Skip to comments.
Editorial: Voter ID ruling will rank among court's worst
Sacramento Bee ^
| 5/1/8
| Editor
Posted on 05/01/2008 8:00:19 AM PDT by SmithL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 next last
1
posted on
05/01/2008 8:00:19 AM PDT
by
SmithL
To: SmithL
Ignorant article.
There is no hardship in getting a photo id.
Folks use them for a host of other things every single day.
2
posted on
05/01/2008 8:02:09 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
To: SmithL
This may not sound onerousMost likely a good reason for that, too. ;)
3
posted on
05/01/2008 8:02:34 AM PDT
by
KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
(If McCain really CAN "win without conservatives," then why do you care if I vote for him or not?)
To: SmithL
Where’s the barf alert?? Just reading the excerpt makes me want to jump through the internet and slap the writter.
4
posted on
05/01/2008 8:03:13 AM PDT
by
fightinbluhen51
("...If it moves, tax it, if it moves faster, regulate it, if it stops, subsidies it.")
To: SmithL
SacBee stands up to be counted in favor of electoral fraud. Nice work, editors!
5
posted on
05/01/2008 8:03:13 AM PDT
by
babble-on
To: SmithL
6
posted on
05/01/2008 8:04:02 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(Forget the past and you're doomed to repeat it.)
To: SmithL
"The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history."That just means they've gotten away with it.
7
posted on
05/01/2008 8:04:18 AM PDT
by
SlowBoat407
(It's a fine line between Guardian Angel and Stalker.)
To: SmithL
To find fraud, the justices went back to New York City in 1868. They also noted one possible case of fraud out of 2.8 million ballots cast in Washington's 2004 election. I don't get it. If there is no problem with fraud, why should the editor be concerned about an antifraud measure?
To: SmithL
Yes. Rank with one of the worst, right libs?
Right up there with Roe v. Wade?
9
posted on
05/01/2008 8:06:57 AM PDT
by
rlmorel
(Clinging bitterly to Guns and God in Massachusetts...:)
To: SmithL
This may not sound onerous, but it can be to large groups of people.Yeah, if you're an illegal or like to vote at several different precincts on election day.
10
posted on
05/01/2008 8:08:00 AM PDT
by
BluH2o
To: xzins
I wonder if these folks will recommend pass legislation to forbid the asking for id’s to purchase beer, liquor, cigarettes, guns? How about the hardship it causes to prove I’m me when I want to write a check at Walmart, Safeway or another store or cash one at a bank?
Naw.........
11
posted on
05/01/2008 8:08:10 AM PDT
by
GreyFriar
( 3rd Armored Division - Spearhead)
To: SmithL
To: SmithL
The U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling on Indiana's voter ID law will rank as among the court's worst, for those wanting to commit voter fraud. There, fixed it.
13
posted on
05/01/2008 8:10:29 AM PDT
by
Hoffer Rand
(0'bambi: the audacity of hype)
To: SlowBoat407
Huh? No evidence. These guys have obviously never been to Lake County.
To: All
15
posted on
05/01/2008 8:12:47 AM PDT
by
dighton
To: SmithL
Indiana makes it very difficult for these new residents, who should be able to vote at the polls where they live and where local laws affect them.And they will probably vote absentee from their home state, too, then? No, college kids should NOT be allowed to vote locally if they still claim a home address in another city or state.
16
posted on
05/01/2008 8:12:47 AM PDT
by
Right Wing Assault
("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
To: SmithL
The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history The law may or may not be effective or even necessary. But in a democratic republic, isn't that up to the people (through their elected representatives in the legislature) to decide? SCOTUS didn't pass judgement on the efficacy of the law, only on the constitutionality of it. If the people of Indiana, or any other state with a similar law don't like it, they can change it or repeal it altogether. I don't recall seeing anything in the SCOTUS ruling requiring states to require photo ID.
To: SmithL
B.S. Bee Editor:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/10/that-woman-whos-challenging-indianas-voter-id-law-registered-to-vote-in-two-states/
18
posted on
05/01/2008 8:12:51 AM PDT
by
sausageseller
(http://coolblue.typepad.com/the_cool_blue_blog/)
To: sausageseller
19
posted on
05/01/2008 8:13:24 AM PDT
by
sausageseller
(http://coolblue.typepad.com/the_cool_blue_blog/)
To: SmithL
What an idiot!
We have court rulings that invented out of whole cloth a constitutional right to abortion.
We have court rulings that evicerated states’ rights.
We have court rulings that expand government power to take property for “public benefit” when the constitution clearly only provided for seizure of property for “public use”.
And this idiot thinks that a ruling that upholds a duly passed law requiring proof of identity and eligibility to vote constitutes “one of the worst rulings in history”? Again, WHAT AN IDIOT!!!!!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson