Posted on 10/18/2014 4:44:33 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The Supreme Court said Saturday that Texas can use its controversial new voter identification law for the November election.
The Supreme Court's order was unsigned, as it typically is in these situations. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they would have left the district court decision in place.
"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," Ginsburg wrote in dissent.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
Big surprise, NOT.
Ginsbburg is an idiot of biblical proportion. Exactly how is it "purposely discriminatory", when everybody has to do it?
What’s his source of income? How does he get it without an ID? How does he buy booze without an ID?
What’s really amazing is that adults (liberals) advance this ID argument. They should be laughed out of the public square for this.
Buzzy is a gargoyle from below. Since when does having to show a photo ID to vote compared to the old ‘poll tax’? How absurd from the mind of a triangulated leftist.
If we had voter ID in every state, Democrats would never win another election. So, here is my solution.
Vote by county. Win the county, win one vote. Most votes wins the electoral votes. Leave congress alone. Just do this for senate and presidential elections.
Here is the beauty of it. You don’t need voter id. If you want to cheat and vote 125% of registered voters, have at it. It is 1 point and doesn’t effect the vote in other counties. And it is free so any objections are easily answered. Also, it isn’t discriminatory.
I agree. Much to my chagrin, Washington State went to all mail-in voting a couple of years ago (like OR). I liked going to the voting booth - made the act of and privilege of voting special. Given the shenanigans here with Rossi losing to ex-Governor Fraudoire several years ago and Cantwell narrowly winning over Slade Gorton in 2000, I guess the Dims in the state decided this would help them not have to have to jump through so many (rather blatantly obvious) hoops to win future elections.
The scenario you describe is prevented by the USSC, Baker v. Carr, 1961, and other rulings.
This is very much underappreciated as a cause of America’s decline.
I’m in my upper 50’s and when I buy a bottle of wine at the grocery store they ask to see my license or photo ID. Now that is pretty stupid as to verify my age but think of all the other things they ask to see your ID. No ID then no voting. No cheating Buzzy Ruth.
To allow unqualified people to vote, or to allow double voting (i.e., voting in both NY/FL or MD/VA), unduly discriminates against ME, and others like me, who are adult U.S. citizens, who vote once and only once, in a single jurisdiction.
Those who cheat and pervert the voting system have created the need for voter ID. My intuition tells me most of them aren’t voting conservative/Republican.
a president that was elected through fraud is now on his second term
(http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/04/voter-ballot-fraud-obama-failed-to-qualify-for-indiana-ballot-how-many-other-states/)
Obama FAILED To Qualify For INDIANA BALLOT
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/voter_fraud_obama_failed_to_qualify_for_indiana_ballot_how_many_other_states.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGZFgMNM-UU&list=PL8DCB2412F6E4F7ED
If that were the reason, I presume those that brought the lawsuit could have shown ONE person, at least, whom was effected by the Law (IE: disenfranchised)???
Even if they could, the 1st cross-question should be something along the lines of “Since the IDs are given out FREE, to those that need, what prevents you from obtaining ID?”, or, even better yet, “Do you currently collect taxpayer funded welfare in any shape, matter or form?” (gotta have an ID there)
Will this apply to other states that just had their
Voter ID statutes struck down?
*************
Good question. WI ID law wasn’t struck down but rather delayed from implemention this
election. Apparently they were mailing out ballots that didn’t have the ID info included.
Lots of quotes from the dissent in the article, but none from the majority.
Funny how one govt program is required to have ID in one circumstance ...but not in the other....where one is far more important in overall security of the nation...if we have learned nothing over the last 6 yrs is how backward and right down embarrassing democrats are...
I present it whether they ask or not. And they do not ask.
I had one old biddy tell me, "Oh you don't need to do that."
I replied, "Why not?" She had that deer-in-the-headlights look, so I dropped it. No sense engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Remember, Orrin Grant Hatch was co-sponsor of the Ginsburg nomination, and he was originally a “Reaganite” or something like that.
I do not believe deliverance is at hand.
Going to be a big hist some place the democrats are going to need more bribe money than ever before.
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.