PDA

View Full Version : As November Approaches, Courts Deal Series Of Blows To Voter ID Laws



Bos Mutus
08-03-2016, 05:05 PM
All summer long, the clock has been ticking on voting rights cases. Judges don't like to change voting rules too near an election, and November is creeping ever closer.
And the past two weeks, in particular, have been eventful: Five courts in five states ruled against voter ID and proof-of-citizenship laws.
There's still time for appeals and stays. But for now, advocates for voting access are celebrating.
"It's been like Christmas Day," one activist told CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/voting-rights-laws-supreme-court-challenges/) on Monday.
Supporters of voter ID laws have argued they are necessary to prevent voter fraud. But in their responses, judges consistently highlighted the rarity of voter fraud — particularly through in-person voting.

Read more: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/02/488392765/as-november-approaches-courts-deal-series-of-blows-to-voter-id-laws



This is an issue I always have a hard time wrapping my head around...I've never lived in a world where it is difficult to get an ID, so I don't understand it.

North Dakota: 25% of Native Americans do not have ID? That blows my mind...but, rather than pass laws to say those people can't vote because we're afraid some illegals might also get to vote...why not work to eliminate whatever is keeping them from getting IDs first? Or is it that they don't want them? What is the issue that so many people can't or don't get IDs?

What I'm seeing in these court decisions is that the number of legitimate people prevented from voting by Voter ID laws is many times greater than the number of fraudulent voters without the laws.

MikeKerriii
08-03-2016, 05:14 PM
This is an issue I always have a hard time wrapping my head around...I've never lived in a world where it is difficult to get an ID, so I don't understand it.

North Dakota: 25% of Native Americans do not have ID? That blows my mind...but, rather than pass laws to say those people can't vote because we're afraid some illegals might also get to vote...why not work to eliminate whatever is keeping them from getting IDs first? Or is it that they don't want them? What is the issue that so many people can't or don't get IDs?

What I'm seeing in these court decisions is that the number of legitimate people prevented from voting by Voter ID laws is many times greater than the number of fraudulent voters without the laws.

Many people on reservations simply have no need for IDs, Their neighbors and fellow tribesman know who they are and they don't deal with people who do not on anything like a regular basis.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2016, 05:44 PM
Many people on reservations simply have no need for IDs, Their neighbors and fellow tribesman know who they are and they don't deal with people who do not on anything like a regular basis.

Yeah...we've had this conversation before...where I post all the every day things people need ID cards and you post how your grandmother has managed to work around those by knowing her Pharmacist for 50 years.

So...your position is that the only reason these Native Americans don't have an ID is that they have chosen not to get one because they don't need one? ...that there is no reason they can't get one, they simply haven't?

Rainmaker
08-03-2016, 06:00 PM
Many people on reservations simply have no need for IDs, Their neighbors and fellow tribesman know who they are and they don't deal with people who do not on anything like a regular basis.

Ug'-um . Big Chief Crazy Horse....No take'-um picture...... Great Spirit say Pale Faces at North Dakota DMV speak'-um with forked tongues..... True purpose of taking photo is to steal'-um Noble, American Indian souls!

WILDJOKER5
08-03-2016, 06:18 PM
Its insane really. The left throws out speculation while facts like those in GA have shown more minority voter turnout after the law was passed. GA even made it part of the law to help the impoverished to get IDs free of charge. This is the lefts racism of low expectations of minorities and their way of rigging more and more elections. But hey, why change something when its only half broke right? 120% voter turnout is common in democrat cities right?

Bos Mutus
08-03-2016, 06:29 PM
Its insane really. The left throws out speculation while facts like those in GA have shown more minority voter turnout after the law was passed. GA even made it part of the law to help the impoverished to get IDs free of charge. This is the lefts racism of low expectations of minorities and their way of rigging more and more elections. But hey, why change something when its only half broke right? 120% voter turnout is common in democrat cities right?

...if these court decisions are any indication, the facts appear to be on the left's side.

WILDJOKER5
08-03-2016, 06:56 PM
...if these court decisions are any indication, the facts appear to be on the left's side.

Actually, sadly to say, Judges are just as guilty of opinionated verdicts to fall in line with their ideologies as anyone else. Its like the whole thing over Obamacare and how people are forced to buy something against their will. The SCOTUS didn't see the same opinion as the people who brought the lawsuit, so it was struck down and now people have to buy something or get taxed for not having it. Since 1790's, when the SCOTUS ruled they were allowed to interpret the constitution instead of reading it literally, the SCOTUS has been the safe haven for activist judges passing laws without the population's consent.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2016, 07:08 PM
Actually, sadly to say, Judges are just as guilty of opinionated verdicts to fall in line with their ideologies as anyone else. Its like the whole thing over Obamacare and how people are forced to buy something against their will. The SCOTUS didn't see the same opinion as the people who brought the lawsuit, so it was struck down and now people have to buy something or get taxed for not having it.

Congress clearly has the authority to tax.

Why is giving someone a tax write-off for buying health insurance any different than giving them a tax write-off for financing a home and paying interest...or a tax write-off for charitable donations?

Are you forced against your will to make charitable donations simply because you have to pay taxes on that amount if you don't?



Since 1790's, when the SCOTUS ruled they were allowed to interpret the constitution instead of reading it literally, the SCOTUS has been the safe haven for activist judges passing laws without the population's consent.

There was no SCOTUS before 1790, so...since it's inception?

Now...these above cases in the OP were not SCOTUS cases...but, I get your meaning...any decision you disagree with is the definition of activist liberal judges.

That said...I'm not really familiar with the facts you are posting...what city had 120% voter turnout?

Mjölnir
08-03-2016, 07:37 PM
Why is giving someone a tax write-off for buying health insurance any different than giving them a tax write-off for financing a home and paying interest...or a tax write-off for charitable donations?

I think one big difference is that there is no individual mandate to purchase / finance a home. Nor are you required to pay a penalty for not owning / financing a home.

Mjölnir
08-03-2016, 07:37 PM
Why is giving someone a tax write-off for buying health insurance any different than giving them a tax write-off for financing a home and paying interest...or a tax write-off for charitable donations?

I think one big difference is that there is no individual mandate to purchase / finance a home. Nor are you required to pay a penalty for not owning / financing a home.

Bos Mutus
08-03-2016, 08:18 PM
I think one big difference is that there is no individual mandate to purchase / finance a home. Nor are you required to pay a penalty for not owning / financing a home.

What's the difference between a penalty and a tax?

...your new nickname is Jimmy Two-Times


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKrPUVngxuQ

Mjölnir
08-03-2016, 08:24 PM
What's the difference between a penalty and a tax?

...your new nickname is Jimmy Two-Times


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKrPUVngxuQ

I don't consider a tax to be a penalty, it is the cost of living in our society.

The original legislation and the current tax code refers to the fee for not carrying health insurance a 'penalty' ... generally for not doing what you were supposed to do.

What made me LOL at that is that my first name is Jimmy ... now if you don't mind:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUiqciyUcAAQsXT.jpg

Bos Mutus
08-03-2016, 08:34 PM
I don't consider a tax to be a penalty, it is the cost of living in our society.

The original legislation and the current tax code refers to the fee for not carrying health insurance a 'penalty' ... generally for not doing what you were supposed to do.

So, if the law changed ot instead of being a $500 penalty (or whatever it is now) for not having insurance...you get a $500 tax credit for having it?

(Then...we'll raise taxes by $500).

This would've been a better way to sell the ACA, but would amount to the same....this is what the SCOTUS said (to get back to second off-topic tangent of this thread)...that the penalty amounts to a tax, which is within Congress's authority.

The govt. uses the tax code for getting people to do what the govt. thinks they should do all the time.

All comes out the same....if you do what "you should" you pay less, get more, whichever...


What made me LOL at that is that my first name is Jimmy ... now if you don't mind:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUiqciyUcAAQsXT.jpg

I love that movie

Mjölnir
08-03-2016, 08:47 PM
So, if the law changed ot instead of being a $500 penalty (or whatever it is now) for not having insurance...you get a $500 tax credit for having it?

It would in some ways change the perception of being penalized for not buying insurance.

[QUOTE=Bos Mutus;366721](Then...we'll raise taxes by $500).

Probably ...


This would've been a better way to sell the ACA, but would amount to the same....this is what the SCOTUS said (to get back to second off-topic tangent of this thread)...that the penalty amounts to a tax, which is within Congress's authority.

Absolutely ...


The govt. uses the tax code for getting people to do what the govt. thinks they should do all the time.

Yes and no ...

Yes, we tax the bejesus out of cigarettes to pay for smoking cessation programs, medical expenses etc. ... or is it a way to de-incentivize the behavior? Probably both.

No, what is the true purpose of taxes. To pay for the government expenditures / necessities ... is it really meant to sterr the populaces' social behavior?


All comes out the same....if you do what "you should" you pay less, get more, whichever...

Agree. I don't have too much ill regard for the concept that came about in the AMA, I don't like that the bill (now law) was hurriedly pushed through with so many mistakes, errors, contradictions and procedural tricks that we got a really poorly written law that after 6 years is still being fixed with legislative corrections not due to the situation changing ... but that the law wasn't written or reconciled well.


I love that movie

It is a classic

Rainmaker
08-03-2016, 09:37 PM
but, I get your meaning...any decision you disagree with is the definition of activist liberal judges.


Surely We can totally trust all SCOTUS judges (Like this dual American-Israeli-Citizen & Demented- Old -Gas-bag-of -Communist-Diarrhea) to remain completely impartial and only rule based on the evidence presented to them or the absence of such?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-her-remarks-on-the-presumptive-gop-nominee-ruth-bader-ginsburg-may-have-trumped-her-usual-outspokenness/2016/07/11/860ef316-47a5-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSWxpoaeIys

Bos Mutus
08-03-2016, 09:44 PM
... is it really meant to sterr the populaces' social behavior?

"meant to"? Probably not in its purest form...but we have a system of deductions that encourages:

Asset/property ownership
Charitable contributions
Education
Use of/converting to renewable energy
Saving for retirement
etc.

Some of those, for sure, like tax credits for converting to renewable energy and deductions for retirement savings are "meant to" bring about preferred behavior.




Agree. I don't have too much ill regard for the concept that came about in the AMA, I don't like that the bill (now law) was hurriedly pushed through with so many mistakes, errors, contradictions and procedural tricks that we got a really poorly written law that after 6 years is still being fixed with legislative corrections not due to the situation changing ... but that the law wasn't written or reconciled well.

I don't disagree with you.

garhkal
08-04-2016, 01:43 AM
This is an issue I always have a hard time wrapping my head around...I've never lived in a world where it is difficult to get an ID, so I don't understand it.

North Dakota: 25% of Native Americans do not have ID? That blows my mind...but, rather than pass laws to say those people can't vote because we're afraid some illegals might also get to vote...why not work to eliminate whatever is keeping them from getting IDs first? Or is it that they don't want them? What is the issue that so many people can't or don't get IDs?

Well if you note, most of the states which are pushing AGAINST them are being pushed by liberal activists.. Almost like they are saying "How dare you question whether someone is legit to vote.."
But when you see the sheer # of things you need ID for these days, it flabbergasts me how ANYONE can claim they 'don't have proper ID, and thus these laws are too harsh on the poor.. Even though poor use ids for as much if not more than the rich. Someone rich (or even just middle class) doesn't have to sign up for EBT, resign periodically for welfare/unemployment etc, which you need ID to do (last i checked)..



