What is to be done? ... there's a phrase.
Hundt goes on:
Congress can launch legislative remedies against much, although not all, of what this Court does. It also can expand access to courts, use the Senate confirmation process to challenge anti-progressive nominations, couple judicial salaries with retirement so as to encourage a new and young generation of law professors to go to the bench.What got into him? Apparently, he's exercised over the voter ID case, which was argued in the Supreme Court this week. Predictions are that the Court won't stop Indiana from requiring a photo ID. (Yes, I know it's a dispute between two political parties, but Indiana made its choice, and it's not unconstitutional.)
Mostly, Congress can rise to the challenge posed by this Supreme Court to the American Dream. In an age of rising inequality and irresponsible governance, it is critical that Congress not tolerate the Court's roadblocks to progress.
Meanwhile, over on Andrew Sullivan's blog, we see a "Dissent of the Day" from a reader who won't vote for Obama because Obama voted against the confirmation of John Roberts, who was "clearly an outstanding candidate, perhaps one of the best ever nominated."
This makes me look back to what I said at the time of the confirmation:
As to those 22 Democrats who voted no, they have openly embraced an ideological view of the Court from which they can never credibly step back. For them, appointing Supreme Court Justices is a processes of trying to lock outcomes in place, and we shouldn't believe them if in the future they try to say otherwise.
[In my comments persona] Roberts is ... stunningly, brilliantly qualified. You can't vote against what he is without permanently branding yourself an ideologue who does not respect judicial independence. I'm disgusted with all 22 of those characters. They have abused their constitutional power, and I won't forget it when they run for President.
ADDED: Here's a letter the NYT published about the case (from one Mark Kraemer):
That the court would even consider validating these new, onerous voter ID rules exposes the hypocrisy of the Supreme Court today (whatever happened to “judicial restraint”?). It also illustrates that Republican partisanship has infested our legal system at its highest levels. Our nation must act in the next election to fight this corruption of our judiciary.Whatever happened to judicial restraint?! (And I know why you put it in quotes. You think it's a smokescreen for conservative decisions.) Judicial restraint is about leaving the results of the political process in place, which is exactly what would happen if the Court declined to strike down the state law. So where's the hypocrisy? Corruption? What on earth are you talking about, and why does the NYT publish drivel like that?
Posts
148 comments:
You'd only need a progressive court if you couldn't get a majority of the voters on your side.
Why not get rid of the uncooperative voters?
It's a serious problem to Hundt because the Left usually depends on the courts to advance their agenda when the voters reject it. There are just too many uncooperative voters to get rid of. For the moment.
You'd only need a progressive court if you couldn't get a majority of the voters on your side.
Well, yeah. I'd wager the bulk of the progressives' accomplishments in the last few decades have been foisted on the public by judicial mandate. Hundt's argument reeks of desperate political turf protection.
Blarg.
That's a very good reason not to vote for Obama.
Brilliant, Stunning qualifications.
Sounds like Bork.
rcocean: Brilliant, Stunning qualifications.
Sounds like Bork.
OK, I know I'm gonna regret this, but...
What was wrong with Bork?
"I'm disgusted with all 22 of those characters. They have abused their constitutional power, and I won't forget it when they run for President."
Not that any persona needs to be reminded,
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
The problem is that Hundt doesn't comprehend that the only "road blocks" the court can throw up are the ones already found in the Constitution and in the statute book. So, Ledbetter, for example: the "roadblock" to progress there was the choice Congress had made in limiting the filing period. Nearly a year later, we see that despite a flurry of sound and fury among Congressional Democrats when the case was decided, Congress has not passed a bill amending Title VII. In Carhart (and as in Crawford, the voter ID case), what Hundt et al are moaning about is precisley that the court won't be a roadblock - a year after Carhart, has Congress passed a bill repealing FPBAA? Has anyone brought a lawsuit pointint out that there is, at least arguably, a road block to that "anti-progressive" bill, namely the limits of the commerce clause? And as to the Indiana law, if it doesn't work or is so "odious" it can be repealed or amended. The argument that it's unconstitutional is triffling in all events, but certainly in the context of a facial challenge, the idea that the Salerno standard is satisfied is laughable.
Liberals' real complaint with the court is that it won't find unconstitutional such constitutional legislation as they don't like, won't sustain such unconstitutional legislation as they do like, and keeps insisting on applying the statutes Congress actually passed instead of the statutes that some members would have preferred to pass were it not for the pesky need to make compromises to secure passage (cf. nn.1-3 of my post here).
The first Chief Justice of the United States was as we all know John Jay, the lawyer and diplomat from New York City. He was selected as a compromise candidate since the Federalist thought they could control him. Although he had a distinguished career as the President of Continental Congress and negotiator of the treaty that ended the revolution, certain documents had come into the possession of Alexander Hamilton and Charles Pinckney. Chief Justice Jay was known as a staunch abolitionist before the movement had even really started, and was responsible for the first emancipation legislation that he introduced in 1777. He eventually had slavery abolished in New York State in 1799 during his term as governor of New York State. However these accomplishments have been forgotten. He is just another dead white male racist founding father and his portrait was removed from Brooklyn Borough Hall. He is now principally know as the guy the chock full of illegal immigrant Park Slope High School is named after and as the subway stop where you change from the A train to the F train.
Ann Althouse said: Indiana made its choice, and it's not unconstitutional.
Not unconstitutional!? Wow.
See, it is because of posts like this one that I like reading the Althouse blog. I learn stuff. I'm forced to think about things in a way I might not otherwise.
My bias, as a liberal Democrat, would have been to believe that the Indiana law was, in fact, unconstitutional. But now that I think about it, there really isn't anything in the Constitution that protects the "right" to vote without providing ID, is there?
In my opinion, Indiana's motive is to hold down Democratic votes to rig elections in favor of Republicans. But from what I gather, that's the right! It's surprising, to me at least, that they could get away with this.
But denying women the right to vote wasn't unconstitutional, either, was it? As long as people wanted to limit the right to vote to men, there was no constitutional basis for a challenge, was there?
Am I understanding this correctly? Or were laws limiting the right to vote to men constitutional prior to the Nineteenth Amendment?
Please don't mock me for my ignorance of the law. I'm a computer guy. If you need to set up a network or design an interface to a database, give me a call. The law? I know nothing. But I'm still interested, and would like to learn whatever I can from the sidelines.
I think a lot of lay people like me confuse a sense of right and wrong with constitutional and unconstitutional. On it's face, it just seems wrong that Indiana would try to rig elections in favor of their own party. What I am beginning to grasp is that a lot of things that are plainly wrong are still constitutional.
I've already gone on too long, and I apologize, but I have one other thought I'd like to expand upon: I think a lot of liberal readers of Althouse might mistakenly think that Ann endorses the Indiana law. But in fact, there is no evidence of that in her post, is there? Just because she points out there there is no constitutional right to vote without providing ID doesn't mean she supports Indiana's disenfranchising legislation. Speaking for myself, I harbor some hope that if Ann served in the Indiana State Legislature, she would have voted AGAINST this law.
I'd be happy to hear from folks about whether any of my observations or points above are in error.
Yes, Meade, what of HRC, when our hostess says she'll remember when they run for President yet, to date, the only candidate she's suggested she would vote for, in fact, voted down Roberts?
Since "progressivism" usually desires un-Constitutional outcomes, I am glad that the court is the enemy of it.
I do not understand some of these people. There are only two sides- progressives and the hated enemy. It is the moral equivalent of racism. Prgressives are good and saintly the rest are to be hated. There goes balance right out the window.
I guess we are no longer the great melting pot that allows ideas from all sides; sorry, only progressives are allowed. The rest of you do not count.
Judicial temperment, intellectual capacity, knowledge and application of the law do not count. A neophyte progressive out of law school is better suited than an experienced judge or attorney.
Soon there will only be one party, the progressive party and we will all be enslaved by their insipid nonsense.
Several people are noticing that giving women the right to vote wasn't a good idea. Boortz for example.
The idea that requiring proof of citizenship is a disenfrachisement of the voter, when one has to have ID for any other legal transaction as a citizen, is the arguement that is ridiculous. The arguement is also backwards. Not requiring proof of eligibility to vote is an invitation for voter fraud by non-citizens and falsification of ballots, both regular and absentee.
The fattest Chief Justice was we all know William Howard Taft. After a long and distinguished career which included serving as the 27th president of the United States, he served as the tenth Chief Justice. The major problem with his tenure was in obtaining furniture that could contain his massive girth. He broke so many chairs and benches that the General Services Administration was forced to sue him for recompense. He lost the landmark case of Taft vs. Ethan Allen and was forced to pay for the splintered seating. He resigned in protest and eventually died from grief in 1930.
All this kvetching over someone showing id when they vote?
WTF!
What's wrong with that?
All this kvetching over someone showing id when they vote? [...] What's wrong with that?
From what I understand, it will reduce Democratic votes by about 5%. I don't know how valid this concern is, but it's what I've heard. I think the law is clearly designed to tilt elections in favor of Republicans. There isn't any evidence that I'm aware of of widespread Democratic vote fraud that this law allegedly is intended to fix. That's just the excuse -- the cover provided to mask the real purpose of the law. I mean, Republicans aren't going to just come out and say "we're doing this to rig future elections." So they make up a bunch of concerns without foundation. My understanding is that the Bush Administration invested a lot of time, money, and energy in attempting to unearth widespread Democratic voter fraud, and they came up with nothing. The law purports to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Anyone who has ever raised children knows that the human tendency is to give you the BEST reason to justify behavior, not the TRUE reason. Often, the best reason is also untrue.
What I am beginning to grasp is that a lot of things that are plainly wrong are still constitutional.
Yes, and a lot of things you think are plainly wrong are not, in fact, plainly wrong. The Constitution lets us make that determination democratically.
From what I understand, it will reduce Democratic votes by about 5%. I don't know how valid this concern is, but it's what I've heard.
So you base your argument here on evidence whose validity you can't vouch for?
Still and all: The big takeaway for me is learning that if Indian wants to rig elections in favor of Republicans, they can do so constitutionally.
I think Americans have romanticized the US Constitution to a point where they think it should be some kind of magic shield protecting them from all unfairness, injustice, and unpleasantness. So when they hear Indiana has come up with a nifty new plan to help elect more Republicans, they assume it must be wrong. But a law can be "wrong" and "constitutional" at the same time.
It's all so fascinating.
Blake said...
"Yes, Meade, what of HRC, when our hostess says she'll remember when they run for President yet, to date, the only candidate she's suggested she would vote for, in fact, voted down Roberts?"
Elections are always about who the other candidate is, Blake... She said she'd "remember" not vote against anyone who voted against Roberts.
Verso said...
"My bias, as a liberal Democrat, would have been to believe that the Indiana law was, in fact, unconstitutional. But now that I think about it, there really isn't anything in the Constitution that protects the 'right' to vote without providing ID, is there?"
The right to vote has been held to be sufficiently fundamental as to be accorded Constitutional protection even absent explicit text, but states can't impose a substantial burden on that right. The problem for the opponents of Indiana's voter ID law (this doesn't necessarily apply to other similar laws) is precisely that they cannot meet the "substantial burden" test because the requirement is so plainly an incidental burden.
"In my opinion, Indiana's motive is to hold down Democratic votes to rig elections in favor of Republicans."
Well, that's what Judge Evans' dissent said below, and it's what Justice Breyer's dissent's going to say, and it's the standard Dem line, but it's a conceit. There's valid reasons to enact the law, and while Justice Ginsburg's correct that there are other ways to achieve the same goal, that doesn't make this particular method invalid (at least in a constitutional sense).
"But denying women the right to vote wasn't unconstitutional, either, was it? As long as people wanted to limit the right to vote to men, there was no constitutional basis for a challenge, was there?"
It seems unbearably condescending to point this out, and I don't mean to do so but it has to be said: if it had been unconstitutional to deny women the right to vote prior to the Nineteenth Amendment, there would have been no need to have a Nineteenth Amendment. It would be like enacting a Constitutional amendment today giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
"I think a lot of lay people like me confuse a sense of right and wrong with constitutional and unconstitutional. ... What I am beginning to grasp is that a lot of things that are plainly wrong are still constitutional."
I think that's exactly right - and don't let anyone tell you that it's a problem only suffered by liberals. Conservatives often have exactly the same problem - I've met people who insist that the Constitution not only permits the states to prohibit abortion, it requires them to prohibit it (or consider the federal ban on partial birth abortion; it's one thing for Ann to say that the commerce clause supports it, it's quite another for people who would think of themselves as legal conservatives to think it does).
So you base your argument here on evidence whose validity you can't vouch for?
Congratulations, you can read. I've been quite clear about the limits of my expertise and knowledge. If it makes you feel better to highlight it, I encourage you to do so. My self-esteem will not be affected one way or the other. I'm just trying to have a conversation with people, trying to learn something if I can, and I am making no pretense of having all the answers. I should think you would prefer talking to someone honest about his limitations than a blowhard who acts like he has all the answers.
OT - Talk about emabarassing!
WARSAW (Reuters) - A Polish man got the shock of his life when he visited a brothel and spotted his wife among the establishment's employees.
Polish tabloid Super Express said the woman had been making some extra money on the side while telling her husband she worked at a store in a nearby town.
"I was dumfounded. I thought I was dreaming," the husband told the newspaper on Wednesday.
The couple, married for 14 years, are now divorcing, the newspaper reported.
Rumors are the couple spent several minutes arguing who didn't have a right to be in the brothel, who was the worst slut, skank, tramp,rutting male, unfaithful partner.
Moral of the story?
Pick a whorehouse you know your spouse will shun. Or, have Poland adopt the French style - where mistresses are fairly open knowledge, not rubbed in the face of the spouse, and all parties involved agree it is not really prostitution or sneaking around.
Although William Howard Taft had consumed fast quantities of food during his tenure as a Justice of the Supreme Court, he was in fact an indifferent chef. The justice with the reputation as the best gourmet chef was of course Salmon Portland Chase for his croquettes of the same name. His reputation as a sous chef is only exceeded by the legendary grilling prowess of Justices Berger and Frankfurter.
Verso, I frankly think the 5% number is poppycock, but of course I have as much evidence as you do to support that belief. However, even if I grant it for a moment, it is almost certainly a number that assumes everything else stays the same---including the nature of the Democrat party's GOTV strategy. If the Democrats find out that 5% of their voters don't have the necessary identification to vote properly, guess what? They shift funds to efforts to facilitate those 5% obtaining identification.
Verso, I'm not trying to knock your self-esteem. Let me be clear, I was genuinely impressed with the intellectual transparency of your first post. But I do object to your claim that the voter ID law is plainly wrong when your evidence to support that belief is so flimsy. Yes, it might seem to be wrong to you, but it cannot possibly be "plainly" wrong, because you don't have the proof.
And that is really my central point. The reason why it is important that so many things you think are wrong aren't unconstitutional is that no one person, or no 12 people, can be so darn sure of what's wrong.
Verso said:
Am I understanding this correctly? Or were laws limiting the right to vote to men constitutional prior to the Nineteenth Amendment?
Yes they were. The SCOTUS did not enact the 19th Amendment, the Legislature did. Slavery was constutional too. It was upoheld several times by the court. It took a legislature to change it.
The legislature represents the people and their will.
The people of Indiana spoke. Their legislators listened. If you progressives do not like it, move to Indiana, establsish residency, and change things yourself.
Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe someone changed and revised the way our government works.
Just because you do not like something does not make it unconstitutional.
Simon said, The problem for the opponents of Indiana's voter ID law (this doesn't necessarily apply to other similar laws) is precisely that they cannot meet the "substantial burden" test because the requirement is so plainly an incidental burden.
Ah, that is quite interesting. I was unaware of the "substantial burden" concept, but now that you've mentioned it, I have heard that term bandied about.
It seems unbearably condescending to point this out, and I don't mean to do so but it has to be said: if it had been unconstitutional to deny women the right to vote prior to the Nineteenth Amendment, there would have been no need to have a Nineteenth Amendment.
No, that's not condescending at all -- in fact, by stating is so directly and plainly, you've made the point explicit in a way that will prevent confusion. I think the analogy to the 19th Amendment demonstrates in a way that even someone like me can understand that laws can be abominable and yet constitutional. It's a critical point. As I said elsewhere, and now I am beginning to repeat myself so I apologize, a lot of people want to think of the US Constitution as a magical shield that protects them from anything nefarious. But in fact, it has permitted an awful lot of bad things since the very beginning.
Simon -- Thank you for the new information and the friendly response.
Verso said...
