Wisconsin court upholds voter ID law

[Texashiker]

I'm going to quote myself, see how many times you can miss the point entirely-

Except that a study by the government accountability office has proven you are WRONG

Both of yall are short term thinkers.

People who wish to vote will learn about the new laws and adjust their behaviors as such.

Just as someone has to go through a background check to buy a gun, so voters will have to get an id. There is no difference between the two.

 

[himkhan]

A conservative judge's devastating take on why voter ID laws are evil

http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...-id-laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html#page=1

"Posner's dissent in the Wisconsin voter ID case is especially telling, because he wrote the so-called Crawford decision in 2007 upholding Indiana's voter ID law, in which he was upheld by the Supreme Court. But he has since recanted. In a 2013 book, he accepted the view that such laws are properly regarded as "a means of voter suppression rather than fraud prevention." That's the view that informs his latest opinion."

Ho, hum, even the most ardent conservative judge, a card-carrying conservative who was appointed to the circuit bench by Ronald Reagan woke up.

"Posner's dissent in the Wisconsin voter ID case is especially telling, because he wrote the so-called Crawford decision in 2007 upholding Indiana's voter ID law, in which he was upheld by the Supreme Court. But he has since recanted. In a 2013 book, he accepted the view that such laws are properly regarded as "a means of voter suppression rather than fraud prevention." That's the view that informs his latest opinion."

So look at that, there is hope for you and your circle of bible thumping wing nuts who wish to disenfranchise as many legal votes as you can that you feel won't go to your "team".

Maybe one day you will grow up, too.


""There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud," he writes, "and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens." More specifically, he observes, photo ID laws are "highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks." In Wisconsin, according to evidence presented at trial, the voter ID law would disenfranchise 300,000 residents, or 9% of registered voters."

What a scathing indictment. Pathetic that anyone supports this. You will have to answer one day to your god and he ain't going to be pleased. Why is it you hate America so much and blacks in particular......... that's rhetorical. The answer is clear as glass.

 

[Bitek]

Both of yall are short term thinkers.

People who wish to vote will learn about the new laws and adjust their behaviors as such.

Just as someone has to go through a background check to buy a gun, so voters will have to get an id. There is no difference between the two.

By your reasoning: you have to register an address to vote, you have to register an address to get a job, therefore we should require you to register an address when you buy a gun.

Votes don't kill people, but guns do. The govt should know who has and where are all the guns. It's for safety. You'll get used to it. The only people objecting would be criminals who want to hide their weapon stashes away fom the law.

In fact, maybe you should have to have an id anytime you carry a gun so we know your address and can be sure you are not a criminal, as they hide by not having id. Else face confiscation.

Don't worry, your Rights aren't breached as you can appeal. Just provide the receipt for the gun, two forms of ID (*see approved list) and a notarized affidavit for ownership. Simply bring all this to your local office during normal govt hours, 10am to 2:30pm, M-Th, (excluding all holidays and govt shutdowns). 2-12 weeks later you can come back to pick up your guns.

All what the founding fathers wanted, because, they did.

 

[fskimospy]

A conservative judge's devastating take on why voter ID laws are evil

http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...-id-laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html#page=1

"Posner's dissent in the Wisconsin voter ID case is especially telling, because he wrote the so-called Crawford decision in 2007 upholding Indiana's voter ID law, in which he was upheld by the Supreme Court. But he has since recanted. In a 2013 book, he accepted the view that such laws are properly regarded as "a means of voter suppression rather than fraud prevention." That's the view that informs his latest opinion."

Ho, hum, even the most ardent conservative judge, a card-carrying conservative who was appointed to the circuit bench by Ronald Reagan woke up.

"Posner's dissent in the Wisconsin voter ID case is especially telling, because he wrote the so-called Crawford decision in 2007 upholding Indiana's voter ID law, in which he was upheld by the Supreme Court. But he has since recanted. In a 2013 book, he accepted the view that such laws are properly regarded as "a means of voter suppression rather than fraud prevention." That's the view that informs his latest opinion."

So look at that, there is hope for you and your circle of bible thumping wing nuts who wish to disenfranchise as many legal votes as you can that you feel won't go to your "team".

Maybe one day you will grow up, too.


""There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud," he writes, "and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens." More specifically, he observes, photo ID laws are "highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks." In Wisconsin, according to evidence presented at trial, the voter ID law would disenfranchise 300,000 residents, or 9% of registered voters."