What I'm seeing in these court decisions is that the number of legitimate people prevented from voting by Voter ID laws is many times greater than the number of fraudulent voters without the laws.

The other thing that gets me is effectively these judges are saying, you shouldn't have to Prove you are even eligible to vote (by being a citizen/having proper id).. Almost like they are Wanting fraud to happen..


Its insane really. The left throws out speculation while facts like those in GA have shown more minority voter turnout after the law was passed. GA even made it part of the law to help the impoverished to get IDs free of charge. This is the lefts racism of low expectations of minorities and their way of rigging more and more elections. But hey, why change something when its only half broke right? 120% voter turnout is common in democrat cities right?

IT certainly seems they care not about how easily it will be for fraud to happen now.


Actually, sadly to say, Judges are just as guilty of opinionated verdicts to fall in line with their ideologies as anyone else. Its like the whole thing over Obamacare and how people are forced to buy something against their will. The SCOTUS didn't see the same opinion as the people who brought the lawsuit, so it was struck down and now people have to buy something or get taxed for not having it. Since 1790's, when the SCOTUS ruled they were allowed to interpret the constitution instead of reading it literally, the SCOTUS has been the safe haven for activist judges passing laws without the population's consent.

Thing is, they are not supposed to let their PERSONAL opinions or political leanings sway their decisions..


This would've been a better way to sell the ACA, but would amount to the same....this is what the SCOTUS said (to get back to second off-topic tangent of this thread)...that the penalty amounts to a tax, which is within Congress's authority.

Yes taxes are put in place by congress, however they are NOT allowed to tell all citizens they have to BUY something or be taxed for not having it..


Yes, we tax the bejesus out of cigarettes to pay for smoking cessation programs, medical expenses etc. ... or is it a way to de-incentivize the behavior? Probably both.

IMO more an attempt (Flawed at that) to de-incentivize the behavior. Especially when you consider in some states we are taxed on smokes to pay for stuff, that has NOTHING to do with smoking...

Bos Mutus
08-04-2016, 02:07 AM
Well if you note, most of the states which are pushing AGAINST them are being pushed by liberal activists.. Almost like they are saying "How dare you question whether someone is legit to vote.."
But when you see the sheer # of things you need ID for these days, it flabbergasts me how ANYONE can claim they 'don't have proper ID, and thus these laws are too harsh on the poor.. Even though poor use ids for as much if not more than the rich. Someone rich (or even just middle class) doesn't have to sign up for EBT, resign periodically for welfare/unemployment etc, which you need ID to do (last i checked)..

The other thing that gets me is effectively these judges are saying, you shouldn't have to Prove you are even eligible to vote (by being a citizen/having proper id).. Almost like they are Wanting fraud to happen..

Where in the constitution does it give govt the power to require IDs?


IT certainly seems they care not about how easily it will be for fraud to happen now.

Thing is, they are not supposed to let their PERSONAL opinions or political leanings sway their decisions..

...impossible.


Yes taxes are put in place by congress, however they are NOT allowed to tell all citizens they have to BUY something or be taxed for not having it..

why not? Where are the limits to what congress can and can not tax?

Rainmaker
08-04-2016, 04:33 AM
Where in the constitution does it give govt the power to require IDs?




It's hard to believe Bos. But, back in the old days, before our republic was subverted, and the Supreme Court of the United States became the Sanhedrin Council of the United States, We Citizens had what was known as THE BILL OF RIGHTS. It was the collective name for the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. There you could find words of THE TENTH AMENDMENT, which said:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Of course post 9-11 all that is now null n void and in the immortal words of dear leader "Bush the Younger" the constitution today is "just a goddamned piece of paper".....so, Instead of "IN GOD WE TRUST" our new National Motto is "DIVERSITY IS OUR GREATEST STRENGTH!!!! (meaning except for White Northern European Protestants, the country's founding stock and whose descendants built the country and must forever more be forced out of the Banking industry, Universities, The Press, Hollywood, Both Political parties, The Military and Court systems, and any other positions of public trust)"

Bos Mutus
08-04-2016, 04:48 AM
It's hard to believe Bos. But, back in the old days, before our republic was subverted, and the Supreme Court of the United States became the Sanhedrin Council of the United States, We Citizens had what was known as THE BILL OF RIGHTS. It was the collective name for the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. There you could find words of THE TENTH AMENDMENT, which said:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Of course post 9-11 all that is now null n void and in the immortal words of dear leader "Bush the Younger" the constitution today is "just a goddamned piece of paper".....so, Instead of "IN GOD WE TRUST" our new National Motto is "DIVERSITY IS OUR GREATEST STRENGTH!!!! (meaning except for White Northern European Protestants, the country's founding stock and whose descendants built the country and must forever more be forced out of the Banking industry, Universities, The Press, Hollywood, Both Political parties, The Military and Court systems, and any other positions of public trust)"

Founding Fathers didn't need a photo ID to vote...gnome saying

Bos Mutus
08-04-2016, 04:57 AM
Well if you note, most of the states which are pushing AGAINST them are being pushed by liberal activists..

Since there used to NOT be Voter ID laws...wouldn't it be more proper to say they new laws are being pushed by conservative activists? Whilst the liberals and simply trying to keep us free from government overreach...

Mjölnir
08-04-2016, 10:27 AM
Founding Fathers didn't need a photo ID to vote...gnome saying

When they voted women nor blacks could vote. Freedom of speech only applied to newspapers, pamphlets and public speech. In the colonial period, men (only men, white ones ... that owned land) would report to the polling place and everyone knew each other on sight. Times change.

WILDJOKER5
08-04-2016, 12:08 PM
There was no SCOTUS before 1790, so...since it's inception?

Now...these above cases in the OP were not SCOTUS cases...but, I get your meaning...any decision you disagree with is the definition of activist liberal judges.

