difference between the parties

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115111]Sorry, I thought the title of the thread was difference between the parties.[/QUOTE
The difference between influential leaders of the parties, Paul, not the difference between the lunatic fringe of the two parties. The difference between what the parties actually represent.

Big whoop some judge says it targets blacks. Can you tell me why, specifically, its harder for blacks to get the id? What is it about the process that's any different, for one race versus another? I am all ears
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1115114]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Sorry, I thought the title of the thread was difference between the parties.[/QUOTE
The difference between influential leaders of the parties, Paul, not the difference between the lunatic fringe of the two parties. The difference between what the parties actually represent.

Big whoop some judge says it targets blacks. Can you tell me why, specifically, its harder for blacks to get the id? What is it about the process that's any different, for one race versus another? I am all ears
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Day 3 - so maybe we'll go until day 4? And this has been discussed, but I guess we have to discuss it again.

What difference does it make why it is harder? Blacks and Latinos say it is harder. That is not the issue.

I would imagine that a drivers license is the most common form of ID and blacks not having as many driver's licenses has something to do it (my Grand uncle died at 102 and voted every election - didn't drive, once he came here from another country never flew anywhere. So he didn't have a drivers license or a passport. Maybe he had a SS card - I don't know). The poorer folks live in the cities to be near the services there (hospitals, transportation, etc) and have less need for licenses. The older blacks might not have been born in hospitals many years ago so don't have birth certificates. Don't have as much $ as whites on average so they don't fly and don't have passports. I read that about 10% of the American's don't have a valid government ID. In some states you have to travel up to 250 miles to get an ID.

There have been numerous times when a strict ID law gets passed and word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

But again - that is not the issue.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115150]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Day 3 - so maybe we'll go until day 4? And this has been discussed, but I guess we have to discuss it again.

What difference does it make why it is harder? Blacks and Latinos say it is harder. That is not the issue.

I would imagine that a drivers license is the most common form of ID and blacks not having as many driver's licenses has something to do it (my Grand uncle died at 102 and voted every election - didn't drive, once he came here from another country never flew anywhere. So he didn't have a drivers license or a passport. Maybe he had a SS card - I don't know). The poorer folks live in the cities to be near the services there (hospitals, transportation, etc) and have less need for licenses. The older blacks might not have been born in hospitals many years ago so don't have birth certificates. Don't have as much $ as whites on average so they don't fly and don't have passports. I read that about 10% of the American's don't have a valid government ID. In some states you have to travel up to 250 miles to get an ID.

There have been numerous times when a strict ID law gets passed and word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

But again - that is not the issue.

"What difference does it make why it is harder? Blacks and Latinos say it is harder. "

Show me a post from a black who says it's harder because they are black, and why.

Let me see if I have an accurate grasp of your position here...

Paul: it's harder for blacks to get the id
Jim: how is the process harder for one race than another
Paul: because I say so

Is that about right? That's your argument? Paul, just last night, my 5 year-old told me I was a rotten father because I made him eat his veggies. He said I was a rotten person. Was I being mean? Nope. But he said I was.

Just because someone says something, doesn't make it so. If blacks freely choose not to get the id, that's their choice, it's not something that whitey forced upon them.

How did your grand uncle cash a check?

People in cities may not need drivers licenses. That doesn't mean they don't need a photo id.

Requiring a photo id is viewed by some, as a way of safeguarding the integrity of the process. I don't doubt that d requirements suppress more black votes than white votes. But that doesn't make it racist. It's only racist, if it's harder for blacks to get the id than whites. If the process of getting an id is too cumbersome, we need to address that. But if it's just a matter of people being too lazy to get the id, the fault lies with them, not with the law.

"word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

Then that person should be hounded from public service.

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1115156]

Originally Posted by PaulS

"What difference does it make why it is harder? Blacks and Latinos say it is harder.

Show me a post from a black who says it's harder because they are black, and why.

It not that it is harder specifically bc they are black. It is harder bc of the circumstances they are in - and those circumstances effect blacks at a higher % than whites. The judge said that once NC (and other states) realized that, they changed the laws and that impacted blacks "with surgical precision".