"Still and all: The big takeaway for me is learning that if Indian wants to rig elections in favor of Republicans"
This makes me think of Justice Scalia's WRTL concurrence. There, Our Hero observed: "There is wondrous irony to be found in both the genesis and the consequences of BCRA. ... [T]he institutions it was designed to muzzle — unions and nearly all manner of corporations — for all the 'corrosive and distorting effects' of their 'immense aggregations of wealth,' were utterly impotent to prevent the passage of this legislation that forbids them to criticize candidates (including incumbents)." Likewise, you say that the voter ID law was enacted to rig elections for the GOP, yet last fall, in an electoin requiring ID, the GOP ceded three seats in the U.S. House (the 2d, 8th and 9th districts) and three seats in the Indiana House.
However, even if I grant it for a moment, it is almost certainly a number that assumes everything else stays the same---including the nature of the Democrat party's GOTV strategy. If the Democrats find out that 5% of their voters don't have the necessary identification to vote properly, guess what? They shift funds to efforts to facilitate those 5% obtaining identification.
That is an excellent point: The Democrats could spend some money to try to mitigate the effects of this law.
As for whether 5% is a valid number or not, I acknowledge I have no proof of this. But I personally feel it would not be helpful for me to get sidetracked on this point, or on the question of the motive of Indiana Republicans in passing the legislation. Because what I am learning here is that the motive of Indiana's Republicans legislature is irrelevant. Whatever their reason, it is their right to constrain and limit the franchise in any way they desire as long as it doesn't violate the existing text of the Constitution. (I'm trying really hard to avoid making any assertions I'm not qualified to make, but everything above sounds right to me; let me know if it's not.)
paulsnively said
What was wrong with Bork?
7:09 PM
Absolutely nothing. He had a brilliant legal mind. Oh, there was one thing wrong with him. He was not liked or popular.
Verso said:
There isn't any evidence that I'm aware of of widespread Democratic vote fraud that this law allegedly is intended to fix.
You don't live in Chicago. There are other areas as well. Just because no one gets caught, does not mean it does not exist.
Need I remind you of that great, oh so progressive group called ACORN.
Let me see? What were some of their members convicted of again? Something about elections. Oh, yes, VOTE FRAUD.
There has long been a dispute as to who is the stupidest Supreme Court Justice. Joseph Philo Bradley was called the moron justice behind his back and Thurgood Marshal was not noted for his scholarship. Chief Justice Warren Burger was considered a some what dim bulb and no one could tell if Frank Murphy was drunk all the time or just really stupid. But the consensus opinion of most legal scholars is that Tom C. Clark was the dumbest jurist in the history of the Supreme Court. Harry Truman often said that his one regret was not frying millions of Orientals but rather his appointment of this cretin to the court. Luckily, his family was independently wealthy as his grand father had invented the candy bar that bore his name.
Middle Class Guy:
Of course the Progressives are the best and everyone else is the enemy. Progressives are, like, for progress donchyaknow... Everyone else is against progress!
/sarcasm
verso said
I think Americans have romanticized the US Constitution to a point where they think it should be some kind of magic shield protecting them from all unfairness, injustice, and unpleasantness.
Verso, the Constitution is a shield protecting us from unfairness and injustice. It does not protect us from unpleasantness. If it did, you and I would not have a platform to express our unpleasant opinions.
Evidently you are reading some other constitution, not the US one.
Verso said...
"Ah, that is quite interesting. I was unaware of the "substantial burden" concept, but now that you've mentioned it, I have heard that term bandied about."
You'll hear it in the abortion context too, and if I was a betting man, I'd suggest we're about to see something very similar (possibly by the same ame) in Heller, the D.C. gun case. So in the abortion context, in Casey the deal was that states do have, to a certain extent, a legitimate right to regulate abortion, but that has to be balanced against the constitutional right of the woman to abort her child, so the state can regulate but only if it doesn't impose an undue buden.
Likewise, as I suggested here, in the Second Amendment context, the Second Amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn't say anything that would stop government requiring registration, for example, or prohibiting convicted felons on probation from owning firearms. (Proponents of broad gun rights will say that the problem with voter ID laws is that such laws gives a government a handy-dandy list of whose door to go and kick down when the revolution comes, which is a valid concern if you're willing to accept that there are penumbras and emanations from the second amendment, but I think that gives away more than most gun rights enthusiasts are willing to give away, since (as some readers will know but you may not) that precise language was - in a case called Griswold v. Connecticut - the progenitor of the "right to privacy" doctrine that spawned Roe, Lawrence and so forth).
And likewise with the right to vote (assuming for the moment, as I did in discussing Casey, that I agree with the cases establishing it). Assuming the Constitution does protect it, it should be obvious that government has to be able to impose some regulations on the process of voting that might make it harder for some people to vote, but without which elections would be impossible. Voter ID laws impose an inconvenience on people who want to vote, but so too do laws requiring you to register to vote before polling day, laws limiting who can have a postal ballot, etc. The question isn't whether it imposes any burden, the question is whether it's an incidental burden outweighed by a legitimate state interest, or in the alternative, if it's a compelling state interest, if it's insubstantial enough weighed against the state interest.
What on earth are you talking about, and why does the NYT publish drivel like that?
I don't know. Their coverage of legal issues really fell off since this one really awful op-ed about Judge Taylor's decision in the FISA case. I mean that was the worst but there's been bad stuff since.
Ann said:
"Why does the NYT publish drivel like that?"
Coming from you Ann, one its most faithful readers who seldom criticizes the NYT, I LOL.
Verso said...
"No, that's not condescending at all -- in fact, by stating is so directly and plainly, you've made the point explicit in a way that will prevent confusion. I think the analogy to the 19th Amendment demonstrates in a way that even someone like me can understand that laws can be abominable and yet constitutional. It's a critical point.
Good. :) And that's the problem, by the way, with "law as morality" (or "conlaw as morality") - people legitimately have different opinions on what's an abominable law. I think it's abominable that the federal government has no power to ban partial-birth abortion, but unless I'm willing to make a radical departure from my understanding of the Constitution, I have to concede that it doesn't have that power. Likewise, you might think that's an abominable law, but what makes it unconstitutional (if indeed it is) isn't that it's abominable - it's that it it conficts with the limits on government that society has previously consented to in enacting and amending the Constitution. The problem with saying that the Supreme Court should always rule for the little guy, or should do justice without regard to law, or should strike down "abominable" laws is that in doing so, one turns the federal judiciary into this.
"As I said elsewhere, and now I am beginning to repeat myself so I apologize, a lot of people want to think of the US Constitution as a magical shield that protects them from anything nefarious. But in fact, it has permitted an awful lot of bad things since the very beginning."
Well, it protects from an awful lot. But what it doesn't do - much to Ron Paul's frustration, I'm sure - is micromanage the structure of government, and it isn't a substitute for democratic participation. The legitimate role for a constitution, in the abstract, is to set up processes allowing people to govern themseves, and to except from the democratic process those things that are really fundamental which government is likely to do and which can't easily be policed through the usual process. Countermajoritarian devices such as limits on criminal process, for example, are the legitimate realm of a constitution, because the majority is likely to be swayed by convenience in dealing with criminals - hence, in countries without such protections, England has recently limited the use of jury trials, to my understanding, because juries are inefficient, and America is the only country to enforce an exclusionary rule for tainted evidence.
Trooper - you should watch this speech by the Chief Justice where he discusses (inter alia) who was the least significant Justice in the history of the Supreme Court (it's Justice Duvall, for those who can't stand the suspense).
With between 12 and 20 million illegals running around, one would think it reasonable to prove you are the name on the registration list so that they cannot vote. Since we know that there have been votes cast by dead people, non citizens, etc., what is wrong with assuring it does not happen again? I read a quote once about what distinguishes liberalism and conservatism: Conservatism involves attention on the process while liberalism involves attention to the outcome. The folks in Indiana want a fair election, the Dems want only to win, fair or not
Good evening fellow republicans and lovers of the Bush Doctrine.
I just had a fabulous dinner with my fabulous friends and now I am stopping at my fabulous loft to put together a fabulous outfit for a fabulous night of dancing to fabulous music.
I want an althouse vlog in her althouse birthday suit with sparklers by her nips. That would be fabulous.
I had my back waxed today. Had my hair colored, cut, my facial, my yoga class and I am ready for some very exotic hog tonight.
I can feel the electricity around me. The waiters were looking at me at dindin, other tables notices my fabulousness and one of the bread boys showed me his hog in the loo. I am ready. Tonight, is going to be spectacular.
I will email all of you tomorrow and perhaps will let my trick send an additional email-I am that confident.
Go Pats!