That said...I'm not really familiar with the facts you are posting...what city had 120% voter turnout?
Not sure if you've been told, but the first SCOTUS came about Sep 24, 1789.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-first-supreme-court

WILDJOKER5
08-04-2016, 12:24 PM
Founding Fathers didn't need a photo ID to vote...gnome sayingActually, yes you did. It wasn't photo ID, but it was the deed to your property that you needed to present since only land owners could vote.


When they voted women nor blacks could vote. Freedom of speech only applied to newspapers, pamphlets and public speech. In the colonial period, men (only men, white ones ... that owned land) would report to the polling place and everyone knew each other on sight. Times change.

This is completely false. There was no mention of any race or gender in the original words of the constitution or as it pertained to voting rights. Only thing you needed to be was a land owner.
1776
Only people who own land can vote
Declaration of Independence signed. Right to vote during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods is restricted to property owners—most of whom are white male Protestants over the age of 21.
1787
No federal voting standard—states decide who can vote
U.S. Constitution adopted. Because there is no agreement on a national standard for voting rights, states are given the power to regulate their own voting laws. In most cases, voting remains in the hands of white male landowners.

Men of all races, and women too, who owned land, could vote. Once the state became in charge of deciding who could vote, they put restrictions on who could own land (ie women couldn't or frowned upon), but blacks still could.

Mjölnir
08-04-2016, 12:33 PM
Actually, yes you did. It wasn't photo ID, but it was the deed to your property that you needed to present since only land owners could vote.



This is completely false. There was no mention of any race or gender in the original words of the constitution or as it pertained to voting rights. Only thing you needed to be was a land owner.
1776
Only people who own land can vote
Declaration of Independence signed. Right to vote during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods is restricted to property owners—most of whom are white male Protestants over the age of 21.
1787
No federal voting standard—states decide who can vote
U.S. Constitution adopted. Because there is no agreement on a national standard for voting rights, states are given the power to regulate their own voting laws. In most cases, voting remains in the hands of white male landowners.

Men of all races, and women too, who owned land, could vote. Once the state became in charge of deciding who could vote, they put restrictions on who could own land (ie women couldn't or frowned upon), but blacks still could.

Let me rephrase: They had no guaranteed national right to vote. Blacks were not guaranteed the right to vote until the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870. At the time of the nation's founding, in some places / pockets ... blacks and women could vote ... but for the most part ... most of them could not. I don't think that makes my point "completely false" ... but I could have / should have phrased it better.

WILDJOKER5
08-04-2016, 12:37 PM
Let me rephrase: They had no guaranteed national right to vote. Blacks were not guaranteed the right to vote until the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870. At the time of the nation's founding, in some places / pockets ... blacks and women could vote ... but for the most part ... most of them could not. I don't think that makes my point "completely false" ... but I could have / should have phrased it better.

Yeah, you're right, not "completely false". Also, white males weren't guaranteed the right to vote either. Washington only had 6% of the entire population turn out to vote in the first election.

WILDJOKER5
08-04-2016, 01:08 PM
So, if these aren't enough proof of why voter ID should be required, what will?

http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp
http://www.rnla.org/survey.asp

These are from a "right wing" site, but they are talking about convictions in the court of law over the past few years and decade. Its not made up, its just verifiable facts.

Bos Mutus
08-04-2016, 02:28 PM
Not sure if you've been told, but the first SCOTUS came about Sep 24, 1789.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-first-supreme-court

Yes....confirmed on that day...

"...first session met Feb 1, 1790..."

MikeKerriii
08-04-2016, 03:07 PM
Actually, sadly to say, Judges are just as guilty of opinionated verdicts to fall in line with their ideologies as anyone else. Its like the whole thing over Obamacare and how people are forced to buy something against their will. The SCOTUS didn't see the same opinion as the people who brought the lawsuit, so it was struck down and now people have to buy something or get taxed for not having it. Since 1790's, when the SCOTUS ruled they were allowed to interpret the constitution instead of reading it literally, the SCOTUS has been the safe haven for activist judges passing laws without the population's consent.

What particular facts did these judges get wrong, and where in the written decision is that error made? What specific errorts of fact or law are you talking about and what precedent or stature do you base your opinion on? Or to put it more simply have you actualy read any of the decisions? They are all easily available.

Bos Mutus
08-04-2016, 06:11 PM
Actually, yes you did. It wasn't photo ID,

Pretty amazing how you can first say what I said isn't right, then follow that up immediately with what I just said.

"You didn't need photo ID."

"Actually you did, but not a photo ID"

Brilliant...you should run for office.

WILDJOKER5
08-05-2016, 02:58 PM
Pretty amazing how you can first say what I said isn't right, then follow that up immediately with what I just said.

"You didn't need photo ID."

"Actually you did, but not a photo ID"

Brilliant...you should run for office.

Yeah, sorry. My brain skipped the "Photo" word in your sentence.

WILDJOKER5
08-05-2016, 03:15 PM
Pretty amazing how you can first say what I said isn't right, then follow that up immediately with what I just said.

"You didn't need photo ID."

"Actually you did, but not a photo ID"

Brilliant...you should run for office.

Yeah, sorry. My brain skipped the "Photo" word in your sentence.

garhkal
08-05-2016, 05:45 PM
Where in the constitution does it give govt the power to require IDs?


No where. But then again if they can heap all sorts of requirements on what guns/who/how people can own when the 2nd amendment is explicit in its saying "no laws abridging this' is clearly stated, then why NOT put in ID laws, to ensure its only being used by those legally authorized to vote??


.impossible.

It might be, but is the alternative that we should let ANY judge just use his or her own personal opinions to rule on rather than the law as wrote?




why not? Where are the limits to what congress can and can not tax?

SO you have no objection to congress saying "everyone will buy a ford, and if you don't we will tax you as a penalty".. Or everyone will buy Sony products, and if you own any electronics from other makers, we will tax you??