Hargie Randall, 72, was born in his family’s home in Huntsville, Tex., and has lived in the state his entire life. Randall, now living in Houston’s low-income Fifth Ward neighborhood, has several health problems and such poor eyesight that he is legally blind. He can’t drive and has to ask others for rides.




After Texas implemented its new law, Randall went to the Department of Public Safety (the Texas agency that handles driver’s licenses and identification cards) three times to try to get a photo ID to vote. Each time Randall was told he needed different items. First, he was told he needed three forms of identification. He came back and brought his Medicaid card, bills and a current voter registration card from voting in past elections.

“I thought that because I was on record for voting, I could vote again,” Randall said.

But he was told he still needed more documentation, such as a certified copy of his birth certificate.

Records of births before 1950, such as Randall’s, are not on a central computer and are located only in the county clerk’s office where the person was born.

For Randall, that meant an hour-long drive to Huntsville, where his lawyers found a copy of his birth certificate.

But that wasn’t enough. With his birth certificate in hand, Randall went to the DPS office in Houston with all the necessary documents. But, DPS officials still would not issue him a photo ID because of a clerical mistake on his birth certificate. One letter was off in his last name — “Randell” instead of “Randall” — so his last name was spelled slightly different than on all his other documents.

Kamin, the lawyer, asked the DPS official if they could pull up Randall’s prior driver’s-license information, as he once had a state-issued ID. The official told her that the state doesn’t keep records of prior identification after five years, and there was nothing they could do to pull up that information.

Kamin was finally able to prove to a DPS supervisor that there was a clerical error and was able to verify Randall’s identity by showing other documents.

But Myrtle Delahuerta, 85, who lives across town from Randall, has tried unsuccessfully for two years to get her ID. She has the same problem of her birth certificate not matching her pile of other legal documents that she carts from one government office to the next. The disabled woman, who has difficulty walking, is applying to have her name legally changed, a process that will cost her more than $300 and has required a background check and several trips to government offices.


Let me see if I have an accurate grasp of your position here...

Paul: it's harder for blacks to get the id
Jim: how is the process harder for one race than another
Paul: because I say soNo, I told you why - they are poorer and don't drive so they don't have licenses in the same % as whites.

Is that about right? That's your argument? Paul, just last night, my 5 year-old told me I was a rotten father because I made him eat his veggies. He said I was a rotten person. Was I being mean? Nope. But he said I was.

Just because someone says something, doesn't make it so. If blacks freely choose not to get the id, that's their choice, it's not something that whitey forced upon them.

How did your grand uncle cash a check?Went to the bank and they let him with his bank book. I think he dealt mostly in cash.

People in cities may not need drivers licenses. That doesn't mean they don't need a photo id. Correct, and many of those laws don't allow those IDs to be used for voting - things like student IDs.

Requiring a photo id is viewed by some, as a way of safeguarding the integrity of the process. I don't doubt that d requirements suppress more black votes than white votes. But that doesn't make it racist. It's only racist, if it's harder for blacks to get the id than whites. And I explained above why the laws effect more blacks than whitesIf the process of getting an id is too cumbersome, we need to address that. But if it's just a matter of people being too lazy to get the id, the fault lies with them, not with the law.You shouldn't have to go 250 miles to get an ID to vote.

"word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

Then that person should be hounded from public service.

We haven't even discussed the reason to shorten voting time - Which Rep. found hurts minorites more.

So you have 1 party which gerimands voting districts, does all it can to try to limit what times/when and adds requirements that people have ids -(all that hurt minorities) vs another party that wants to expand voting times/access and you can't see why some people view that as racist.

[PaulS]

And from the Judge who wrote the majority opinion.