Paul Snively said...OK, I know I'm gonna regret this, but...
What was wrong with Bork?
He was nowhere near as handsome and personable as John Roberts.
The confirmation hearings didn't grade the man's mind, they graded his presence. He looked old, ugly, scary and mean. An especially bad combination when you are a conservative.
Spectabulous!
Anyone question why Democrats don't want to require voters to show IDs? Who can function in this society without an ID? Which scenario is more likely to produce more voter fraud...requiring indentification or not requiring it? It looks suspiciously like the Democrats benefit from laws that allow for more fraud. Some may find it contemptable that laws enacted to reduce fraud benefit the opposition party, but what does that say about their party?
My hog was completely waxed today also. It is shiney, large and hard.
Tonight I am looking for something dark-which is usually what I desire. Trinida Dobago-might be of interest. Also, French blacks.
Muslim would be hot if he asks me to put on a suicide vest while I fuck him. I don't care for americanized musies though-I want the guilty, religious ones who feel bad about doing the dirty with another man.
Italian, sure-why not? Spanish-of course, as if I haven't had plenty of uncut hog-it is practically an incense smell in my loft.
Wish me luck fellow republicans.
Yes, I know it's a dispute between two political parties, but Indiana made its choice, and it's not unconstitutional
This is simply a poll tax, which IS unconstitutional last time I checked.
And we certainly no longer live in a democracy, when poor people are being disenfranchised. That's why I've left this shitty country.
I would also consider Indian or Paki but generally they have very long skin around their uncut hogs. I don't want to work with all that skin tonight. It can be a hastle.
I would consider an African American but that generally tends to be a fight for the top and I am not up for that tonight.
I live in Virginia. In order to vote here (and I understand in 22 other states) I produce my drivers license and demonstrate that I am the Drill SGT that lives on XXXX street. I don't see any huge disaster and disenfranchisement I still get a democratic crook for a Congressman (Moran) and a Democratic Governor (Kaine).
Obviously the plan by the VRFC has failed here.
Also sometimes the Paki or Indian hogs can smell. When you peel back the foreskin cheese generally falls out and it smells like tabouli.
The cheese can also smell like ass-not exactly an appetizing smell.
Who can function in this society without an ID?
Paul, you hit the nail on the head. You need an ID to do just about everything. This is the essence of the argument. There will be no burden, no disenfranchisement, no hardship on anyone.
There are few citizens who have no ID- maybe some of the homeless. The only people who will have a burden here are those not entitled to vote.
The alleged five percent or any other small number who may be disenfranchised are probably people who have no right to vote or their rights were taken away through their own actions- convicts and ex convicts.
downtownlad said...
"This is simply a poll tax...."
What's your best case for that? The ID is free if you can't pay, de minimis otherwise. There may be additional incidental costs, such as having to deal with the license branch and obtaining a birth certificate, but (1) that isn't true for everyone (indeed, is untrue for 99% of the population, as even petitioner admits) and (2) that's like saying the taxi fee to get to the polling place because you weren't given a postal vote is a poll tax.
I have thought of using the cheese as a chip dip but I was always concerned that it might not be sanitary.
One time I did a guy and looked in his medicine cabinet, as I always do, and he had a huge container of public hairs.
I left immediately. That made me feel uncomfortable and I left.
Now, I feel like throwing up and I'm also laughing.
Ok, I just put together the ensemble-G Star Jeans, tshirt with the Israeli flag, black Marc Jacobs sweater over it which will be wrapped around the waist mid dance and of course........prada slip ons. Jacket is a form fitting Prada P coat, burberryscarve, hair fabulous, a hint of color from the skin and natural smelling-no deodorant-very hot and very manish.
Wish me luck, it's showtime.
Taxi!!!!!!
Probably 2% of people won't have a photo id. And 95% of them are probably Democrats. 2% can make quite a difference in an election.
The next step of course, once the Supreme Court states that these laws can't even be challenged, will be to raise the fee on getting a photo id. In fact, if I were a Republican, I would insist on having a special "voting id" and then place a $200 fee on getting that card.
Of course, if you can't afford this and object to it, you'll be unable to vote, so your opinion doesn't count.
In order for this to be constitutional, the cost of getting the card and the supplementary transportation costs of getting there should be free to those who can't afford it.
OK, right before I left I got the family "christmas card" from my friend and his husband and kids in San Diego.
Can I tell all of you how gross it was. Needless to say they are all fabulous, the kids are extraordinary, the husband is raking in big bucks and my friend is on all of these parent groups. I wonder what the parents really thing of the fabulous gay couple with their perfect kids.
Can I tell you I kind of hate them?
Oh and they went on really exotic fabulous vacations-hate them.
I want to say that I'm glad that the commenter who left this shitty country had the courage of his convictions to actually leave. Too often the America haters merely threaten to leave in a dramatic display of childish pique but are of course much too comfortable and prosperous, although apparently quite unhappy, to actually emmigrate. It's not for a lack of more "progressive" countries in which to relocate either.
But everytime someone like our friend here leaves it's a good thing because this shitty country becomes a little less so with the departure of one more shitty individual.
Now we know what's worse than laughing and spitting milk out your nose....
That's correct. And I'll take the hundreds of thousands I spend every year with me.
But I'll still vote though.
Paul is an anti-gay bigot douchebag by the way.
Voting costs.
If I have to drive there, it costs money for fuel. And what if I don't have a car?
The state ought to be required to pay someone to pick me up and take me to vote so that voting doesn't cost any money.
Voting costs in time. Why should I spend even one moment of my valuable time voting? If voting takes my time then voting isn't free for me.
Maybe we should get paid to vote? Paid per hour and mileage. That would still take an effort on my part so... if I stay home because I don't want to bother I'm certain it's because I've been disenfranchised.
A poll tax? An ID card is a poll tax?
When someone says, "Showing ID to vote disenfranchises Democrats," what people *hear* is, "Showing ID to vote disenfranchises those unqualified to vote, those engaged in fraud, and those too hopeless to function... and those people are Democrats."
If someone says, "This is secretly aimed at disenfranchising Democrats," the answer is, "Yes, because Democrats commit vote fraud."
If the answer to that is, "They do not!" then...
What's the problem?
There has long been debate among Supreme Court Scholars if any of the Justices were in fact homosexual. As a matter of simple statistical probability, it would seem that at least one or two of them might have been playing on the boy’s team. There has long been speculation about Justice Souter who has been termed a “Confirmed Bachelor” which is often euphuism and has nothing to do with his relationship with his bishop. There were extensive rumors about Justice John Hessin Clarke who had a very contentious relationship with Chief Justice James Clark McReynolds who is undisputably the most unpleasant person to ever serve on the Supreme Court. It seems the basis of the bad feeling was the fact that Justice McReynolds would often tap the foot of Justice Clarke during oral arguments, the significance of which has only recently become clear. It is reported that Justice McReyonlds last words were “Damn you Clarke, you bossy bottom.”
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Titus is an anti-gay bigot douchebag.
He's a sexual harasser and douchebag in order to force a negative response so that his world view that other people hate him because he's gay (and not because he's a douchebag) can be maintained. It's self-validation.
I've met Christians like that too. Obnoxious douchebags every moment, and then when people react negatively they revel in the self-validation of being persecuted for the faith.
I don't know why Ann puts up with it, but I know if it happened in a workplace there would be harassment suits.
downtownlad said...
"Probably 2% of people won't have a photo id. And 95% of them are probably Democrats. 2% can make quite a difference in an election."
My recollection is that even the petitioner admits that it's < 1%, and even if it were relevant which party they vote for, there's no evidence of that in the record. Furthermore, you're buying into two myths: first, you simply assume that said 2% can't get ID, which is totally unproven in the record and actively rebutted by the fact that not a single plaintiff falls into that category, and second, that a person who can't vote because they can't obtain ID is disenfranchised. They are not. Intent to vote is a necessary prerequisite. If I want to vote and can't, I might be disenfranchised; if I can't vote but have no intention of voting, it would be absurd to say that I'm disenfranchised.
This case should be thrown out; it clearly and inarguably fails the Salerno test for a facial challenge (don't get excited, titus, it means something different in law). As and when evidence accrues that someone who wanted to vote was actually unable to vote because of the relevant laws, suit should be filed at that point (if at all).
"In order for this to be constitutional, the cost of getting the card and the supplementary transportation costs of getting there should be free to those who can't afford it."
So states are Constitutionally mandated to provide a postal vote, otherwise the supplementary transportation costs of registering and voting in person create a substantial burden on the right to vote?