Founding Fathers didn't need a photo ID to vote...gnome saying

True, but then back in their days there wasn't such a thing AS photo IDs anyway.. Along with only LAND OWNING white males were allowed to vote.


Since there used to NOT be Voter ID laws...wouldn't it be more proper to say they new laws are being pushed by conservative activists? Whilst the liberals and simply trying to keep us free from government overreach...

And how else are you going to ensure only those lawfully authorized to vote are the only ones DOING so, if you are not verifying who they are??


So, if these aren't enough proof of why voter ID should be required, what will?

http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp
http://www.rnla.org/survey.asp

These are from a "right wing" site, but they are talking about convictions in the court of law over the past few years and decade. Its not made up, its just verifiable facts.

But.. But the dems keep saying voter fraud is a right wing myth, designed to stir up resentment against minorities!!

Bos Mutus
08-05-2016, 06:00 PM
No where. But then again if they can heap all sorts of requirements on what guns/who/how people can own when the 2nd amendment is explicit in its saying "no laws abridging this' is clearly stated, then why NOT put in ID laws, to ensure its only being used by those legally authorized to vote??

So, you're fine with violating the Constitution as long as its being violated somewhere else.

Nice.


It might be, but is the alternative that we should let ANY judge just use his or her own personal opinions to rule on rather than the law as wrote?

I'm sure you are just fine with conservative judges ruling from a conservative perspective.

You really can't separate the person from how they view certain things. Someone is conservative because, let's say, they are strict constitutionalists...how can you tell a judge "Okay, I want you to make a decision here, but not using your personal opinion that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly in the way the founders understood it at the time."

Makes zero sense.


SO you have no objection to congress saying "everyone will buy a ford, and if you don't we will tax you as a penalty".. Or everyone will buy Sony products, and if you own any electronics from other makers, we will tax you??

Does the ACA make you purchase only a specific brand of insurance...or can you purchase any insurance that meets the standards?

Now...that's not to say I wouldn't have an objection if Congress passed a law saying you are subject to a tax if you don't purchase a vehicle...but, my objection wouldn't be that Congress does not have the authority to impose taxes.


True, but then back in their days there wasn't such a thing AS photo IDs anyway.. Along with only LAND OWNING white males were allowed to vote.

Right. So, you are saying that since back then there were no Photo IDs, legislatures now have the right to insist voters get one?

That's like saying since there were no AR-15s back then, the framers could not have meant AR-15 when they wrote "arms"...therefore there is no right to own an AR-15.


And how else are you going to ensure only those lawfully authorized to vote are the only ones DOING so, if you are not verifying who they are??

Not the point. On this issue, the conservatives have been the activists, right?

As I've said from the beginning...I'm not personally opposed to Voter ID laws...but, I also recognize that might be because I do not understand the difficulty in getting an ID. If the propaganda is to be believed, it's difficult for a lot of people, but I don't know why.

You have to admit, it's somewhat suspicious that the NC legislation asked for specific data to show which policies disproportionately affected black voters...and then instituted those policies.

I think the issue might gain more traction if the Rep-led states wouldn't do things like, pass a Voter ID law and then close the ID offices in low income minority communities...but that's just me.

Rainmaker
08-05-2016, 08:32 PM
So, you're fine with violating the Constitution as long as its being violated somewhere else.

Nice.

I'm sure you are just fine with conservative judges ruling from a conservative perspective.

You really can't separate the person from how they view certain things.

It's good to see you embracing your new found libertarian ideals of 'Classical Liberalism', like forcing individuals and private businesses to purchase Federal government-mandated medicine, so that they can drive up costs and transfer the wealth from the productive classes to the dead beats (who refuse to work) and the Trillion $ multi-national conglomerates, who control 17.5 % of America's GDP



Does the ACA make you purchase only a specific brand of insurance...or can you purchase any insurance that meets the standards?

Big medical corporations and the Insurance lobby wrote "the standards". So with the way the law was written, tons of people ended up losing their coverage and had to purchase a more expensive product because theirs was determined to be non-compliant. A lot of them had to go out and purchase supplemental insurance because they couldn't afford the premium or the deductible was too high on the complaint plan for them to even be able to use it.

Now, If you work for a big company or the government, there hasn't been much effect. Other than the overall drag on the economy. But, There's tons of horror stories out there for the 10's of millions of people who don't.

Bos Mutus
08-05-2016, 08:46 PM
It's good to see you embracing your new found libertarian ideals of 'Classical Liberalism', like forcing individuals and private businesses to purchase Federal government-mandated medicine, so that they can drive up costs and transfer the wealth from the productive classes to the dead beats (who refuse to work) and the Trillion $ multi-national conglomerates, who control 17.5 % of America's GDP

Where did you see me supporting or not supporting anything?


Big medical corporations and the Insurance lobby wrote "the standards".

Yes, lobbyists write most of the laws.


So with the way the law was written, tons of people ended up losing their coverage and had to purchase a more expensive product because theirs was determined to be non-compliant.

This is not news.


A lot of them had to go out and purchase supplemental insurance because they couldn't afford the premium or the deductible was too high on the complaint plan for them to even be able to use it.

OK


Now, If you work for a big company or the government, there hasn't been much effect.

I work for a small privately-held company


Other than the overall drag on the economy. But, There's tons of horror stories out there for the 10's of millions of people who don't.

Apparently the Hitler Youth Foundation to Help Kids Read Good never had a class in comprehension or understanding a fucking concept...

You can be against something while at the same time still realizing Congress has the authority to do it.

Congress has the authority to pass bad laws.

Rainmaker
08-05-2016, 09:40 PM
Apparently the Hitler Youth Foundation to Help Kids Read Good never had a class in comprehension or understanding a fucking concept...



Hitler is literally Trump!!

See, You can always tell that you've won the debate with a Libtard when they start invoking Hitler. But, why stop there Bos?... Tell us about the evils of Slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK!