Judge Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit said effects were not clear in 2007.
But there was Richard A. Posner, one of the most distinguished judges in the land and a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, saying he was mistaken in one of the most contentious issues in American politics and jurisprudence: laws that require people to show identification before they can vote.
Proponents of voter identification laws, who tend to be Republican, say the measures are necessary to prevent fraud at the polls. Opponents, who tend to be Democrats, assert that the amount of fraud at polling places is tiny, and that the burdens of the laws are enough to suppress voting, especially among poor and minority Americans.
One of the landmark cases in which such requirements were affirmed, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was decided at the Seventh Circuit in an opinion written by Judge Posner in 2007 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008.
In a new book, “Reflections on Judging,” Judge Posner, a prolific author who also teaches at the University of Chicago Law School, said, “I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion” in the case. He noted that the Indiana law in the Crawford case is “a type of law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”
Judge Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, extended his remarks in a video interview with The Huffington Post on Friday.
Asked whether the court had gotten its ruling wrong, Judge Posner responded: “Yes. Absolutely.” Back in 2007, he said, “there hadn’t been that much activity in the way of voter identification,” and “we weren’t really given strong indications that requiring additional voter identification would actually disenfranchise people entitled to vote.” The member of the three-judge panel who dissented from the majority decision, Terence T. Evans, “was right,” Judge Posner said.
The dissent by Judge Evans, who died in 2011, began, “Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Judge Posner noted that the primary opinion in the 2008 Supreme Court decision upholding the law had been written by Justice John Paul Stevens, “who is, of course, very liberal.” The outcome of the case goes to show, he said, that oftentimes, “judges aren’t given the facts that they need to make a sound decision.”
“We weren’t given the information that would enable that balance to be struck” between preventing fraud and protecting voters’ rights, he added.
Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and an expert on election law, said an admission of error by a judge is unusual, and “gives to Democrats an ‘I-told-you-so’ ” argument on voter identification issues.
More significant, he said, it reflects what he called a recent shift. Previously, cases were decided largely along party lines, but then “you started seeing both Democratic- and Republican-leaning judges” reining in voter identification requirements.
Judge Posner seemed surprised that his comments had caused a stir, and said much had changed since Crawford. “There’s always been strong competition between the parties, but it hadn’t reached the peak of ferocity that it’s since achieved,” he said in the interview. “One wasn’t alert to this kind of trickery, even though it’s age old in the democratic process.”

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And from the Judge who wrote the majority opinion.


Judge Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit said effects were not clear in 2007.
But there was Richard A. Posner, one of the most distinguished judges in the land and a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, saying he was mistaken in one of the most contentious issues in American politics and jurisprudence: laws that require people to show identification before they can vote.
Proponents of voter identification laws, who tend to be Republican, say the measures are necessary to prevent fraud at the polls. Opponents, who tend to be Democrats, assert that the amount of fraud at polling places is tiny, and that the burdens of the laws are enough to suppress voting, especially among poor and minority Americans.
One of the landmark cases in which such requirements were affirmed, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was decided at the Seventh Circuit in an opinion written by Judge Posner in 2007 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008.
In a new book, “Reflections on Judging,” Judge Posner, a prolific author who also teaches at the University of Chicago Law School, said, “I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion” in the case. He noted that the Indiana law in the Crawford case is “a type of law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”
Judge Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, extended his remarks in a video interview with The Huffington Post on Friday.
Asked whether the court had gotten its ruling wrong, Judge Posner responded: “Yes. Absolutely.” Back in 2007, he said, “there hadn’t been that much activity in the way of voter identification,” and “we weren’t really given strong indications that requiring additional voter identification would actually disenfranchise people entitled to vote.” The member of the three-judge panel who dissented from the majority decision, Terence T. Evans, “was right,” Judge Posner said.
The dissent by Judge Evans, who died in 2011, began, “Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Judge Posner noted that the primary opinion in the 2008 Supreme Court decision upholding the law had been written by Justice John Paul Stevens, “who is, of course, very liberal.” The outcome of the case goes to show, he said, that oftentimes, “judges aren’t given the facts that they need to make a sound decision.”
“We weren’t given the information that would enable that balance to be struck” between preventing fraud and protecting voters’ rights, he added.
Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and an expert on election law, said an admission of error by a judge is unusual, and “gives to Democrats an ‘I-told-you-so’ ” argument on voter identification issues.
More significant, he said, it reflects what he called a recent shift. Previously, cases were decided largely along party lines, but then “you started seeing both Democratic- and Republican-leaning judges” reining in voter identification requirements.
Judge Posner seemed surprised that his comments had caused a stir, and said much had changed since Crawford. “There’s always been strong competition between the parties, but it hadn’t reached the peak of ferocity that it’s since achieved,” he said in the interview. “One wasn’t alert to this kind of trickery, even though it’s age old in the democratic process.”