What a scathing indictment. Pathetic that anyone supports this. You will have to answer one day to your god and he ain't going to be pleased. Why is it you hate America so much and blacks in particular......... that's rhetorical. The answer is clear as glass.

You will notice that nobody even tries to argue for them on the merits anymore, they always rely on vague platitudes.

People aren't stupid (well, people other than Texashiker), they know that these laws are nakedly partisan attempts to get rid of voters that oppose them. They simply don't care. Look at glenn1's responses. He seems well aware that his position is irrational, but he's happy about it happening because it "gets" those evil liberals. The fact that small government conservatives are just itching to use the power of government to attack their political enemies just serves to show how little their principles matter.

 

[Texashiker]

By your reasoning: you have to register an address to vote, you have to register an address to get a job, therefore we should require you to register an address when you buy a gun.

Votes don't kill people, but guns do. The govt should know who has and where are all the guns. It's for safety. You'll get used to it. The only people objecting would be criminals who want to hide their weapon stashes away fom the law.

You are grasping at straws as none of that matters.

Rights can be restricted, period.

Just as tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans were detained against their will during world war II, so can people be required to provide an id to vote.

Just as tens of thousands were forcibly sterilized against their will and without due process, so can people be required to show an id to vote.

Just as the government can seize tons of raisins every year for the past 6 decades without due process or compensation, so can people be forced to show an id.

Just as you can be forced to buy a product, you can be forced to provide an id.

What is it people such as yourself do not understand? Your rights can be restricted.

 

[fskimospy]

You are grasping at straws as none of that matters.

Rights can be restricted, period.

Just as tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans were detained against their will during world war II, so can people be required to provide an id to vote.

Just as tens of thousands were forcibly sterilized against their will and without due process, so can people be required to show an id to vote.

Just as the government can seize tons of raisins every year for the past 6 decades without due process or compensation, so can people be forced to show an id.

Just as you can be forced to buy a product, you can be forced to provide an id.

What is it people such as yourself do not understand? Your rights can be restricted.

Okay, so under your logic we can put anyone with a gun into an internment camp.

I'm glad we've cleared this up. I don't expect you to ever complain about another law ever. If you do, we'll just point you back to this post. Considering that all you do is whine about how oppressed you are, this was probably a big mistake.

 

[Texashiker]

I'm glad we've cleared this up. I don't expect you to ever complain about another law ever. If you do, we'll just point you back to this post. Considering that all you do is whine about how oppressed you are, this was probably a big mistake.

You are usually quick to defend government oppressing people. Such as your blind defense of the individual mandate of the aca.

Why can people be forced to purchase a product, but not provide id? You do not think people have to provide an id to buy health insurance? Not even a SS number?

 

[fskimospy]

You are usually quick to defend government oppressing people. Such as your blind defense of the individual mandate of the aca.

Why can people be forced to purchase a product, but not provide id? You do not think people have to provide an id to buy health insurance? Not even a SS number?

Well now we know that you're totally onboard with the ACA as well, so no more complaining about it. I'm so glad you've finally come around!

 

[Texashiker]

Well now we know that you're totally onboard with the ACA as well, so no more complaining about it. I'm so glad you've finally come around!

We are on opposite sides of the aca.

I support the corporate mandate, you support the individual mandate.

Why do you support the individual mandate, but not id to vote?

 

[fskimospy]

We are on opposite sides of the aca.

I support the corporate mandate, you support the individual mandate.

Why do you support the individual mandate, but not id to vote?

No, logically you can't be on the opposite sides of it considering your stance here.

It's too late, you have to pick one or the other. I'm excited to see which one you choose.

 

[Texashiker]

No, logically you can't be on the opposite sides of it considering your stance here.

It's too late, you have to pick one or the other. I'm excited to see which one you choose.

Not sure I understand your point?

That since I am in favor of voter id I should be in favor of the individual mandate?

Negative.

Dont most states provide a free state id?

The difference is the state forcing someone to spend money.

 

[ivwshane]

Not sure I understand your point?

That since I am in favor of voter id I should be in favor of the individual mandate?

Negative.

Dont most states provide a free state id?

The difference is the state forcing someone to spend money.

I don't think you could be any more clueless.

Is senility finally setting in for you?

 

[fskimospy]

Not sure I understand your point?

That since I am in favor of voter id I should be in favor of the individual mandate?

Negative.

Dont most states provide a free state id?

