Wisconsin court upholds voter ID law

[glenn1]

so you're admitting you can't.

Gotcha.

I'm admitting there is no way I could convince you. Like the Obamacare debate there's absolutely nothing which would persuade the other side so it comes down to an exercise of raw power.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm admitting there is no way I could convince you. Like the Obamacare debate there's absolutely nothing which would persuade the other side so it comes down to an exercise of raw power.

Nice try at the false equivalency. The side dismissing in-person voter fraud has evidence. You don't.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

He's really just asking for some links to lay some validity to the claim of voter fraud. If it was so rampant as you say, I'd assume there'd be links everywhere.

 

[glenn1]

Nice try at the false equivalency. The side dismissing in-person voter fraud has evidence. You don't.

We have SCOTUS on our side and you don't; really nothing else said or done matters. Take comfort in the certainty of your opinion as your side continues to lose. Maybe you can work on changing the minds of the 78% of Americans who disagree with you.

 

[Paratus]

I'm admitting there is no way I could convince you. Like the Obamacare debate there's absolutely nothing which would persuade the other side so it comes down to an exercise of raw power.

So do you have information that supports your position and you won't share it because your convinced it's a waste of time to try and change our minds.

Or do you not even have information that supports your position?

 

[fskimospy]

We have SCOTUS on our side and you don't; really nothing else said or done matters. Take comfort in the certainty of your opinion as your side continues to lose. Maybe you can work on changing the minds of the 78% of Americans who disagree with you.

It's kind of funny that you're basically coming right out and admitting that you're being irrational. Hey man, if that works for you that's great, but it's a pretty weird thing to do.

Makes you wonder how many other issues you're totally irrational about, doesn't it?

 

[Texashiker]

It's kind of funny that you're basically coming right out and admitting that you're being irrational. Hey man, if that works for you that's great, but it's a pretty weird thing to do.

Makes you wonder how many other issues you're totally irrational about, doesn't it?

Just like with the gun debate, rights can be limited and restricted.

Let's say the supreme court strikes down id requirements to vote. This opens the door to striking down id requirements and background checks for buying a firearm.

Striking down the voter id laws would also open the door to strike down all requirements to carry a firearm. No more concealed carry permits. If you want to carry a gun, that is your right.

 

[fskimospy]

Just like with the gun debate, rights can be limited and restricted.

Let's say the supreme court strikes down id requirements to vote. This opens the door to striking down id requirements and background checks for buying a firearm.

Striking down the voter id laws would also open the door to strike down all requirements to carry a firearm. No more concealed carry permits. If you want to carry a gun, that is your right.

No it wouldn't.

 

[theeedude]

Aren't Republicans the biggest opponents of a federal ID?

 

[Victorian Gray]

My logic, if you want something you have to work for it.

Liberal logic, if you want something, complain until someone gives it to you.

Pretty much what you do with every thread you start/participate in here. :thumbsup:

 

[Meghan54]

Just like with the gun debate, rights can be limited and restricted.

Let's say the supreme court strikes down id requirements to vote. This opens the door to striking down id requirements and background checks for buying a firearm.

Striking down the voter id laws would also open the door to strike down all requirements to carry a firearm. No more concealed carry permits. If you want to carry a gun, that is your right.

Well, wouldn't that be a conservative's wet dream?

After all, I distinctly remember the conservatives squalling like babies that had their lollipops taken away when the Brady Bill was passed and doing the same with any other notion of further restricting gun sales in any fashion. Just try talking about introducing ID requirements and instant checks at gun shows.....listen to the crying that starts.

So, if what you propose is the "natural" slippery slope, why do you oppose it? I'd think the conservatives would be all over it. You know, the "guns for all and smaller government" schtick that conservatives trot out all the time?

 

[Jhhnn]

At this point I don't care. SCOTUS has previously ruled Voter ID laws as constitutional in Indiana and will uphold them everywhere else too. Welcome to the Roe v. Wade world where judicial fiat dismisses your minority concerns out of hand and you have no recourse. At least you can continue to enjoy your fraud in blue states.

I had no idea that Roe vs Wade inconvenienced you at all. Or anybody, for that matter. It's not like you had to prove your identity so that women could exercise choice wrt their own bodies, is it?

Or is it just any duh-version in a storm?

 

[Meghan54]

We have SCOTUS on our side and you don't;

That still doesn't address the complete lack of evidence about voter fraud. One would think you'd be more than happy to back up your squalling about voter fraud with ANY sort of factual information. But you don't.....or can't.

So, you just enjoy your complete intellectual dishonesty, eh? (If the words are too big, I'm sure someone can explain them for you in mono-syllabic form.)