"And from the Judge who wrote the majority opinion."

and if I quote the judge who wrote the majority opinion in the Dredd Scott Case, does that mean you support slavery? Judges make huge mistakes, ask Sonia Sotomayor who has been overturned a jillion times.

Paul, if the law is implemented for the specific purpose of suppressing Democrat turnout, that's despicable. If the law is implemented to prevent voter fraud (which of course it does) and some people choose not to get the id, I have no issue with that. Zip.

I started this post to point out the differences between the parties. Another common theme of the left, is to label everything which they do not like, as racist.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"And from the Judge who wrote the majority opinion."

and if I quote the judge who wrote the majority opinion in the Dredd Scott Case, does that mean you support slavery? That makes zero sense. Judges make huge mistakes, ask Sonia Sotomayor who has been overturned a jillion times.

Paul, if the law is implemented for the specific purpose of suppressing Democrat turnout, that's despicable and I can show you other quotes from people how admited that was the intent. Now I know KC Conway has said we shouldn't listen to what someone says but what is in their heart - the meaning is pretty clear.. If the law is implemented to prevent voter fraud (which of course it does)yet the voter fraud is minute. And shortening voting periods does nothing for voter fraud. and some people choose not to get the id, I have no issue with that. Zip.

I started this post to point out the differences between the parties. And I responded to you to show you both parties have kooks and do things neither of us may agree with. Yet you continue to label a whole party with something 1 person or a minority of people in that party do (does that sentence sound familiar?) Another common theme of the left, is to label everything which they do not like, as racist.

I showed you how some people can view the laws restricting voting as racist.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115150]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I would imagine that a drivers license is the most common form of ID and blacks not having as many driver's licenses has something to do it

But many or most blacks do have drivers licenses, and many whites do not. And the regulation does not specify race. So the regulation is not race specific. Percentages of a particular race contrasted to percentages of another cannot be a basis for deciding constitutional issues because the percentages are never equal. Therefor very few, if any, regulations could be enacted

(my Grand uncle died at 102 and voted every election - didn't drive, once he came here from another country never flew anywhere. So he didn't have a drivers license or a passport. Maybe he had a SS card - I don't know). The poorer folks live in the cities to be near the services there (hospitals, transportation, etc) and have less need for licenses. The older blacks might not have been born in hospitals many years ago so don't have birth certificates. Don't have as much $ as whites on average so they don't fly and don't have passports. I read that about 10% of the American's don't have a valid government ID. In some states you have to travel up to 250 miles to get an ID.

Poverty is not race specific. A lot of whites (and that number has been growing) are classified as poor. They also live in cities for the same reason as other races. Everything you cite as a disadvantage here can be applied to whites and other races as well. If a regulation cannot be passed if it affects poor people more than those who are not poor, then, again, very few, if any regulations can be passed since the poor of all colors are disadvantaged in every instance except those regulations which specifically target the poor for benefits. And those, it might be argued, are a burden to the non-poor who have to pay the price.

There have been numerous times when a strict ID law gets passed and word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

But again - that is not the issue.

When President Lyndon Johnson said that passing the Civil Rights Act would keep the N-words voting for the Dems for 200 years, that did not make the Act unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional for other reasons (but that apparently was not an issue) but not because of what he said.

Again, these sorts of made up arguments that go outside of actual constitutional limitations in order to reach decisions which seem socially just to a particular judge replace and rewrite the Constitution. Judges are not supposed to do that. It is up to the people through their Congress (who wrote it in the first place) to amend the Constitution. Judicial activism should be opposed by both sides of the aisle since it can cut both ways, left or right.