The only documented physical altercation involving a Supreme Court Justice occurred in
1962 between Justice Arthur Goldberg and Generalissimo Chaing Kai-shek. President Kennedy had sent the Justice on a fact-finding mission to South East Asia to report on the situation in Vietnam. On the way the mission stopped in Taiwan to get the Nationalist Chinese perspective. A long and boisterous banquet was laid on for the visiting dignitaries. In the midst of the revelry, Justice Goldberg hauled off and punched Chaing Kai-shek right in the kisser. When the Generalissimo inquired as to the reason for the violence, Justice Goldberg said, “Fuck you that was for Pearl Harbor.” General Chaing told him “ I’m Chinese not Japanese you moron.” Goldberg replied “Chinese, Japanese it’s all the same shit.” The Generalissimo sat in thought for a minute. Then he turned and clocked Justice Goldberg right in his snozzola. When the Justice got up he shouted, “What was that for.” Chaing Kai-shek replied, “ That was for the fucking Titanic.” “What do you mean the Titanic?” The Generalissimo replied “ Iceberg, Goldberg it’s all the same shit.”
Sorry Synova - But someone calls me shitty, I respond in turn. You of course, bigot that you are, expect gay people to be attacked and just act like a victim and do nothing, rather than respond. Sorry - not me.
Simon - Poll taxes are unconstitutional. But you like to ignore that amendment, just like you ignore the 9th amendment, just like you ignore the 14th amendment, just like you ignore the 1st amendment. But it is unconstitutional to put any financial fee on voting. If you don't like it, then repeal the amendment.
Sorry Synova - But someone calls me shitty, I respond in turn. You of course, bigot that you are, expect gay people to be attacked and just act like a victim and do nothing, rather than respond.
Simon - Poll taxes are unconstitutional. But you like to ignore that amendment, just like you ignore the 9th amendment, just like you ignore the 14th amendment, just like you ignore the 1st amendment. But it is unconstitutional to put any financial fee on voting. If you don't like it, then repeal the amendment.
I heard a story that I can't verify as true or false.
Around the time of the vote on Roberts, a moderately conservative academic (whose name I shall not reveal) who is a friend of Obama's, called Obama and asked him about his vote on Roberts. The academic challenged Obama how he could possibly think that Roberts was an inadequate to serve on the Supreme Court.
According to the story I heard (which I have NOT tried to verify), Obama agreed about the merits of Roberts, but said that this was one vote that he had to give to "the base," which strongly opposed Obama.
Even if this story is true, there are two interpretations: Obama voted against his own assessment but in favor of his base, OR Obama voted his conscience but didn't want to defend it to the friend who wanted to know how Obama could vote against Roberts.
Considering the fact that Roberts helped overturn Brown V. Board of Education, I'm pretty certain that Obama is glad he voted against Roberts.
Althouse, this may be the worst thing you've ever written.
So liberals are the only people interested in the ideological bent of the Supreme Court? Conservatives throughout the 80s and 90s spent both decades railing against "activist judges" (as do many members of the comment section here), but now that the court has been effectively filled with Republican, conservative appointees, suddenly questioning the court's opinions is a sign of ideological depravity, partisan stupidity, and liberal fascism.
Come on! "What is to be done?" is a reasonable thing to say. He didn't say "We need to storm the court house and string those bastards up by their necks!" He said the legislature should do X or we should elect people who appoint Y. That's perfectly valid. You may disagree with the things he's upset about, but that doesn't mean he's a hysterical nut because he doesn't like the court's recent decisions.
My personal issues with the court under Bush have more to do with the bizarre concept that corporations deserve more rights than individuals and the relentless kowtowing to Bush on every national security matter. I don't know how people who support second amendment rights and other important parts of the Bill of Rights can turn a blind eye to the courts pathetic weakness on wiretapping, torture, and other issues far more vital to protecting us from big government.
There's no joke that isn't funnier if you make it center around Supreme Court Justices. To wit:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg walks into a bar and sees Justice Souter sitting there morosely, drink in one hand, brass lamp in the other, while a little foot-high man pounds away on the piano....
Hundt is absolutely right -- Congress is the answer.
The House and Senate can pass a law outlawing waterboarding. Pass a law outlawing wiretapping. Pass a law outlawing the death penalty. Pass a law implementing government payment for all health care. Pass a law curbing CO2 emissions. Pass a law allowing abortion on demand. Pass a law requiring 50mpg in all cars and trucks. Pass laws implementing almost all of the progressive agenda (except all those things that are unconstitutional).
The Congress is in Democratic control. Why don't they do all these things? Whay are progressive complaining about the court when the legislature is in their control and has the power to pass their agenda.
I'm afraid they know the answer. No cahones.
Oh and that minor problem that most of their constituents don't want most of these things!! Their voters are dumb, in addition to being uncooperative.
The issue of a pole tax has long been a contentious one in the supreme courts jurisprudence. Chief Justice James Clark McReynolds who was one of the most bigoted jurist ever to serve on the court insisted on the imposition of a pole tax in 1930. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed. As a compromise measure, the court ruled that there should be an Italian tax which led directly to the incarceration of Alphonse Capone for income tax evasion in 1931.
downtownlad said...
"Simon - Poll taxes are unconstitutional. But you like to ignore that amendment...."
Could you try arguing in good faith - just for once? I know it'd be like crawling across broken glass for you, but just for once read what people actually write and respond to that instead of your own little strawmen. No one disputes that poll taxes are unconstitutional. People dispute that requiring voters to show picture ID - ID that can be obtained without charge - constitutes a poll tax.
downtownlad said...
"Considering the fact that Roberts helped overturn Brown V. Board of Education, I'm pretty certain that Obama is glad he voted against Roberts."
This is the silliest meme that's been yet propagated this century. Brown told the states that they couldn't assign students to schools based on race. Parents Involved told the states that they couldn't assign students to schools based on race. People can in good faith can say that Parents Involved was wrongly decided, or that it was bad policy, but anyone who thinks that case "overturn[ed] Brown V. Board of Education" is either selling Kool Aid or drinking it.
That is to say, it was the dissenters who wanted to overrule Brown. And who's to say they were wrong - maybe Brown was wrongly-decided. Maybe we should assign students to schools based on their race. But I think I'm going to stock with Brown, and how dare anyone pretend that it was the five rather than the four who urged a result athwart Brown and its progeny. That's unbearably disingenuous.
grand poobah,
Judges are not supposed to be activist. Judges are not supposed to have agendas. Judges, whether in podunk Iowa or the Supreme Court are supposed to be objective.
They are supposed to make decisions on the facts, the law, and the Constitution, not on their personal political beliefs. One of the tenets of Conservatism was to end sujective judicial activism and place objective thinking constructionists on the court.
Yeah, there are rumors that some are right wingers, but those are unproved rumors.
Judges are supposed to be held to a higher standard of obejctivity than the rest of us. We can like or not like things. That does not necessarily make them legal or constitutional.
"why does the NYT publish drivel like that?"
Because 200,000 morons in New York will pay $1 for it every day.
tomb1 said:
Oh and that minor problem that most of their constituents don't want most of these things!! Their voters are dumb, in addition to being uncooperative.
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. Congress can pass a law to reduce CO2 emissions. Since humans emit CO2 are you going to kill yourself to reduce your carbon footprint to comply with the law?
As to the rest of your drivel, I guess you aspire to live in poverty. If they pass all of that, there will have to be a huge income tax on all of us. We will all live in poverty so you can be progressive.
I want a car that will go as fast as I want to drive. It is my right and my money. Screw the rest I care not about waterboarding, sorry, apathy. We already have abortion on demand.
Most of the progressive agenda is not constitutional, nor is it fair and equal. Equality and freedom are antipodal to progressives.
So if I understand correctly, after reading all of these comments, Republicans and Independents, and Greens and whatever else all have ID cards and so this law will not affect them. Democrats, for some reason, are unable to get ID cards, and so they will be oppressed. Go figure.
"This Supreme Court is quite clearly the enemy of progressivism.... What is to be done?"