And don't forget to mention the merits of all the things that you Socialists pretending to be Libertarians love to promote...Pure Americana.......like Flooding the country with droves of non-white foreigners and Illegals, affirmative action and Chinese slaves working for Multi-National conglomerates under the guise of "free trade", The merits of Legalized drugs, Pornography, Abortion, Homosexual Marriage,Transgenderism, Anal sex, and HIV..... FORWARD SOVIET LEMMINGS!!!

Bos Mutus
08-05-2016, 09:52 PM
Hitler is literally Trump!!

See, You can always tell that you've won the debate with a Libtard when they start invoking Hitler. But, why stop there Bos?... Tell us about the evils of Slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK!

And don't forget to mention the merits of all the things that Socialists pretending to be Libertarians love to promote......Pure Americana.....like Flooding the country with droves of non-white foreigners and Illegals, affirmative action and Chinese slaves working for Multi-National conglomerates under the guise of "free trade", The merits of Legalized drugs, Pornography, Abortion, Homosexual Marriage,Transgenderism, Anal sex, and HIV..... FORWARD SOVIET LEMMINGS!!!

now that's a god-damned work of art

194

Rainmaker
08-06-2016, 03:44 AM
now that's a god-damned work of art



What kind of person would find humor in defacing and perverting one of the most beloved characters in the history of children's literature?

Perhaps someone who was mentally deranged or a sexual predator?

https://www.google.com/search?q=isaiah%2B5-20&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=isaiah5-20

Rainmaker must've really hit a nerve for you to come out of retirement and begin stalking him again with your Hasbara/Black Jesuit-papist troll routine.

What "triggered" you to resume Spamming the Forum with Hitler/Fascist comments on every thread?

Maybe the mere mention of the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia (But, were not actually ethnic Russians, and in-fact hated Russians and hated Christians, so much that they Mass murdered them by the 10's of Millions in the 20th century)?

Whatever the cause for this most recent round of cyber bullying, you're still not fooling anyone.... & just like Rainmaker warned you back in January, the RINO's/NEOCON's time of calling the shots here will soon be up.

speaking of which.....Ministry of Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption recommends you start the planning process 6 months in advance of your move. TIC-TOCK, BOS!

garhkal
08-08-2016, 07:23 PM
So, you're fine with violating the Constitution as long as its being violated somewhere else.

Nice.

HU?? How is voter requirements a violation of the Constitution? YES the 14th and other amendments gives the RIGHT to vote (to blacks, women etc) but NO where in those amendments is there anything saying that the right to vote, can't come with a Requirement to prove you authorized to vote (being a citizen) and are whom you say you are..


I'm sure you are just fine with conservative judges ruling from a conservative perspective.

You really can't separate the person from how they view certain things. Someone is conservative because, let's say, they are strict constitutionalists...how can you tell a judge "Okay, I want you to make a decision here, but not using your personal opinion that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly in the way the founders understood it at the time."

Makes zero sense.

I would be banging on those judges just the same. They are supposed to be IMPARTIAL after all.


Does the ACA make you purchase only a specific brand of insurance...or can you purchase any insurance that meets the standards?

With how many people have LOST what insurance they had, cause they 'failed to meet' some bupkis requirements the ACA had, as well as the # of others who went under cause the ACA in essence pushed them out, thus forcing many onto the exchanges THEY had set up, in a way it WAS them forcing you to purchase specific insurances.


Now...that's not to say I wouldn't have an objection if Congress passed a law saying you are subject to a tax if you don't purchase a vehicle...but, my objection wouldn't be that Congress does not have the authority to impose taxes.

So what would your objection be?


Right. So, you are saying that since back then there were no Photo IDs, legislatures now have the right to insist voters get one?

If you don't see, Tech fast outpaces the laws.. Do you honestly think the founders who made those voting rights laws, foresaw hundreds of thousands of people LIVING overseas but still maintaining their "residency/Citizenship" and thus voting by mail (absentee ballots), millions of military stationed permanently (well as permanently as a 3-4 year term can be) also doing the same, or people voting via using Electronic voting booths rather than pen and paper ballots?


I think the issue might gain more traction if the Rep-led states wouldn't do things like, pass a Voter ID law and then close the ID offices in low income minority communities...but that's just me.

Now that i will give you is a smack on them. However rather than saying "the voter ID laws are in themselves racist and thus need to go. Why not say "OK reopen those ID offices"..?

Bos Mutus
08-08-2016, 08:22 PM
HU?? How is voter requirements a violation of the Constitution?

If IDs are not available or cost prohibitive for segments of the voting population...


YES the 14th and other amendments gives the RIGHT to vote (to blacks, women etc) but NO where in those amendments is there anything saying that the right to vote, can't come with a Requirement to prove you authorized to vote (being a citizen) and are whom you say you are..

Ohhh...see, I've mistaken you for a conservative. Usually conservatives say "if the Constitution doesn't the the govt. can, then they can't"

here you are saying "If the constitution doesn't say they can't, then they can"...a decidedly un-conservative viewpoint.


I would be banging on those judges just the same. They are supposed to be IMPARTIAL after all.

So...would you say Justice Scalia spent his career on the SCOTUS judging with his personal opinion and not impartially?


With how many people have LOST what insurance they had, cause they 'failed to meet' some bupkis requirements the ACA had, as well as the # of others who went under cause the ACA in essence pushed them out, thus forcing many onto the exchanges THEY had set up, in a way it WAS them forcing you to purchase specific insurances.

So what would your objection be?

That I don't like it.


If you don't see, Tech fast outpaces the laws.. Do you honestly think the founders who made those voting rights laws, foresaw hundreds of thousands of people LIVING overseas but still maintaining their "residency/Citizenship" and thus voting by mail (absentee ballots), millions of military stationed permanently (well as permanently as a 3-4 year term can be) also doing the same, or people voting via using Electronic voting booths rather than pen and paper ballots?

