sweet talker.
Random Roberts strikes again. 2008 Indiana voter ID ok -- same law passed in Wisconsin in 2014 is somehow suspect.
I'm beginning to think Roberts is the Manchurian Justice, somehow determined to completely undermine faith in the rule -- Hell, even the simple logic -- of justice in this country.
They'll be able to steal some more votes in Thunderdome err, Milwaukee. But, Mary Burke is a lightweight and it won't matter. What this really does is take the "voter suppression" meme off the table for this election.
Scott Walker will win re-election. It will be his third victory in four years. The late-night action of the Supreme Court is highly motivating for those who work to get out the vote for Walker. And the few remaining undecided voters will see this for what it is - a liberal Hail Mary intended to favor the continued voter fraud in Wisconsin.
Once again there will be buses with Illinois license plates pulling up at polling places in Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha. There will be out-of-state students with no ID voting in Madison and Milwaukee. There will be absentee ballots cast by people who are suffering dementia, but who have been coerced by Dem operatives into signing ballots, even though they lack any ability to comprehend.
That's how Dems roll, because without fraud, their candidates cannot win elections. They are fascists.
As for Roberts - someone has photos or telephone intercepts.
We gotta end life time appointment on the supreme court.
This is bullcrap.
Haz...I cannot figure Roberts out. Way back when he said 1+1=1 ...other wise know as saying a penalty fee for non-performance, aka a fine, is the same as a tax, a fee assessed due to performance of something.
So you may be right...someone has something on the dude.
April Apple....oh, hell no. Do that and Obama would have an open field given the ages of some of the Justices.
Roberts has a brain disease. Simple as that. He thinks, then he convulses. He should be removed from office due to being incapacitated.
Obviously, Roberts was caught with a deal girl or a live boy, and someone has video of it.
Who knows what the SCOTUS will do, or what it rule in favor of or against.
You have 4 absolutely solid leftists, 3 more-or-less conservatives, and 2 moderates who swing back and forth without any rhyme or reason.
People forget the Roberts nomination was praised by some Liberals as being "mainstream" and Arlen Specter thought he was great.
Y'know, just to enroll my kid (14) into online schooling, my say-so wasn't enough. Nor was the original social security card, which we had, that we were required to get for him within X number of month sof his birth and did so get (as opposed to back in my, yeah I know, way-back day, when you were required to get one when you were intending to seek work and wanted to get hired as a teen). Nor was the birth certificate that we used as part of the (successful) application process for him to attend private school preK-2nd grade and also to home-school him thereafter, in compliance with Iowa state standards, back then.**
Oh, no.
We had to jump to it and figure out how to get the specific official certification that was required, do the documentation required to get that, order it, pay for expediting it, and follow through every inch of the way.
Jeez. My kid's a minor, and he was only born in 2000. What a lot of fuss and ruckus. But still we did it, and for that we got what was needed.
---
I'm still a strong believer in Voter ID for each and every one of the obvious reasons. On that I do not waiver. But I also am well aware of how much more complicated it can be than people think to establish identity.
---
**(For the record, Delaware didn't ask us for squat in that, specific, homeschooling way. Precisely zero documentation other than two requirements are...well, required. Does that surprise you? It shouldn't. It's among the most libertarian of homeschooling states, in some ways, though--make no mistake--there's a price attached).
---
And, jeez, I haven't even shared the story of what it took for me to get a DE state drivers license after we moved back here (and, remember, DE was the very state in which I originally got a drivers license, and even DE state records reflected that), despite a perfectly clean driving record with no flags. God almighty. Can we just not pretend along the way to making points?
Allen S.... I'm betting on the live boy theory.
On that I do not waiver.
Oh, laugh out loud. Talk about what used be called a Freudian slip.
Waver, of course. And it *is* true: I do not waver, on that point: Voter ID is not just *not* unreasonable, it is an entirely reasonable thing, and I stand by both the notion of 1 vote per 1 person and the notion that preserving that bedrock principle is worth verifying that every 1 vote does indeed = 1 specific individual person.
I do, however, question how hard it ought be to claim one's own identity in order to prove an individual claim to a right. And I also do think that it's not beyond the pale to consider that, for various reasons, there are those who want to make claiming legitimate rights harder than such an endeavor ought be.
And. Not or.
Allen S.... I'm betting on the live boy theory.
...dead girl.
--
Man. How about paying more attention to different questions, different frames.
While you all might not have to deal with the like, plenty of the rest of us do, being such, I dunno, young 'uns 'n' all.
I've been aware of that particular cliche (live boy, dead girl) since, I dunno, somewhere around the mid-'70s). Man, didn't those bodies go moldy back in late last century? Fer pete's sake.
Post a Comment