The answers are clearer than the noses on a liberal's face, but their presumption that the answers are found with Big Government and Big Government programs blind them to it. It's all about taxes. In their zeal to tax the rich more heavily, they've forgotten that it's much more important, and should be a higher priority to "progressivism," to reduce dramatically the tax burden on the less-well off, whose cause liberals purport to advance. Go back to Adam Smith, who is supposedly a conservative icon, but whose recommendations concerning taxation if followed would lead to very progressive results. Should be able to find some common ground there. Smith called taxes on labor income the most absurd and destructive of taxes. He also condemned sales taxes on "necessities," construed broadly to encompass all that was necessary for a decent life in the society in which one lives. On the other hand, he considered taxes on "ground-rent," i.e. on the unimproved value of land, as the most appropriate object of taxation.
So, it's not so much a question of "What is to be done?" as "What is NOT to be done?" What is not to be done is taxing the poor and the "poorer," pretty much at all. Then you might see some real "progress."
titushoots - Muslim would be hot if he asks me to put on a suicide vest while I fuck him. I don't care for americanized musies though-I want the guilty, religious ones who feel bad about doing the dirty with another man.
............
Wish me luck fellow republicans
Oh, I do!Shame you didn't get a round with Mohammed Atta and make him squeal like the little bitch Ialsmist he was.
Frankly, I'd love to see GITMO shut down as long as those released are made bitches of gay Jewsh homos.
Hey titushoots
Ok, we know you are gay, you are hot, you are quite the cocksman, and you like the chase and the hunt. You are also a Conservative. Give it a rest already.
Many of us here straight or gay are getting jealous. you, according to your brags, hve more sex in a week than most of us have in a year. We get it. We just want to get more of it.
Trooper, it is poll tax. Unless you are talking about the pole tax that one state wants to enact on strip clubs.
cedarford, I have an idea and titus may go for it. We draft him, send him to gitmo, and have him convert the criminals through injection.
This will cause one of two positive things; suicides or conversions. Bot are positive outcomes, or is it outcums?
DTL,
"That's why I've left this shitty country."
I sure hope someone changes the locks while you're gone.
Why not get rid of the uncooperative voters?
The progressives already have a plan for that. If they ever get a large majority, they will fund special education camps for all registered Republicans. The NEA, ACLU, and NAMBLA have already designed a curriculum and sylabus.
You will not be able to leave the camp until they are convinced you are progressive enough. They have even developed tests to determine whether you are honest.
Now excuse me. I have to go make more kool aid and adjust my tin foil hat. I am channeling Ayn Rand.
I'm all for requiring photo IDs to vote. My only concern is that requiring photo IDs to vote would essentially be a back door poll tax which is I believe unconstitutional.
I try to follow this issue as much as possible but I don't believe I've ever seen this argument put forward (granted I could have just missed it).
And now that I actually read the thread I see some comments mentioning poll taxes.
Derrrrr.......
But I assume since the little people have mentioned it that a few big important smarty pants type people have discussed it in depth which is what I meant above.
Middle Class Guy, your response to my comment basically boils down "These judges aren't activist and don't have an agenda because their agenda is one I agree with and thus is, in my opinion, not an agenda."
Now I don't think this Indiana case is necessarily an agenda case, but to say that conservative judges don't have an agenda but liberal judges do is not based on anything. It's silly to fall into the trap of thinking that everyone shares your opinion or that there's a fair, neutral path for everything.
It's a corkscrew world indeed when stopping and preventing election fraud is "an agenda."
Some of you are being willfully obtuse. If you can get an ID w/o cost, in what possible way is this a poll tax?
I got it DTL, someone calls you shitty and it can't possibly because you identified, not as gay, but as one of those prima donnas who are sooo happy to leave the country when you don't get your way. Nooooo, it's because you're gay.
Do I figure you should just accept being attacked? No. But not everything is about your gayness and not everyone you annoy is an anti-gay bigot.
So I identified the person who comments on this blog who IS demonstrably, an anti-gay douchebag. A sexually harassing pig sty in (he says) designer clothes. As if dressing it up gay means a free ride.
Ok fellow republicans I have arrived home and of course did get it, multiple times. First, I fooled around in the bathroom of the club with a guy I did before-his name was Jesus-how ironic is that?
I told Jesus that I didn't want to go home with him though and he was heartbroken.
Then, I fooled around with an african american but he was playing all coy and I wasn't going to have any of that so I said see you.
Lastly, and most imporatantly, I did a Muzzie-he was speaking Arabic with his friends all night. I asked him what language he was speaking (just to verify) and he said Arabic, and I thought to myself bullseye. I took him home and fucked him while I asked him to recite the Koran. It was very hot.
Not I am tie tie. Love you all, especially
synova for calling me some nasty name.
By the way I would never do Mohammad Atta-he was one of the ugly 9/11 terrorists-there were a couple that I thought were hot though.
A dead person can't affirm his identity to a notary or clerk. Illegal aliens can't get I.D.'s without naturalization papers.
These facts will change the political landscape of at least a score of major U.S. cities.
If the law is serious, fraud will be defined in clear, unambiguous terms as a felony. Note that most fraud we've seen over the last few election cycles has been orchestrated via conspiracies, too.
Book 'em, Dano!
Disclaimer:
"What is to be done...?"
I am not as offended by the Democrats' long legacy of election fraud as I am by their shift to discredit the entire electoral process since 2000. When they failed to get what they wanted even with the dead of Cook County, the bus caravans in St. Louis, and the ACORN crew creating entire populations, it was clear exactly they decided "what must be done" about these pesky vote things (apologies to Night Court).
Destroy their credibility.
It's transparent. It's pathetic. And it puts them on the same bleachers as all the other enemies of democracy, foreign and domestic.
By the way Synova I am always the one pursued not pursuing- I don't know if that makes me the "harrasser" but I would never pursue or harrass another person.
I am the one that gets pursued and harrassed.
A pole tax is unfair to strippers!
If I understand it right, the only way this will affect some big cities (e.g., in California) is the states fall out of blue hands long enough to pass ID requirements.
Because it just says it's permissible, not mandatory.
Or the people put them on ballots as initiatives and state courts don't subsequently undo them (as has happened, e.g., in California with prop 187).
I look forward to the day when Google provides an 'ignore user' feature for Blogger comments. A bit of flavor will be lost. But so much more will be gained. Viva democracy.
How wide spread can voter fraud be in Indiana when one of the complainants in the case was registered in two states?
Bork was a supreme Constitutionalist. He thought the IXth Amdmt had no meaning.
Personally I'm against fraud and corruption. Which is why I find politicians from Chicago especially appealing.
Downtownlad wrote:
"And we certainly no longer live in a democracy"
DTL, America was never a democracy. America is a Republic. Don't they teach civics in the USA anymore?
Not having any sense of gratitude for the unprecented opportunities and amenities afforded all of us here is a fatal act of hubris.
There has never been a more exciting time and place to be alive. America is at the center of the greatest explosion of creativity and affluence ever.
Naturally the levelers want to bring it down. The core principal of the left is envy. It's a given that the left is preoccupied with the wealthy, and that is precisely why. A whole population driven by envy is a sick society, dark and nasty.
America is shitty to the envious precisely because of it's wealth and stature. To envy is to resent, hate, and ultimately desire to punish. It's no coincidence that the totalitarian ideologies of the left driven by envy became democidal once government power became absolute.
To call this a shitty country while hell bent on arm wrestling it into a big government-low liberty-socialist monstrousity diametrically opposed to the vision of the framers is why you are a shitty man.
Your vote is your right and your money is your own. That's good. Your nasty personality and poisoness contempt for your country are welcome to leave.
I'm shocked that Titus admits to having back hair.
Not anymore!
Why don't you let it grow out, so the boys will have something to grip, since I know you don't have love handles (or are you a doggy style man?).
Bork didn't get on the Court because of problems with his package, and I don't mean ED, or ID, or VD.
Paul said:
levelers
This is the exact term! they want a level playing field for all. One class of people, all the same. Except the political class. Someone has to dictate to the masses what to think and how to behave. They must be well compenstated for their work.
Ed Said: DTL, America was never a democracy. America is a Republic. Don't they teach civics in the USA anymore?
No they do not. They teach a lot of other things- diversity, multi-culturalism, ecology, and revisionist history. No civics though. Not that anything is wrong with teaching the above, but the priorities are skewed.
"In fact, if I were a Republican, I would insist on having a special "voting id" and then place a $200 fee on getting that card."
Which just shows how clueless you are at what being a Republican means.
It's truly amazing the amount of "projection" indulged in by some quarters of the polity, who naturally assume their opponents would resort to every low trick they themselves have dreamed up. It wasn't Democratic Party offices that were shot up during the last Presidential election; It wasn't a whole fleet of Democratic Party vans used for GOTV efforts whose tires were slashed; It wasn't a whole bunch of phantom Republican votes that showed up in Milwaukee; Voter fraud didn't elect a Republican governor in Washington.