Sooo..what you're saying is the Constitution needs to be interpreted for the times we are in and not taken strictly for what it meant at the time of the writing? Is that what you're saying?

You're a total liberal, dude.


Now that i will give you is a smack on them. However rather than saying "the voter ID laws are in themselves racist and thus need to go. Why not say "OK reopen those ID offices"..?

MikeKerriii
08-09-2016, 03:19 AM
If IDs are not available or cost prohibitive for segments of the voting population...



Ohhh...see, I've mistaken you for a conservative. Usually conservatives say "if the Constitution doesn't the the govt. can, then they can't"

here you are saying "If the constitution doesn't say they can't, then they can"...a decidedly un-conservative viewpoint.



So...would you say Justice Scalia spent his career on the SCOTUS judging with his personal opinion and not impartially?



That I don't like it.



Sooo..what you're saying is the Constitution needs to be interpreted for the times we are in and not taken strictly for what it meant at the time of the writing? Is that what you're saying?

You're a total liberal, dude.

I think that confused liberal works better that Total liberal, but you hit the nail on the head.

garhkal
08-09-2016, 08:48 AM
If IDs are not available or cost prohibitive for segments of the voting population...


How can they be prohibitive, when those SAME people who whine about not having them to vote, have one to
Buy beer/other alcohol/tobacco
Cash checks
Buy drugs
Pick up perscriptions
Fly/Drive
Open bank accounts
Do federal paperwork (such as resigning up for welfare/EBT checks)
Enter governmental buildings etc?

Are you honestly saying that all these "Minorities who these voter ID laws hurt" don't do any of the rest of what i posted??


Ohhh...see, I've mistaken you for a conservative. Usually conservatives say "if the Constitution doesn't the the govt. can, then they can't"

here you are saying "If the constitution doesn't say they can't, then they can"...a decidedly un-conservative viewpoint.

Just like i require an ID to get a gun, So too should i require an ID to vote. IF i don't require one to vote, then WHY the hell should i require one to get a gun? BOTH are rights are they not? Or is it only infringement on my rights if it applies to voting?



So...would you say Justice Scalia spent his career on the SCOTUS judging with his personal opinion and not impartially?

Most of what i saw of his decisions, were grounded IN The letter of the Constitution, not someone's Interpretation of what it meant.



That I don't like it.

And? Is that it.. You don't like it?



Sooo..what you're saying is the Constitution needs to be interpreted for the times we are in and not taken strictly for what it meant at the time of the writing? Is that what you're saying?

You're a total liberal, dude.

No i am saying Common sense needs to be applied.
Back when voting was done in the time the laws of the Constitution were wrote, there were no such things as registering to vote, ID cards, mail in ballots etc..
Now they DO exist, we need to apply common sense to the constitution's guarantee of the right to vote.

Bos Mutus
08-09-2016, 02:15 PM
How can they be prohibitive, when those SAME people who whine about not having them to vote, have one to
Buy beer/other alcohol/tobacco
Cash checks
Buy drugs
Pick up perscriptions
Fly/Drive
Open bank accounts
Do federal paperwork (such as resigning up for welfare/EBT checks)
Enter governmental buildings etc?

The same people? How do you know these same people have IDs for all that? do you know any of them?

Of course, there could be different IDs...like how in NC the lawmakers studied which IDs certain groups of people were LESS likely to have...and then made those IDs the ones needed to vote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/


Are you honestly saying that all these "Minorities who these voter ID laws hurt" don't do any of the rest of what i posted??

No...I'm honestly saying I don't personally know anyone who has a hard time getting an ID...I've been saying that since the beginning, I don't understand it.

That doesn't automatically mean I think they are trying to vote fraudulently....i'm saying, I don't understand that world.


Just like i require an ID to get a gun, So too should i require an ID to vote. IF i don't require one to vote, then WHY the hell should i require one to get a gun? BOTH are rights are they not? Or is it only infringement on my rights if it applies to voting?


I didn't ask you to get an ID to buy a gun, did I?


Most of what i saw of his decisions, were grounded IN The letter of the Constitution, not someone's Interpretation of what it meant.


HIs opinion was that the Constitution should be taken literally by the letter...not interpreted for the times as you like to do.



And? Is that it.. You don't like it?

Yes..what's wrong with that?



No i am saying Common sense needs to be applied.
Back when voting was done in the time the laws of the Constitution were wrote, there were no such things as registering to vote, ID cards, mail in ballots etc..
Now they DO exist, we need to apply common sense to the constitution's guarantee of the right to vote.

Rainmaker
08-09-2016, 05:24 PM
"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in 2012."

-Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Supreme Court Justice and partisan hack traitor against God and America.

Mjölnir
08-09-2016, 06:57 PM
"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in 2012."

-Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Supreme Court Justice and partisan hack traitor against God and America.

Am curious what exactly she meant. From a Justice, that is very disturbing.

Bos Mutus
08-09-2016, 07:14 PM
Am curious what exactly she meant. From a Justice, that is very disturbing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model.html

Mjölnir
08-09-2016, 07:35 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model.html

Ah.

In reading the article and the context, I see what she is trying to get across. She also compliments the US Constitution. But, she kind of set herself up to be eternally quoted there.

Rainmaker
08-09-2016, 08:15 PM
Ah.

In reading the article and the context, I see what she is trying to get across.

The context is that this Dual Citizen travels abroad to Cairo (after a clandestine backed coup) and tells people that the Constitutional Republic of the USA is not the best form of Government.

She's supposed to judge impartially and objectively using the UNITED STATES LAW & The UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION as the Standard.

But instead, this Commie-crat openly admits to the practice of consulting foreign legal decisions.

The treasonous hag should've long ago been forced to resign or been impeached by the Senate.

