Posted on 09/18/2012 1:39:23 PM PDT by smoothsailing
September 18, 2012
John Hayward
The sheer lunacy of the battle to protect vote fraud continues unabated, as CBS News reports “Pennsylvania’s highest court on Tuesday told a lower court judge to stop a tough new law requiring voters to show photo identification from taking effect in this year’s presidential election if he finds voters cannot get easy access to ID cards or if he thinks voters will be disenfranchised.”
In other words, the lower court judge, Robert Simpson – who already denied an injunction to keep the voter ID law from going into effect – has been instructed to try again, and think real hard until he comes up with a rationale for blocking the law. Simpson already considered questions of “disenfranchisement,” but he’ll have to reconsider until he comes up with the answer leftist groups want to hear.
The marquee case of cruel “disenfranchisement” in Pennsylvania, 93-year-old Viviette Applewhite, cheerfully popped out and picked up her voter ID card the day after Judge Simpson handed down his ruling. Another “hard case” cited in the CBS report, a different 93-year-old woman named Bea Booker, complained that she was “too infirmed to travel to a driver’s license center to get an ID.” Well, then how the heck is she going to vote? Oh, that’s right: absentee ballot. Which does not require a photo ID.
But on and on down the rabbit hole we tumble, with increasingly ridiculous “arguments” offered against the most elementary, common-sense measures for protecting ballot integrity. We’re not allowed to take meaningful steps to secure our ballots, which makes it extremely difficult to catch ineligible voters… and that very lack of convictions is cited as evidence that we don’t need a better system to prevent vote fraud. Those thousands of ineligible voters turning up on the rolls in state like Ohio and Indiana? Don’t worry about them. The sizable number of ineligible voters caught in the state of Florida after actually voting in prior elections? Try to forget that happened.
Our super-government can force you to do a great many things, including purchase government-approved health coverage from private companies, but asking you to produce the minimal documentation required to claim a free voter ID card, if you’re one of the small minority of people who don’t already have an acceptable form of identification? Why, that’s unthinkable, and probably racist.
The CBS report concludes by noting some Pennsylvania residents who sued against its voter ID law “had raised the claim that they might be unable to vote because they lacked the necessary documents, such as an official birth record, to get the law’s ID card of last resort: A state nondriver photo ID that is subject to federal requirements because it can be used for non-voting purposes, such as boarding an airplane.”
What? You need a photo ID to board an airplane? Is anyone at the Justice Department working to strike down this obviously racist conspiracy to keep people of color from flying? Should some judges be required to think long and hard about the unfairness of placing horrendous roadblocks in the path of those who wish to engage in the countless activities that require proper identification?
Wendy Rosen, ('Rat, Commie) Maryland, congresswoman candidate, voted both in Maryland AND Floriduh in the same 2008 election.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of 'Rats at the 'Rat convention, when asked to vote God and Jerusalem-Isaeli-capital back into the platform, voted THRICE to not allow it (more than half voted to removed, and two-thirds were needed to affirm).
they lacked the necessary documents, such as an official birth record...
Yikes. Maybe we should reconsider. We wouldn't want to disenfranchise our own dear leader pResident, now, would we?
I love it...At least some people still have some common sense, unlike leftist judges and liberal democrats like Holder, his boss and a slew of Rats in Washington.
The argument the left uses is just plain Hypocrisy. Every time a dead person votes- Every time a person votes twice- And the whole long list of illegal votes...
Every time that happens then a legitimate voter is disenfranchised.
These lawless, politically motivated judges have been being planted in judicial positions for a long time. We are now seeing just how extensive the Gramsci, Marxist infiltration really is.
BTW - how do we get past the NBP when we attempt to help all those “honest” city of brotherly love poll workers avoid making “mistakes” identifying who is on the picture of the id.
I think they have a Lib judge lined up to strike this down less than 72 hrs. before the election. That way we’ll have no time to appeal or react.
I have a suggestion but it’d probably get you arrested, unlike the NBP scum Holder turned loose.
I still believe we’ll have Voter ID in Pennsylvania, but I’m not as certain as I was a week ago that we’ll have it in time for this years election.
If I was the lower court judge, I’d turn on a dime and throw this right back at the Supremes, telling them once more that the law is constitutional and no one can be “disenfranchised” by it unless they deliberately choose to be and that “damnit, I ain’t going to tell you again!” LOL.
These are NOT judges, they are politicians on the bench
Is that why the Supremes refused to rule and kicked it back to the lower court instead?
I read that it was a 4-2 decision by the PA Supremes.
Your reply is exactly what the lower court judge should send back to the 4. To the 2 that supported him he should send “Thank You” crads. LOL!
Here's a quote from one of them:
One of the dissenters, Justice Debra Todd, who indicated she would have granted an injunction against the law outright, wrote, "Seven weeks before an election, voters are entitled to know the rules. ... The eyes of the nation are upon us, and this court has chosen to punt rather than to act. I will have no part of it."
I think it's absolutely insane that photo ID is not required to be shown to vote and it's clear to me these judges, AG Holder and Dems in general will fight it to the very end. Not because of disenfranchising voters but to enable the continuation of lib voter fraud.
I recall reading somewhere that Judge Simpson has some guts and is not easily intimidated and is pretty resistant to political pressure. I can’t find a link for that but I’m “cautiously hopeful” that he’ll do the correct thing and approve the law. I guess we’ll see. I hope he moves quickly since he’s already very familiar with the case.
It’s good to hear that about Simpson. I think he could act tomorrow, just reaffirm his initial ruling and kick it right back to the Supremes.
Some organization should file suit demanding that ID requirements to flay are unconstitutional and that it prevents minorities from flying.
PA Ping!
If you want on/off the PA Ping List, please freepmail me. Thanks!
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.