 

[soccerballtux]

Based on numbers that even Republicans agree with, it is estimated that the voter id laws will stop approximately 1 fraudulent vote per 50k-250k legal voters is disenfranchises. Yeah, sure, justice is the word for that ... assuming you also would refer to letting a woman choose to be raped or murdered as "women's rights".

well, sounds like it won't do any harm then

 

[theeedude]

It's funny how the small government Republicans are first in line to support the ability of the government to deny people their right to vote and keep the government accountable.

 

[Texashiker]

No it wouldn't.

Sure it would.

The Roberts supreme court has been pretty consistent in its rulings, especially when it comes to rights. The government can establish standards for the exercising of rights.

If the government can force you to buy a product, then the government can force you to provide an id to vote.

So, if what you propose is the "natural" slippery slope, why do you oppose it? I'd think the conservatives would be all over it. You know, the "guns for all and smaller government" schtick that conservatives trot out all the time?

Lets abolish any and all requirements for the exercising of our rights.

That is what liberals are saying, right? There should be no burden when exercising our rights. Well then, lets start with gun rights.

It's funny how the small government Republicans are first in line to support the ability of the government to deny people their right to vote and keep the government accountable.

Nobody is being denied the right to vote.


Requiring an id to vote is the same standard as exercising your right to buy a firearm. Personally, I would like to see a background check and photo id before someone can vote.

 

[glenn1]

So do you have information that supports your position and you won't share it because your convinced it's a waste of time to try and change our minds.

Or do you not even have information that supports your position?

When you become a SCOTUS judge I'll care about your opinion. Until then you might want to ponder why you're on the losing side of this issue and how to convince the other 80% of the population who thinks you're wrong.

 

[lopri]

If the government can force you to buy a product, then the government can force you to provide an id to vote.

Incorrect. Government can force you to buy a product but it should not infringe on fundamental rights. Thus, the government can force you to buy broccoli but cannot force you to eat (infringement on due process); the government can force you to buy wheat but not not Quoran/Bible (infringement on Religious freedom); the government can force you to serve jury but cannot force you to testify against yourself (infringement on the 5th amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination), etc.

Ultimately, however, if we do not like the government forcing us to pay for something we can vote them out of the office.

As to the government's ability to make you pay for your vote:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

That's the 24th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

 

[Texashiker]

Incorrect. Government can force you to buy a product but it should not infringe on fundamental rights.

Is gun ownership a fundamental right?

Is working a fundamental right?

Both require some form of id.

 

[lopri]

I can answer those questions but I don't see the relevance in a thread discussing voting rights.

 

[lopri]

Back on topic, in order for someone to commit in-person voter fraud she or he would have to;

(1) know of an existing registered voter,
(2) gain possession of that person’s voter registration certificate or some other documentation of name and residence,
(3) precede that person to the polls,
(4) elude recognition as either who they actually are or as not being who they pretend to be, and
(5) hope that the actual voter does not appear at the polls later to cast her or his own ballot.

I would love to see success rate.

 

[Paratus]

When you become a SCOTUS judge I'll care about your opinion. Until then you might want to ponder why you're on the losing side of this issue and how to convince the other 80% of the population who thinks you're wrong.

Interesting question.

From the Washington Post:

It looks like just over half the respondents had heard little or nothing about the issue.

49% thought voter fraud was a major issue, while 44% thought that voter suppression was the major issue.

So low information voters were polled and the question basically justs asks whether voters should provide photo ID to prevent fraud. No comparison to the efficacy of the current version, no mention of the cost. I'm surprised it wasn't higher.

Nope I'm comfortable with my position and the support its built on.

Thanks for asking.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Interesting question.

From the Washington Post:

It looks like just over half the respondents had heard little or nothing about the issue.

49% thought voter fraud was a major issue, while 44% thought that voter suppression was the major issue.

So low information voters were polled and the question basically justs asks whether voters should provide photo ID to prevent fraud. No comparison to the efficacy of the current version, no mention of the cost. I'm surprised it wasn't hire.

Nope I'm comfortable with my position and the support its built on.

Thanks for asking.

Yup. They don't take the time to ensure people know the facts about voter fraud first. Nor do they inform them of what actual IDs are accepted, the numbers related to those impacted etc...

In the Texas ruling this was specifically addressed after the Defendants referenced opinion polling and it was summarily dismissed.

 

[Texashiker]

I can answer those questions but I don't see the relevance in a thread discussing voting rights.

Relevance is rights can be restricted.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Relevance is rights can be restricted.

Not arbitrarily. The state must demonstrate a compelling reason for such a restriction/burden. In the case of voting rights it's known as the Anderson/Burdick balancing test.