But, it will never happen, because our entire system of government has been subverted and corrupted by Neoliberals with a progressive agenda and Neoconservatives with the same progressive agenda

garhkal
08-09-2016, 08:32 PM
The same people? How do you know these same people have IDs for all that? do you know any of them?


With the amount of times i see black drivers, blacks going into bars, buying smokes/beer in stores etc, you can't be telling me that these people DON'T have IDs to vote.. So exactly who are these 'blacks and other poor minorities' the left is continually on about in relation to 'disenfranchising cause of id laws'..?


Of course, there could be different IDs...like how in NC the lawmakers studied which IDs certain groups of people were LESS likely to have...and then made those IDs the ones needed to vote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ts-law/493649/


Now that i will admit was screwed up of NC..


No...I'm honestly saying I don't personally know anyone who has a hard time getting an ID...I've been saying that since the beginning, I don't understand it.

That doesn't automatically mean I think they are trying to vote fraudulently....i'm saying, I don't understand that world.


So why then do you seem to nearly always take the side of against voter ID laws?


HIs opinion was that the Constitution should be taken literally by the letter...not interpreted for the times as you like to do.


Fare enough. IN which case i would lean MORE to 'go by the letter, than interpreted/showing someone's understanding of it in light of how things are now...


Yes..what's wrong with that?


Nothing. But if all you are going to be is irked, and do nothing about it, then what's the point in saying "I will be irked"? Why not try to do something about it?



"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in 2012."

-Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Supreme Court Justice and partisan hack traitor against God and America.

Am curious what exactly she meant. From a Justice, that is very disturbing.

IMO it sounds like she dislikes or feels the US constitution is not worthy of being used by any other country writing their own constitution. And for someone who's supposed to rule on law IN Accordance with that constitution, it IS disturbing. As it could open the door for HER to use some other country's constitution to base her decision(s) on..

Bos Mutus
08-09-2016, 08:45 PM
With the amount of times i see black drivers, blacks going into bars, buying smokes/beer in stores etc, you can't be telling me that these people DON'T have IDs to vote.. So exactly who are these 'blacks and other poor minorities' the left is continually on about in relation to 'disenfranchising cause of id laws'..?


I don't know who they are.


Now that i will admit was screwed up of NC..

So why then do you seem to nearly always take the side of against voter ID laws?

I don't think you'll find a post where I said I'm against Voter ID laws...I think I've pretty clearly stated this was an issue I don't fully understand.

What I side against, if anything, is every time the issue is brought up you come in with all this voter fraud and the leftist this and the leftists that...and that the only reason the Dems don't want Voter Id laws is so people can vote fraudulently without getting caught...when it seems clear that there are a lot of US citizens having difficulty with the IDs, I just don't know...when, if court records are any indication is the right that is lacking evidence...but then, oh, it's just because all the courts are lefties, too...which I'm not buying that.


Fare enough. IN which case i would lean MORE to 'go by the letter, than interpreted/showing someone's understanding of it in light of how things are now...

WTF...???


Nothing. But if all you are going to be is irked, and do nothing about it, then what's the point in saying "I will be irked"? Why not try to do something about it?

If Congress was voting a law to make it mandatory to buy a vehicle...I most certainly would contact my representative and tell them what I thought of that idea....or if, say, they were going to raise income tax to 60%...I would certainly contact them.

Just because you believe Congress has the authority doesn't mean you can do nothing about it...that's why we can write and vote

It's not like the only "thing we can do about it" is challenge its constitutionality in court...I write my representatives about many issues that they have the authority, legally, to vote either way on...but, I write them to let them know how I'd like them to vote.


IMO it sounds like she dislikes or feels the US constitution is not worthy of being used by any other country writing their own constitution. And for someone who's supposed to rule on law IN Accordance with that constitution, it IS disturbing. As it could open the door for HER to use some other country's constitution to base her decision(s) on..

I think it's more she is just saying that legal thought has advanced some since 1776...and that in 1776 women were not part of the process...and we had legal slavery...so, a constitution being written today has 250 years of more thought to consider.

Rainmaker
08-09-2016, 08:58 PM
I think it's more she is just saying that legal thought has advanced some since 1776



Good thing old Ruthie convinced those Egyptians to go with their hearts and install the Muslim Brotherhood form of representative government!

Rainmaker
08-09-2016, 09:37 PM
So why then do you seem to nearly always take the side of against voter ID laws?


.

Because that's their m.o.

Bos Mutus is really a big government minded, leftist-socialist that's pretending to be a small government minded libertarian.

He doesn't really care whether or not the courts are ruling in accordance with the constitution or our founding principles.

He's just an opportunist trying to paint you into a corner, by saying that a state trying to guarantee the integrity of its elections is akin to it wanting to establishing a draconian apartheid regime. The implication being drawn is that.... Of course, You're a racist!

garhkal
08-10-2016, 06:10 AM
What I side against, if anything, is every time the issue is brought up you come in with all this voter fraud and the leftist this and the leftists that...and that the only reason the Dems don't want Voter Id laws is so people can vote fraudulently without getting caught...when it seems clear that there are a lot of US citizens having difficulty with the IDs, I just don't know...when, if court records are any indication is the right that is lacking evidence...but then, oh, it's just because all the courts are lefties, too...which I'm not buying that.


Well, if according to those leftists, people ARE having an issue with getting ID's, how are they doing any of the OTHER dozens upon Dozens of things that you need an ID for in life?

Bos Mutus
08-10-2016, 06:13 AM
Well, if according to those leftists, people ARE having an issue with getting ID's, how are they doing any of the OTHER dozens upon Dozens of things that you need an ID for in life?

I don't know....I don't get it

garhkal
08-10-2016, 08:06 PM
I don't know....I don't get it

And that's the part that grates a lot of people... Neither do THEY seem to know the answer to those sort of questions..