Is this for real?
Have a look at this from CNN, dated the 9th. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/09/voter.id/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A conservative majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to support an Indiana law requiring voters to show photo identification, despite concerns that it could deprive thousands of people of their right to vote.
The Supreme Court is reviewing an Indiana law that requires voters to show a photo ID.
At issue is whether state laws designed to stem voter fraud would disenfranchise large numbers of Americans who might lack proper identification -- many of them elderly, poor or minority voters.
In what has become a highly partisan legal and political fight, the justices wrestled with a balancing test of sorts to ensure both state and individual interests were addressed.
Civil rights activists and the state Democratic Party complain Indiana's law is the most restrictive in the nation.
OK now - do you see what I see in this?
Photo ID to vote? What's the big deal? Who doesn't have a photo ID in this country today?
For God's sake you need photo ID to cash a check! (And if you're hip enough to use an ATM you are certainly competent to get a photo ID somewhere.)
Of course, it's been gleefully pointed out that you need photo ID to vote in Mexico, and my wife informs me that you need it in Poland as well. (That probably means the rest of Europe too.)
And what's this "A conservative majority of the Supreme Court" and "highly partisan legal and political fight" thing? How is this a conservative or liberal issue? It's procedure, not policy!
Does anyone else see what seems perfectly plain about this case or am I paranoid?
This is a blatant attempt to keep it easy to commit vote fraud.
My voter ID doesn't have a picture, so I have to show a photo. If I weren't who I said I was - oh say, if I were not the person named, not a citizen, or registered in two places - then I'd have to commit not one, but two major felonies to vote. One by voting where I wasn't entitled to, and two by obtaining and using fake ID - and thereby leaving a photo trail of evidence.
Oops!
If I were me in those circumstances, I'd want to cut a deal with the prosecutor to lead him to the higher-ups in the scam. Uh-oh
Makes one wonder what might have been going on till now...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A conservative majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to support an Indiana law requiring voters to show photo identification, despite concerns that it could deprive thousands of people of their right to vote.
The Supreme Court is reviewing an Indiana law that requires voters to show a photo ID.
At issue is whether state laws designed to stem voter fraud would disenfranchise large numbers of Americans who might lack proper identification -- many of them elderly, poor or minority voters.
In what has become a highly partisan legal and political fight, the justices wrestled with a balancing test of sorts to ensure both state and individual interests were addressed.
Civil rights activists and the state Democratic Party complain Indiana's law is the most restrictive in the nation.
OK now - do you see what I see in this?
Photo ID to vote? What's the big deal? Who doesn't have a photo ID in this country today?
For God's sake you need photo ID to cash a check! (And if you're hip enough to use an ATM you are certainly competent to get a photo ID somewhere.)
Of course, it's been gleefully pointed out that you need photo ID to vote in Mexico, and my wife informs me that you need it in Poland as well. (That probably means the rest of Europe too.)
And what's this "A conservative majority of the Supreme Court" and "highly partisan legal and political fight" thing? How is this a conservative or liberal issue? It's procedure, not policy!
Does anyone else see what seems perfectly plain about this case or am I paranoid?
This is a blatant attempt to keep it easy to commit vote fraud.
My voter ID doesn't have a picture, so I have to show a photo. If I weren't who I said I was - oh say, if I were not the person named, not a citizen, or registered in two places - then I'd have to commit not one, but two major felonies to vote. One by voting where I wasn't entitled to, and two by obtaining and using fake ID - and thereby leaving a photo trail of evidence.
Oops!
If I were me in those circumstances, I'd want to cut a deal with the prosecutor to lead him to the higher-ups in the scam. Uh-oh
Makes one wonder what might have been going on till now...
posted by Steve @ 6:35 AM
3 Comments:
At 12:50 PM,
Joseph Sixpack said…
"... many of them elderly, poor or minority voters."
I wonder if the "journalist" who wrote this crap has an opinion on the issue, or if he/she/it inadvertently threw in that stale catch phrase that is so often abused by the left.
Rush read a similar (maybe the same) article from CNN on his show and pointed out that the Supreme Court was described by the "journalist" as being a conservative court that "awarded" George W. Bush the Presidency in 2000. How can a "journalist" get away with such factually incorrect and biased crap, expect to keep his/her/it's job, and expect to be taken seriously? And how is the 2000 race relevant to the issue at hand?
At 11:57 PM,
Mark said…
Unfortunately, there's a tendency to lump in issues about photo ID policy with issues of privacy. I suppose for some it strikes a little too close to the idea of a Nazi official asking for your papers, or that it is if nothing else a movement in that direction.
Some people are sensitive about that sort of thing. Some are paranoid. Some are just along for the ride. I think there's great merit in suspicion of a government trying to pay too close attention to its citizens (and I'm glad that there are plenty of nuts out there who do a far more diligent job of it than I ever could), but it's obvious that's nothing at all like what's happening here.
At 7:19 AM,
Tom the Impaler said…
Rush got a laugh out of the possibility that Hillary might have used vote fraud to beat Obama. I believe he, and certainly I was quite curious about what would happen if Democrats took to using vote fraud on each other?
Post a Comment
<< Home