by Jack
The voter ID law, enacted in 2011, requires voters seeking to cast their ballots at the polls to present photo identification like a Texas driver’s, Texas ID card, gun license, a military ID or a passport.
Those are almost impossible high requirements, Justice Ginsburg wrote, and I’m paraphrasing, so it may prevent more than 10 registered Texas voters (about .00135 percent of all registered voters) from voting for lack of proper identification. Further, this ID law will unfairly restrict others ability to vote multiple times, vote illegally because they are not citizens or for folks to earn a little extra money by selling their votes to democrats. A sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are also mentally incompetent or illiterate, several of them could be African American and that such facts, will be and should be, used to allege fake charges of “racial discrimination” in order to justify letting anyone vote without ID.
Justice Ginsburg strongly hinted that a system built on no rules and pure trust is far better than a system built on honesty backed up by verification. Oh, and she also hinted that most people rarely carry identification anymore, so the law is really bad. She knows this because the voices in her head told her so. She then put on her tinfoil hat and climbed aboard her tricycle and peddled off at high speed.
Many angry opponents of the voter ID law hold Republicans to squarely to blame for trying to restore trust and honesty to the vote. “We’ll resist raising the voting standards by whatever means necessary to protect the fraud that our party was built on!” Said Mr. I. B. Krook, senior legal advisor to the democratic party.
What a woefully stupid misreading of the female justices’ dissent.
No one has said that “more than 10 registered voters” would be turned away. The actual estimate is more like 600,000. Do you think that number is anywhere close to 10, Jack?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/18/supreme-court-voter-id_n_6007300.html
Even if you think that number is insignificant, it’s a hell of a lot bigger than the number of actual cases of in-person voter fraud, and that fact is indisputable. In-person voter fraud is extremely rare, and this law will stop far more legitimate voters from voting than illegitimate voters.
The law may be constitutional, but it still doesn’t make any sense. It puts an undue burden on a whole lot of innocent people in order to stop a virtually non-existent problem.
Either Republicans are incapable of making a rational cost-benefit analysis in this case, or disenfranchising certain people from voting is their actual goal. Given that the law allows handgun licenses as proof, but not college ID, it seems fairly obvious that the people behind this law are more concerned with making sure Democratic-leaning voters stay home than they are with the make-believe problem of in-person voter fraud.
During the Sept 2012 Convention in NC The Democrats are requiring PHOTO ID to enter their convention in Charlotte!
PHOTO IDs? because they are requiring people to prove they are who they say they are in order to engage in protected activity.
According to all of the Democrats who attack Photo ID requirements for voting, it’s racist to ask someone to produce a photo ID to prove who they are, and yet the racists in the Democrat Party are doing just that!
Why do the Democrats engage in such an hypocritical outrage? why because it serves their purpose!
Anyone have a copy of Justice Ginsburg’s statement about this act of ID requirements??
Another well-deserved slapdown to Obumble/Oblameo administration.
Gonna have to dedicate a whole new chapter to this in the Dem Voter Fraud Handbook. Get your copy now by calling the white house at 800-666-LIAR for only $19.95 .. . .
Harold, these were her thoughts…oh, wait did you want the statement she actually released to the media? That one was full of lies. I just wrote what she really feels, but would never admit in public.
Harold, do you understand that attending that voting is a constitutional right, and that attending the Democratic convention is not?
I’m sure you understand that, but for some reason you seem to be pretending not to. Why would you do that? What do you stand to gain by pretending to be stupider than you really are?
Jack, I didn’t realize you were telepathic. If I had the ability to read the minds of individuals in the highest halls of power, I’d be doing a little more than running a blog.
Chris, give me a break…she’s a flaming liberal and ALWAYS votes that way. It doesn’t take a clairvoyant to figure out that the only explanation for her dissenting commentary was because she sees everything through democrat-made rose colored glasses.
Illegals benefit dems more than anyone, we know that. So Ms. Ginz trumped up some phoney excuses (she lied) about ID requirements being bad. When we know it can lonely be good. ID helps us protect the credibility of the vote on both sides. But, if you are a crooked politicians you want to make it easy for voter fraud…thus the dopey Ginzberg decision.
Virtually everyone has some form of ID these days and if they don’t, they are probably world class dumbbells. The upside is, their numbers are so small, their vote doesn’t matter anyway, but illegals voting by the tens of thousands matter! They matter a lot!
