Posted on 10/18/2014 3:30:54 PM PDT by right-wing agnostic
In her dissent to the Supreme Court’s ruling that Texas could enforce its voter ID law, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote:
"The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters."
No, Justice Ginsburg; the greatest threat to confidence in our election process is that too many people may vote who are not legally qualified to vote, or that may vote fraudulently. How confident can honest citizen voters be that the elections are fair and their voices are being heard if we know that anyone who wants to can vote—often by registering on the spot at the polls?
The argument that the requirement to show identification in order to vote discriminates is a phony argument. States make it easy to obtain valid identification -- usually through the motor vehicle department. The problem is that too many people are too lazy to get off their behinds and go get an ID card. (And these are usually the people who complain the most about the law.)
It is also the liberal side of the political scene that fights these laws because without an ID, it is too easy for those who do not have the right to vote -- usually illegal aliens. But it also allows convicted felons and similar people to vote. And they almost always vote for those who give them their government handouts and other benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
No, the greater threat is multiple votes from many tens of thousands of “legal” voters ...
That’s the reason downtown - close to the voters, wlaking distance to every polling place, good public transit, many voters not working - so they can vote any time of day, etc, etc, etc are ALWAYS the LAST to report in to the secretary of state their results.
They need to know how many votes to manufacture in what races.
So Ginsberg is for removing any ID check for gun purchases immediately, since of course, ID is too much of a burden for a constitutionally protected right. She’s against ID check to tour the United States Supreme Court, since of course, the constitution protects peaceful assembly and presentation of redress by the citizens.
How about ID check for abortions, a requirement for the digital medical records?
It is amusing how liberals find the idea of ID distasteful in only one particular instance. But then again, without double standards, liberals wouldn’t have any standards at all.
Ginsburg is the ACLU representative on the Supreme Court.
In retrospect, surprising that her confirmation in the Senate hearings went so smoothly. Wouldn’t you think that someone with a background as general legal counsel for the ACLU would provoke some opposition to being on the Supreme Court? But didn’t happen.
I think she knows this, and is voting to enable it.
So gargoyle Buzzy equates the Voter ID laws with the old 19th Century poll tax? She needs to be returned to her perch high up on some historic building facade from whence she came and let saner minds prevail. Everyday is halloween with Buzzy on the bench.
Ginsberg didn’t quite think it through. When people who shouldn’t vote, or people vote illegally multiple times, it devalues each legitimate vote. People who want to vote but don’t have the documentation do that by choice.
I just hope we win in November, the Ginsberg can go ahead and die.
She’s a delirious hag.
In Nevada, I can literally go vote using my next store neighbors name. If he goes to vote after I use his name, I suppose they will have to verify who he is and let him vote, but at that point there is no way to undo my fraudulant vote or even track who I am. Now imagine if I worked for acorn, and had created a list of fake names all registered to vote.
We need to catch up with Iraq’s advanced ‘purple finger’ technology.
The old dyke does it backwards too.
Her husband and daughter who instructed in Columbia lobbied hard with Hillary Clinton. The curse of the Clintons never stop.
What evidence is there that this is a “purposefully discriminatory law”?
Is there any evidence of that at all?
Quick, call Zeke - she is way past her expiration date.
She’s been quite the drama queen.
An idiot in a black robe is still and idiot.
Poll tax huh?
Then just pay people a nominal amount to get a voter ID.
And if they are disabled have someone go to them to take the ID photo and issue the ID.
How then could it be a tax if the state pays you cash to get it and if needed will come to your home to issue it :-)
Much better to fork out a little cash than have massive voter fraud.
Justice Ginsburg by her own words tells you who she is and what she is. If all people have to show a voter ID, then how can you pose the argument that it is racist? You can’t! If all people have to do it, how can you postulate that it discriminates against some but not the others? She is an old lady, so people are letting her get away with this crap. If she were younger, people would be sitting on her. They just use the idea that she is partially senile, and I think she is to offer an argument such as this.
If I need a permit to exercise my 2nd amendment rights because “reasonable” regulations are permissible, it must be constitutional to require an ID to vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.