The difference is the state forcing someone to spend money.

No, you've said all these restrictions were permissible, therefore the individual mandate is permissible.

 

[Texashiker]

I don't think you could be any more clueless.

No, you've said all these restrictions were permissible, therefore the individual mandate is permissible.

Requiring a paid id is another form of poll tax. The id must be provided free of charge.

Like I said, the difference is requiring people to spend money.

 

[fskimospy]

Requiring a paid id is another form of poll tax. The id must be provided free of charge.

Like I said, the difference is requiring people to spend money.

Every argument you've made can be used equally well to say that the individual mandate is acceptable. While I think your logic is stupid, it's your own logic.

You apparently just aren't able to think through the logical conclusions of what you're saying.

 

[Texashiker]

Every argument you've made can be used equally well to say that the individual mandate is acceptable. While I think your logic is stupid, it's your own logic.

You apparently just aren't able to think through the logical conclusions of what you're saying.

Does the individual mandate force people to pay money to follow the law?

 

[fskimospy]

Does the individual mandate force people to pay money to follow the law?

You said internment camps were ok.

 

[Texashiker]

You said internment camps were ok.

I never I was ok with them.

However, the supreme court said internment camps are ok.

 

[fskimospy]

I never I was ok with them.

However, the supreme court said internment camps are ok.

Either you think it's a valid exercise of power or you don't. If you don't, you can't use it to justify voter ID.

 

[Texashiker]

Either you think it's a valid exercise of power or you don't. If you don't, you can't use it to justify voter ID.

The government can make you do something against your will and violates your rights.

I am applying to a local community college for some continuing education classes. How dare they ask for my SS number. I feel disenfranchised because I was forced to provide a form of id. Not did only did I have to provide my SS number, but I have to prove I am a resident of the state of Texas. Oh the horror of having to provide personal information so I can achieve a desired goal.

 

[fskimospy]

The government can make you do something against your will and violates your rights.

I am applying to a local community college for some continuing education classes. How dare they ask for my SS number. I feel disenfranchised because I was forced to provide a form of id. Not did only did I have to provide my SS number, but I have to prove I am a resident of the state of Texas. Oh the horror of having to provide personal information so I can achieve a desired goal.

Sounds like you made your choice. No more complaining about the individual mandate then.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You are grasping at straws as none of that matters.

Rights can be restricted, period.

Just as tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans were detained against their will during world war II, so can people be required to provide an id to vote.

Just as tens of thousands were forcibly sterilized against their will and without due process, so can people be required to show an id to vote.

Just as the government can seize tons of raisins every year for the past 6 decades without due process or compensation, so can people be forced to show an id.

Just as you can be forced to buy a product, you can be forced to provide an id.

What is it people such as yourself do not understand? Your rights can be restricted.

I thought your arguments in favor of voter ID couldn't get worse than "it would prevent some deadbeats from voting," but this new line of thinking really takes the cake. "This law was terrible and it was upheld, therefore voter ID is... umm... also terrible? But LEGAL! So you should support it."

 

[thraashman]

This entire thread has turned into Texashiker saying something stupid and everyone agreeing he's an idiot. Probably time to move along. Some people are simply too dysfunctional to teach.

 

[Texashiker]

This entire thread has turned into Texashiker saying something stupid and everyone agreeing he's an idiot. Probably time to move along. Some people are simply too dysfunctional to teach.

I have presented numerous examples of why voter id laws will be upheld.

If you want walk around with your fingers in your ears go right ahead.

I thought your arguments in favor of voter ID couldn't get worse than "it would prevent some deadbeats from voting," but this new line of thinking really takes the cake. "This law was terrible and it was upheld, therefore voter ID is... umm... also terrible? But LEGAL! So you should support it."

The supreme court does not have a history of upholding human rights.

If the government can,
force you to buy a product,
force you to have background check and id on gun purchases,
detain you without due process,
sterilize you without due process,
take your property (raisins case is working its way through the courts),
then the government can force you to get an id to vote.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The supreme court does not have a history of upholding human rights.

If the government can,
force you to buy a product,
force you to have background check and id on gun purchases,
detain you without due process,
sterilize you without due process,
take your property (raisins case is working its way through the courts),
then the government can force you to get an id to vote.

Do you not see how listing a whole bunch of Supreme Court decisions you disagree with as an argument in favor of a law you want undermines your argument? "Here are a whole bunch of mistakes the Supreme Court made; what's one more?"