Sorry Jack, I was not referring to Ginsberg’s recent statement, What I was aiming at was the comments Justice Ginsberg made about the need for the Democrats requiring ID at the 2012 convention.
I guess that her silence might support the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ Liberal doctrine
Voter fraud is more prevalent than the left cares to admit, but without ID laws or proper tracking it’s difficult to prove.
There is a remedy for people without a proper ID and those remedies are easily put in place. There is, however, no remedy for voters who feel cheated and disenfranchised when they know their vote can be overruled by busloads of people gaming the system.
Our democratic system of voting relies on the trust of the people, and even the appearance of corruption must be eliminated. Voter ID will restore voter confidence and lead to an increase in voter participation. I fear that the left overlooks this public good for the short term belief that voter ID rules will cause them to lose a few votes.
Maybe we should challenge government programs on the basis that its just too hard for some people to sign up for them…how many people fall through the cracks because they can’t get to the SS office?
Jack: “Chris, give me a break…she’s a flaming liberal and ALWAYS votes that way. It doesn’t take a clairvoyant to figure out that the only explanation for her dissenting commentary was because she sees everything through democrat-made rose colored glasses.”
“The only explanation?” Seriously? What about the actual points that she made?
Ginsberg gave several explanations for why this unnecessary restriction on voting rights was unconstitutional. Just because you ignore those explanations in favor of making strawman arguments does not mean they magically go away. Refusing to acknowledge the other side’s arguments only makes your own side look weaker, not hers.
“So Ms. Ginz trumped up some phoney excuses (she lied) about ID requirements being bad. When we know it can lonely be good.”
I’m sorry–are you four years old? Is this seriously what passes for convincing debate to you?
“but illegals voting by the tens of thousands matter! They matter a lot!”
…Except that there is not a shred of evidence for the conspiracy theory that “illegals” are “voting by the tens of thousands,” so this makes absolutely no sense. This matters in the same way that alien invasions and robot attacks matter. There is zero evidence of widespread in-person voter fraud; voter ID remains a solution in search of a problem, and it will discourage hundreds of thousands of people from voting for no legitimate purpose.
Chris, sad to say we’re close to not allowing any comments here because we’re being relentlessly spammed to the order of about 100 a day. This forces us to sort through the comments and post yours while deleting the spam. Please make this decision easier by writing crap about Tina and myself, will ya? “I’m sorry–are you four years old? Is this seriously what passes for convincing debate to you?”
I don’t really care if you are convinced or not, how do you like that? This is my opinion. Want more to piss you off? I think Ruth Bader Ginsberg is an extreme lefty who never should have been on the SC. She isn’t impartial, she sold out long ago. That’s not what justice requires or what America needs. Justice is supposed to be blind….to be impartial. Justice is reason and fairness.
She’s an activist judge and if she had tried her crap pre-1800 when America was still celebrating our founding principles she would have been laughed out of town! I hope she leaves when a conservative is in the White House so he can appoint a respectable, honorable and honest justice.
I’ve long ago given up on tying to convince you of anything. When it comes to convincing liberals why they need to see the whole story to be well reasoned I give up! From now on I’m going to fall back on some ancient words of wisdom… Mathew 7:6. ; )
Tina: “Maybe we should challenge government programs on the basis that its just too hard for some people to sign up for them…how many people fall through the cracks because they can’t get to the SS office?”
Are you suggesting that we eliminate ID requirements for welfare programs?
Jack, I apologize for the 4 year old crack, but refusing to engage with the other side’s arguments while tossing ad hom insults is immature. You still have not addressed the points made by Ginsberg or myself.
Will you explain to me why you think it’s a good idea to discourage hundreds of thousands of people from voting in order to solve the problem of in-person voter fraud–a problem that is less common than UFO sightings?
http://www.livescience.com/34058-ufo-sightings-3-615-times-common-voter-fraud.html
Chris I’m suggesting that the lefty ID argument is BS that is being used to demonize republicans and keep black people voting for Democrats.
Everyone in the US must do certain things to obtain a drivers license, buy a home, enroll a kid in school, apply for SS and other benefits. The ID requirement has never been considered a hardship for any of those things (and more) so there is no real reason to believe that the ID requirement would discourage citizens from voting if they want to vote.
Besides, the well oiled get out the vote machine on the left will see to it that everyone has ID.