If you were a Republican, the first thing you would do is realize what an ass you'd been up until now.
I don't know what people are talking about: I almost never have to show my picture ID, unless I am traveling by air, and that's only out of post 9-11 paranoia. I pay cash for most things, and charge others. The other day, for the first time in I don't know how long, I had to show it to get a fishing license.
Now, why would I need to show an ID at the polling place? The poll workers all live in my precinct (duh), the length and breadth of which I walk every day. They know me, or should know me. Does Ann have to prove who she is to her students who see her every day?
When I vote, I show up, write down my name and street address and go vote.
In my family, my mother-in-law has never driven, my sister never learned to drive, and my brother is disabled. That's three people who'd be hard-pressed to show a government ID. Plus non-drivers-license IDs are treated with suspicion.
Voting is a fundamental right of citizenship. We each proved our identities at time of registration. Requiring a picture ID each and every time we vote is just one more barrier to voting. If voter fraud is an issue, there should be a more narrowly tailored way to stop it. Because the founders did not require white males to produce a picture ID to vote, originalists and textualists should combine to condemn it.
He's a sexual harasser and douchebag in order to force a negative response so that his world view that other people hate him because he's gay (and not because he's
Synova I have never made a comment on this site that other commenters hate me because I am gay. Perhaps, you have me confused with someone else.
Republican voter fraud: Karl Rove lived in DC while voting in Texas by claiming residence in an 800 square foot cottage. From wikip:
The Roves sold the lodge in 2003, after renovating it,[8] but kept the two cottages, which the lodge rents to guests. (Darby T. Rove is listed as a director of the new owner of the lodge, Estadio Partners, LLC.) In early October 2005, a resident of Kerr County filed a complaint with the District Attorney of the county, requesting an investigation into whether Rove and his wife violated Texas state law by illegally registering as voters in Kerr County, since neither had ever lived there.
Synova I am not trying to force a negative view of myself either.
This is who I am and what I do.
Love it or hate it I am ok with me (most of the time) and don't give a shit what others may think of me. It's my truth.
> We each proved our identities at time of registration.
Huh? I registered by sending in a card by mail. (Motor Voter doesn't have an ID check.) That proved nothing about my identity, let alone my eligibility to vote.
Moreover, even if I had proved my identity and eligibility when I registered, how do you stop someone else from voting in my name?
If you allow anyone who claims to me to vote, you've effectively disenfranchised me or you've let me vote multiple times. Either way, the vote is a fraud.
"cedarford, I have an idea and titus may go for it. We draft him, send him to gitmo, and have him convert the criminals through injection.
This will cause one of two positive things; suicides or conversions. Bot are positive outcomes, or is it outcums?"
I would be more than willing to volunteer for this initiative. I would wear my Israeli Flag T Shirt while doing it.
The only thing is that I get to pick the prisoners. Some of them are gnarly and I do have standards fellow republicans.
The voter IDs are required for both Democrats and Republicans. It's a Party-neutral document.
Interesting, isn't it, that Dems see their voter base as containing a unique and significant number of "helpless"/stupid/illegals who would be disenfranchised by having to acquire an ID whereas the Republicans would not have to contend with such a problem.
Yessiree, those are exactly the type of people I would choose to decide the election for President of the United States. The Dhim Hypocrisy Party should be proud.
"...I almost never have to show my picture ID..."
Well, I have to show it every freaking time I buy alcohol in a store. So my meaningless personal anecdote cancels out your meaningless personal anecdote.
Republican Voter Fraud:
Blacks and Latinos voting!
Imagine a hetero revelling so publically in his piggery, as titus does. But because he's all gay, he assumes he can get away with it, and some people laugh.
"And we certainly no longer live in a democracy"
I would love to know what country you were living in, because it most assuredly was not The United States of America.
"But I'll still vote though."
And if you had things your way, probably often.
"Republican voter fraud: Karl Rove lived in DC while voting in Texas by claiming residence in an 800 square foot cottage."
Did he vote twice, nitwit? Or can we now safely say that dtl intends to (if s/he hasn't already) commit vote fraud? Didn't s/he claim to have left the country, but would still vote? I have no problem with this, as long as s/he maintains legal residency to vote. Have you never lived in 800 sq ft? I did for several years. With a wife. And pets. And enjoyed it.
"The other day, for the first time in I don't know how long, I had to show it to get a fishing license."
That you accept having to show it for a f***king fishing license but not to vote says a lot about your thought processes.
"Did he vote twice, nitwit?"
I apologize, fls. That was intemperate.
Verso said...
Still and all: The big takeaway for me is learning that if Indian wants to rig elections in favor of Republicans, they can do so constitutionally.
You should ask those involved in third party politics about the hoops they have to jump through to get their candidates on state ballots - rules, made by Legislatures that are controlled by both Republicans and Democrats, that have been consistently upheld by State and Federal judges. And of course, the Dems and Reps don’t have to jump through the hoops
M. Simon said...
"Bork was a supreme Constitutionalist. He thought the IXth Amdmt had no meaning."
That's not correct - this is also the source of his "ink blot" comment which has been so misunderstood (or misrepresented) down the years. What Bork said was that if it's impossible to determine what a provision of the Constitution meant, Judges shouldn't just be able to make up whatever they think would be a good meaning. That is, he said, if a provision of the Constitution said "Congress shall have the power to" and the rest of the line is obscured by an ink blot, clearly the provision has some kind of meaning, but that meaning is impossible to determine, and it's incompatible with the Constitutional schema for a judge to make up whatever he or she thinks would be a good thing to be there. Likewise, if you concluded that the original meaning of the priveleges or immunities clause was so obscure that it couldn't be determined, the correct response is judicial restraint: don't invalidate anything under that clause, because by doing so you're inventing content that isn't there. I don't entirely agree with Bork's view, but it does irk me a little that twenty years later people are still swinging axes at strawmen.
rmoonyose said...
"I'm all for requiring photo IDs to vote. My only concern is that requiring photo IDs to vote would essentially be a back door poll tax which is I believe unconstitutional."
You're likely thinking of the 26th Amendment, which forbids a state from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections - not state elections - on failure to pay any kind of tax, expressly including poll taxes. So at the outset, the utility of the 26th Amendment argument (which isn't the only constitutional issue at play, I acknowledge) is limited - you have to get into Harper v. Bd. of Elections for the broader proposition that states can't require you to pay to exercise your right to vote. But even Harper doesn't settle the issue here - as Karen notd upthread, there is no fee charged for voting, only a requirement that one must have picture ID, which can be obtained without charge. Now, DTL and those who think like him think that only kicks the poll tax can one step further down the road, because obtaining ID involved incidental costs and inconvenience. But so, too, does the act of voting itself - any regulation on voting, including those necessary to actualy operate a poll, imposes de minimis inconvenience and cost to participate.
In sum, as long as the ID is free or of minimal cost (and it's good for, IIRC, six years), I don't see how there's even a colorable (let alone persuasive) argument that it amounts to a "poll tax."
I appreciate Verso's intellectual honesty and his courtesy, and wish more people that I disagree with (and more that I agree with) would show the same.
It seems to me that if a law to establish voter ID requirements in order to prevent fraudulent voting results in the Democrats having fewer votes counted for them, that does not invalidate the law. If that law results in Republicans having fewer votes counted for them, then that does not invalidate the law. In other words, the possibility of the Democrats losing 5% of their votes, which seems to be the real worry Democrats have about the law, says nothing about whether the law is a good law.
Let's say that you disagree. There are two possibilities: either you feel that the law is OK if it reduces counted Republican votes, but not if it reduces counted Democrat votes; or you feel that it is never OK for a law to even potentially reduce the number of votes counted, regardless of the recipient of the vote.
The first would be simple partisanship, and I write it off more quickly than I typed it in; I frankly don't care for partisanship, in the same way that I don't care for child molesters or cannibals. On the other hand, the second possibility is somewhat more scary in a way. The reason is that the second possibility arises from the feeling that everyone must be able to vote, and that means that people who are uninformed or ill informed, bigoted, frankly against their own (nominal) country (see downtownlad) and thus likely to vote in ways designed to make that country worse, those who have no stake in the future of the country (only a stake in what they can take from the country) and so forth would have equal weight in determining the country's (political) future as would those who are solid, well-informed, thinking and reasoning citizens with a real stake in the outcome. I suppose it's a valid point of view, but it means that the government that arises as a result will be worse than that which would arise if total idiots and civil saboteurs did not vote.
