Comments on: SCOTUS: No Picture ID? No Vote for You. http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/id-required-for-voting/ Sometimes the truth hurts Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:23:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anonymous http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/id-required-for-voting/#comment-135016 Anonymous Fri, 02 May 2008 21:07:32 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/28/id-required-for-voting/#comment-135016 Sigh. So what. The ruling is still 6 to 3 upholding the law. Get over it. Sigh. So what. The ruling is still 6 to 3 upholding the law. Get over it.

]]> By: Preston http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/id-required-for-voting/#comment-135008 Preston Fri, 02 May 2008 04:02:04 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/28/id-required-for-voting/#comment-135008 <em>Plurality/majority whatever. </em> Sigh. Actually, anonymous, this isn't just baseball where nothing matters but the final score: the text of the opinion is crucial. Sure, Stevens wrote that the state had the right to implement this law but Scalia was much, much more expansive in his interpretation. Plurality/majority whatever.
Sigh. Actually, anonymous, this isn’t just baseball where nothing matters but the final score: the text of the opinion is crucial. Sure, Stevens wrote that the state had the right to implement this law but Scalia was much, much more expansive in his interpretation.

]]> By: Anonymous http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134995 Anonymous Thu, 01 May 2008 12:06:13 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/28/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134995 Plurality/majority whatever. The fact is that it was a 6 to 3 vote to uphold the Indiana voter ID law. So, get over it. But, thanks again for proving that leftards have a vested interest in voter fraud. Plurality/majority whatever. The fact is that it was a 6 to 3 vote to uphold the Indiana voter ID law. So, get over it. But, thanks again for proving that leftards have a vested interest in voter fraud.

]]> By: no2liberals http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134990 no2liberals Thu, 01 May 2008 05:05:43 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/28/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134990 No, dude, it doesn't. Ginsberg, look up her background from her ACLU daze, a far left ideologue. I'm glad you were able to discern that info on Stevens opinion, even if it took you awhile. Whose hypothesis, Huff-N-Puff Post? Of course, since the ruling was made from sound juridical principles, and common sense, because it doesn't favor the liberal position, it's extreme. Reasonableness continues to evade you. No, dude, it doesn’t.
Ginsberg, look up her background from her ACLU daze, a far left ideologue.
I’m glad you were able to discern that info on Stevens opinion, even if it took you awhile.
Whose hypothesis, Huff-N-Puff Post?
Of course, since the ruling was made from sound juridical principles, and common sense, because it doesn’t favor the liberal position, it’s extreme.
Reasonableness continues to evade you.

]]> By: Preston http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134984 Preston Thu, 01 May 2008 01:54:25 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/28/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134984 It's a drag to be in a debate where you have to stop arguing your position just to explain what happened: Stevens wrote the plurality opinion not the majority. It's hypothesized that he broke with the liberal wing to keep Scalia from forming a majority opinion that was even more extreme than this decision. So, it's 'reasonable' to call Ginsburg names but not Scalia? Incidentally, exactly what 'ideology' do you accuse Ginsburg of adhering to? <em> No one in favor of photo ID is celebrating that any will be denied their vote, </em> Check out the top of the page, dude. Despite NO EVIDENCE of systematic fraud this post cites blogs that drool with excitement at the prospect of Democrats being denied the vote. It’s a drag to be in a debate where you have to stop arguing your position just to explain what happened:

Stevens wrote the plurality opinion not the majority. It’s hypothesized that he broke with the liberal wing to keep Scalia from forming a majority opinion that was even more extreme than this decision.

So, it’s ‘reasonable’ to call Ginsburg names but not Scalia? Incidentally, exactly what ‘ideology’ do you accuse Ginsburg of adhering to?


No one in favor of photo ID is celebrating that any will be denied their vote,

Check out the top of the page, dude. Despite NO EVIDENCE of systematic fraud this post cites blogs that drool with excitement at the prospect of Democrats being denied the vote.

]]> By: no2liberals http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134969 no2liberals Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:23:25 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/28/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134969 Preston, you call Justice Scalia names, then say you are reasonable? Your arguments are hollow. You are just repeating the same meme the liberals in the ACLU, ACORN, and other "advocacy" groups are saying. No one is being disenfranchised, other than those who aren't legally eligible to vote. If some illegals immigrants aren't able to vote, good, that's as it should be. If some felons aren't able to vote, once again, good, that's the law. If some of the many thousands of bogus registrations that ACORN has submitted in several states aren't accompanied with proper photo ID, then good, the integrity of the voting system is maintained. You tend to repeat the argument that the litigants in this case tried and failed with, that the State didn't show any examples of voter fraud. So why didn't the litigants present these multitudes of people that will be disenfranchised? Disenfranchisement is primarily a donk tool, such as algore and his counsel getting U.S. military absentee ballots thrown out, due to postmark technicalities, as APO's don't postmark, then celebrating that they had gotten those votes tossed. No one in favor of photo ID is celebrating that any will be denied their vote, we are celebrating the fact that those who are eligible to vote, will not have their votes rendered useless due to fraud. Absentee ballots have controls that ballot boxes don't, and the black helicopter theories on the electronic voting machines is just that, a conspriacy theory. Voter fraud has been going on for some time, to the point of being a standing joke, and the fact that so many states are taking action in this regard isn't based on any conspiracy theory, but of an existing problem Now, if you really want to talk about hacks at the SCOTUS, lets talk about Ruth...what a dingus ideologue! Preston, you call Justice Scalia names, then say you are reasonable?
Your arguments are hollow. You are just repeating the same meme the liberals in the ACLU, ACORN, and other “advocacy” groups are saying.
No one is being disenfranchised, other than those who aren’t legally eligible to vote. If some illegals immigrants aren’t able to vote, good, that’s as it should be. If some felons aren’t able to vote, once again, good, that’s the law. If some of the many thousands of bogus registrations that ACORN has submitted in several states aren’t accompanied with proper photo ID, then good, the integrity of the voting system is maintained.
You tend to repeat the argument that the litigants in this case tried and failed with, that the State didn’t show any examples of voter fraud. So why didn’t the litigants present these multitudes of people that will be disenfranchised?
Disenfranchisement is primarily a donk tool, such as algore and his counsel getting U.S. military absentee ballots thrown out, due to postmark technicalities, as APO’s don’t postmark, then celebrating that they had gotten those votes tossed. No one in favor of photo ID is celebrating that any will be denied their vote, we are celebrating the fact that those who are eligible to vote, will not have their votes rendered useless due to fraud.
Absentee ballots have controls that ballot boxes don’t, and the black helicopter theories on the electronic voting machines is just that, a conspriacy theory. Voter fraud has been going on for some time, to the point of being a standing joke, and the fact that so many states are taking action in this regard isn’t based on any conspiracy theory, but of an existing problem
Now, if you really want to talk about hacks at the SCOTUS, lets talk about Ruth…what a dingus ideologue!

]]> By: Anonymous http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134967 Anonymous Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:31:33 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/28/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134967 Stevens wrote the majority opinion. And while I generally would agree that <strong>Stevens</strong> is a hack and a hypocrite, in this instance he was not. [Don't want you to get confused again.] Stevens wrote the majority opinion. And while I generally would agree that Stevens is a hack and a hypocrite, in this instance he was not. [Don't want you to get confused again.]

]]> By: Anonymous http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134966 Anonymous Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:07:27 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/28/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134966 <em>Scalia is a hack and a hypocrite. </em> Stevens wrote the majority opinion. And while I generally would agree that he is a hack and a hypocrite, in this instance he was not. <em>Look, I’m a reasonable guy. </em> No, you're not. Scalia is a hack and a hypocrite.

Stevens wrote the majority opinion. And while I generally would agree that he is a hack and a hypocrite, in this instance he was not.

Look, I’m a reasonable guy.

No, you’re not.

]]> By: Preston http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134965 Preston Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:01:17 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/28/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134965 I don't know how to spell it out for you: not everybody is you. Scalia is a hack and a hypocrite. "Wise" isn't in his repertoire. Look, I'm a reasonable guy. If there actually was a problem with this type of voter fraud (aside from the confused 72 year old who sometimes voted in Florida and sometimes voted in Indiana) I would set up a law that allowed people to bring in a wide variety of identification. The widely used technique to prove residency is a utility bill. If the person, came into vote without this I would have a provisional ballot. But in the end all of this is unnecessary: <strong>because there is no problem!!!</strong> If I want to throw an election am I really going to go from precinct to precinct voting illegally or am I going to get a giant stack of absentee ballots? Even better, I am going to compromise the integrity of an electronic voting machine and completely change the tally. I don’t know how to spell it out for you: not everybody is you.

Scalia is a hack and a hypocrite. “Wise” isn’t in his repertoire.

Look, I’m a reasonable guy. If there actually was a problem with this type of voter fraud (aside from the confused 72 year old who sometimes voted in Florida and sometimes voted in Indiana) I would set up a law that allowed people to bring in a wide variety of identification. The widely used technique to prove residency is a utility bill. If the person, came into vote without this I would have a provisional ballot.

But in the end all of this is unnecessary: because there is no problem!!! If I want to throw an election am I really going to go from precinct to precinct voting illegally or am I going to get a giant stack of absentee ballots? Even better, I am going to compromise the integrity of an electronic voting machine and completely change the tally.

]]> By: no2liberals http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134961 no2liberals Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:31:53 +0000 http://urbangrounds.com/2008/04/28/id-required-for-voting/#comment-134961 Well, I don't love liberal reactionaries. Exactly how are American voters being disenfranchised? Are you saying you and your liberal memo producers are more wisened than state legislatures and the Supremes? I challenge that assertion. Well, I don’t love liberal reactionaries.
Exactly how are American voters being disenfranchised? Are you saying you and your liberal memo producers are more wisened than state legislatures and the Supremes?
I challenge that assertion.

]]>