George Will Schools Hilary Rosen on Voter ID Laws

News Buster.org ^ | June 24, 2012 | Noel Sheppard

[Kaslin]

CNN political contributor Hilary Rosen got a much-needed education about voter ID laws from George Will on ABC's This Week Sunday.

When Rosen echoed the dishonest Democrat talking point that voter ID laws are considered "under the civil rights statutes" to be voter suppression, Will smartly replied, "Let the record show that the Supreme Court, with Justice John Paul Stevens, liberal Justice writing it, said that there is no Constitutional flaw in photo ID voter laws" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

George Will Schools Hilary Rosen on Voter ID Laws

GEORGE WILL: Mr. Holder himself has made himself obnoxious to Republicans by saying unlike the Supreme Court that photo ID laws constitute voter suppression. That is if you have to present when you have a photo ID, the way you have to present a photo ID to get into justice, Attorney General Holder’s justice department.

HILARY ROSEN, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Now we’re getting to the real issue. This is why Republicans don't like Eric Holder because he has challenged voter ID laws under the civil rights statutes as voter suppression rules that they are. Because he has challenged the Arizona, you know, discriminatory immigration law. Because he has refused to implement the discriminatory anti-marriage law. So, you know, Eric Holder has shown a lot of backbone in the justice department and the Republicans hate it. So, what do they do? They call for his resignation. They throw him with document requests that are impossible to respond to. They just throw more and more stuff at him to distract him from doing the things that actually the president and the people hired him to do.

WILL: Let the record show that the Supreme Court, with Justice John Paul Stevens, liberal Justice writing it, said that there is no Constitutional flaw in photo ID voter laws.

ROSEN: You know, they’re going to have to review them in the courts. Thirteen states, George, have instituted new statutes since the Republicans took over those state legislatures in 2010 purely for the purpose of limiting voting.

WILL: To legal voters.

Indeed. The purpose is to limit voting "to legal voters," a concept liberal media members such as Rosen are offended by because it prevents Democrats from committing voter fraud.

As for Justice Stevens and the Supreme Court's ruling on this matter, Will of course was 100 percent correct.

The New York Times reported on April 29, 2008:

The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law on Monday, concluding in a splintered decision that the challengers failed to prove that the law’s photo ID requirement placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

The 6-to-3 ruling kept the door open to future lawsuits that provided more evidence. But this theoretical possibility was small comfort to the dissenters or to critics of voter ID laws, who predicted that a more likely outcome than successful lawsuits would be the spread of measures that would keep some legitimate would-be voters from the polls. [...]

In what the court described as the “lead opinion,” which was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court acknowledged that the record of the case contained “no evidence” of the type of voter fraud the law was ostensibly devised to detect and deter, the effort by a voter to cast a ballot in another person’s name.

But Justice Stevens said that neither was there “any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who now lack photo identification.” The “risk of voter fraud” was “real,” he said, and there was “no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters.”

That liberal media members such as Rosen continue to misrepresent this matter is disgraceful.

Thankfully, there was a conservative on the panel present to set the record straight for if that weren't the case, her totally false assertions would have gone completely unchallenged.

Bravo, George! Bravo!

[hinckley buzzard]

Great, Will stepped up and delivered the goods.

[Kaslin]

He sure did

[Kaslin]

correcting tagline

[sickoflibs]

And you need an ID to get into an Obama campaign rally or fundraiser.

[TribalPrincess2U]

democRATs don’t recognize ‘laws’.
Or they just ignore them.

[TribalPrincess2U]

But you Hispanos—do not get forks to eat with.
Shouldn’t that tell you something, Hispanos?

[ridesthemiles]

An ID was also required to get into a book signing by MOOOOCHELLE (Wide LOAD) Obama a few weeks back.

[Political Junkie Too]

ROSEN: You know, they’re going to have to review them in the courts. Thirteen states, George, have instituted new statutes...

This is an example of liberals NEVER giving up.

Logic follows that if Indiana passes a voter ID law, and then that law goes to the Supreme Court, when the Court rules the law valid it allows ALL the other states can now to do the same.

Now Rosen is saying that these other states are "going to have to review them in the courts" too?

That's nonsense. The Court already reviewed it, and no more review is needed if more states which to follow Indiana.

-PJ

[sickoflibs]

RE :”But you Hispanos—do not get forks to eat with.
Shouldn’t that tell you something, Hispanos?’

Yes I saw that, LOL.

But we didn't hear one Republican mention it on today's (Sunday's) shows not even FNS. They all (on those shows) think amnesty is the magic solution.

[entropy12]

And you need an ID to get into an Obama campaign rally or fundraiser

And you can not bring a eating fork to Obama rally!

[TribalPrincess2U]

New day, same old crap.

[entropy12]

Amnesty, Dream Act, etc etc are all totally meaningless if we do not close the borders first.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”And you can not bring a eating fork to Obama rally! “

If you are Hispanic you cant use a fork at a Obama fund-raising dinner

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Amnesty, Dream Act, etc etc are all totally meaningless if we do not close the borders first”

Not to the Democrat party and progressives.
They mean millions of new liberal voters looking to big mommy government with hands out.

And RINOs are willing to accept that for a few short term votes. I call that the Rove strategy.

[Choozer]

You need a photo ID to buy Sudafed at Walmart, but libs say it’s too much to ask for voting.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”You need a photo ID to buy Sudafed at Walmart, but libs say it’s too much to ask for voting.”

Maybe they want illegals to vote now rather than wait till amnesty is passed.

[Ditto]

Amnesty, Dream Act, etc etc are all totally meaningless if we do not close the borders first.

Extra BOLD DITTOs to that.

I really don't know what we should do with all the people here now, but the first step in any emergency is to first STOP THE BLEEDING.

[Mustangman]

We live in strange times.

For the life of me I can’t figure out what is contoversial about requiring voters to prove their citezenship when registering to vote and to present an ID when actually voting. The Dems arguments against such laws are so vacuous and manufactured, it’s insulting to listen to them. George Will did a pretty good job just enduring that wind bag, let alone having to deign himself to argue against her sophomoric points. I would have found an argument over whether the sun will rise tomorrow more intellectually stimulating.

The fact is, the Feds are going to lose the voter ID case in the supreme court. As Will said, they already lost it 2006. The Feds are also going to lose the Arizona illegal immigration case on the meritis. And, the Feds are going to lose the bulk if not all of the Obamacare case as well. Do they even have a copy of the constitution in the White House?

It is clear that Attorney General Holder is not a serious man. He’s a political hack using his office to help Obama score political points. And, by the way, why doesn’t Holder turn over all of his documents regarding Fast and Furious?

Like I said, we live in strange times.

[JaguarXKE]

Well, she’s right when she says we Republicans want to limit voters! But she fails to mention it is only voters who are NOT AUTHORIZED to vote whom we are trying to suppress. Democrats could never win if dead people and illegal aliens could not vote.