"Probably 2% of people won't have a photo id. And 95% of them are probably Democrats. 2% can make quite a difference in an election."
Yep. There goes the Dead People vote and the busloads of paid college students riding from polling place to polling place to vote for "good progressives."
I find it interesting that so many are so enraged at how enactment of a common sense law to require ID (available for free, so spare the poll tax arguments, they make you sound like an idiot), while limiting each voter to ONE VOTE might favor one party, without acknowledging that the status quo which enables these well documented methods of voter fraud (most recently in San Antonio comes to mind) favors the Democrats, who seem to have a monopoly on these practices... One person, one vote. What a concept.
Did any of you notice that one of these so-called "disenfranchised voters" cited in the Indiana case was proven to be not only registered, but voting in Indiana AND FLORIDA? (link: http://tinyurl.com/3y59op ) You don't see a problem with that? I can't help but think that if you took all the dead people and duplicate votes from New Yorkers with 2nd homes in Florida out of the count and the 2000 election would not even have been close..
And therein lies the progressives true fear...
If the voters - and the court, in this instance - have lost the confidence of the Party, perhaps the Party should dissolve them and form new ones.
(with apologies to Brecht)
How exactly is requiring an ID to vote onerous on the voter and a Republican drive to keep down the number of votes by Democrats?
"I find it interesting that so many are so enraged at how enactment of a common sense law to require ID (available for free, so spare the poll tax arguments, they make you sound like an idiot), while limiting each voter to ONE VOTE might favor one party, without acknowledging that the status quo which enables these well documented methods of voter fraud (most recently in San Antonio comes to mind) favors the Democrats, who seem to have a monopoly on these practices... One person, one vote. What a concept."
It's the old lefty totalitarian belief that the end justifies the means.
Just like the AGW myth provides the means to soften us up to accept the lower standard of living that the socialists know is inevitable once they have the power to implement their collectivist anti-liberty, anti-growth policies. We'll be told that our penury is a necessary sacrifice to save the planet. Americans would otherwise reject a government whose policies impoverish us, but if enough people can be brainwashed into accepting it as the only way to save the earth....
That you accept having to show it for a f***king fishing license but not to vote says a lot about your thought processes.
Yes, it shows I can distinguish between a fundamental right and a privilege conditioned on the payment of a fee. There is no fundamental right to take a state's fish; that's why poaching is a crime. Similarly there is no fundamental right to buy alcohol. Further, having to show proof of age is not the same as having to prove identity. Nobody cares who I am when I buy alcohol because it is abundantly clear I am old enough.
And the first time I registered to vote I had to show my birth certificate; I never imagined that other states did not require proof of identity or citizenship. I'd be more worried about non-citizens voting than people who lacked a drivers license.
It's interesting that some people think the only possible voter fraud is voting twice; I guess they would have no problem if I bused a bunch of people from DC to Texas to vote. Basically Rove pulled an Ed Jew -- he never spent a night in his rental cottage.
How exactly is requiring an ID to vote onerous on the voter
It's unnecessary to prevent fraud, because there are other ways to prove your identity (giving the precinct a copy of your signed voter registration form, pollworkers' personal knowledge of your identity, etc.) and an obstacle to voting for anyone who lacks one - the old, the disabled, women, the poor.
and a Republican drive to keep down the number of votes by Democrats?
The old, the disabled, women and the poor tend to vote Democratic -- funny how that works.
fls,
Why do women lack ID?
And what is your evidence for the assertion that "the old, the disabled, women, the poor" tend to lack photo ID?
What Blake said - and also, why stop at women? Is there any evidence to suggest that the poor, old and disabled lack either ID or the means to obtain it? The only group that we can say are almost certainly burdened by this law are the homeless, who aren't so accurately described as likely to vote Democratic as they are unlikely to vote period.
Besides, I would have thought that after Thomas Franks' book explaining why Democrats lose blue collar votes on moral issues, they'd be less quick to assume that "the poor" vote Democratic.
"The old, the disabled, women and the poor tend to vote Democratic -- funny how that works."
...the dead, those with Multiple Voter Personality Disorder....
There was a specific exception for those elderly or disabled in state supervised convalescent care... hard cases make bad laws.. workarounds for those few true exceptions. I bet they can produce the necessary ID when it comes time to take advantage of state services or cash an SS check...
TDA325 - I think it's grossly insensitive and demeaning that we continue to insist on one vote per person rather than one vote per distinct personality. It subenfranchises those with severe mental disorders.
"Subenfranchisement" - the state of being able to vote but inadequately express oneself at the ballot box. You heard it here first, and you'll hear it again when the drumbeat begins that the Constitution requires a "re-open nominations" option on all ballots.
The point you all are missing is the additinal expense to Dems-
They not only have to pay for the buses, the ten bucks a vote and the beer afterward, now they have to cough up for several picture ids for each multi-voter. A good fake id isn't cheap, and Soros only has so much money; if they spend too much on the votes they can't afford the court costs to defend them.
Just remember, the Dems need to win for your own good, so its not really cheating.
"The only group that we can say are almost certainly burdened by this law are the homeless, who aren't so accurately described as likely to vote Democratic as they are unlikely to vote period."
Not so! Don't forget the contested 2004 Washington governor's race, in which Democrat Christine Gregoire's 126-vote margin of victory was provided by derelicts rounded up from the streets of Seattle and registered by ACORN activists.
Every Democrat vote not cast in Indiana will be made up in Cook County, Illinois.
And what is your evidence for the assertion that "the old, the disabled, women, the poor" tend to lack photo ID?
Because the old, the disabled, women, and the poor are less likely to drive than are their younger, more able, male, non-poor counterparts. Those able to drive are motivated to get the universally accepted drivers license, and not so much the less-accepted non-driver ID.
I could support a proposal where a drivers license was no longer acceptable ID, and the playing field would be levelled by forcing all voters to get a special "Voters ID." Make them all go to their county office of election with their birth certificate and two pieces of official mail addressed to them to have their picture taken.
Sorry I'm coming so late to the party, but four football games. Attention must be paid. Go Giants!
Anyway, Simon has said, in a more articulate way than I would've, everything worth saying on this, except that it's easy to get a free ID. It's called a mug shot. Just ask Sidney Blumenthal!
See http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0112081blumenthal1.html
TY
The Hon John Jay has a college named after him also.
I'm sure that there's a petition circulating to have things now in his name re-named after some non DWM.
I also think that Erasmus's name should be removed from that famous HS on Flatbush Ave, (& his picture taken down at The Frick) because he didn't do much for FLS's "the disabled, women, and the poor". And his homestead in Westchester could be turned into a home for the homeless!
BTW My lawschool study group met in a Brownstone (actually red brick, but why pettifog) on Warren St off Court, not far from your address. It was a decaying neighborhood, then called South Brooklyn. No one had heard of Yuppies or Gen X then or the developers’ “Cobble Hill", or "Boerum (another DWM) Hill". The term Carroll Gardens had started to come into vogue, tho. The classmate whose family owned the house sold it before the boom. I went by it a few years ago for old time’s sake. His Grammar school (St Paul’s) across the street had become a co-op building. Sic transit former law students, I guess.
From Inwood, all of the neighborhoods in that area were called South Brooklyn when I was growing up. Anything before Montague St was South Brooklyn. Montague and beyond was Brooklyn Heights. In the early seventies they began to name every few blocks something different. Now you have to use the new names, otherwise no one knows what you are talking about. St. Paul’s church still stands, but has been consolidated with St. Agnes and masses are limited. All of the local parishes had a grammar school, which have all been sold for condos. As have several actual churches albeit Protestant ones (which as a good Catholic Irish Boy don't count as real churches). Warren St is now part of what is called Cobble Hill and is a vibrant yuppified community. However we do not term the "newcomers" yuppies. We call them liberals. For all that that pejorative term might mean.
Go Giants!!!! Lets get those cheeseheads.
TY
Lost down Memory Lane.
The homestead in Westchester referred to in my e-mail is John Jay's not Erasmus's.
My RC grammar school in Inwood (Good Shepherd) is hanging on thru, um, downsizing. It has rented the top floor to CUNY. So I was able to visit in 2006 & walk through the first floor & see classrooms & the auditorium. It seems so small as opposed to, OOPS, Memory Lane again.
Will stop by your place next time I'm in the City & walk across the Bklyn Bridge.
Post a Comment