difference between the parties

[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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

"That makes zero sense"

You attempted to prove that id's are racist, by quoting the judge that wrote the opinion. In other words, according to you, if the judge says it's racist, that means you think it's racist. Well, I can find a judge's opinion that upholds slavery. My point is that just because a judge says something, that doesn't make it so.

"yet the voter fraud is minute"

You are probably correct. But we can reduce it a lot further by requiring proof of identity. Amazing to me that liberals go berserk at the notion that if someone shows up to vote, we might require that they prove their identity. Again, it shows the differences between the two parties. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for some proof of identity in order to vote. If I got to the poll and was told that someone already voted who said they were me, I would be none too happy. Amazing to me that liberals find that controversial.

"I responded to you to show you both parties have kooks and do things neither of us may agree with"

I never claimed that the lunatic fringe of the democratic party, speaks for all democrats. Is Obama the lunatic fringe? Is the DNC the lunatic fringe? Is the Congressional Black Caucus the lunatic fringe?

Paul, I voted for Trump. I don't feel responsible for the way he talks about women. But you can feel free to claim that I support the vast majority of his policy decisions. Using that logic, if Obama kisses up to Al Sharpton, I feel it's valid to say that Democrats are comfortable cozying up to racist hatemongers who don't pay their taxes.

"you continue to label a whole party with something 1 person or a minority of people in that party do "

That's not how I see it. I feel you continue to deny that liberals believe in the core beliefs of liberalism - abortion, open borders, large federal government, high taxes and spending. I would never claim that one obscure lunatic speaks for all democrats. But you seem intent to deny that there are any common themes that apply, in general, to democrats.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You attempted to prove that id's are racist, by quoting the judge that wrote the opinion. In other words, according to you, if the judge says it's racist, that means you think it's racist. No, my point was that judge said if he know how the law would be used, he wouldn't have voted the way he did. Well, I can find a judge's opinion that upholds slavery. My point is that just because a judge says something, that doesn't make it so.

"yet the voter fraud is minute"

You are probably correct. But we can reduce it a lot further by requiring proof of identity. So many, many thousands don't get to vote so we can reduce the 31 cases of voter fraud to zero?


In an Aug. 16, 2014, article for the Washington Post, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, currently on leave to work with the Department of Justice overseeing voting, wrote that he has been tracking allegations of voter fraud for years, including any “credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.”

“So far,” he wrote, “I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. … To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.”
so instead of like 50 votes nationwide over Amazing to me that liberals go berserk at the notion that if someone shows up to vote, we might require that they prove their identity. Again, it shows the differences between the two parties. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for some proof of identity in order to vote. If I got to the poll and was told that someone already voted who said they were me, I would be none too happy. Amazing to me that liberals find that controversial.And it is amazing to me that conservatives can go beserk by incorrectly saying that there are massive amounts of voter fraud when infact there isn't.

"I responded to you to show you both parties have kooks and do things neither of us may agree with"

I never claimed that the lunatic fringe of the democratic party, speaks for all democrats. Again, for what the 5th time? What is the title of this thread? Is Obama the lunatic fringe? Is the DNC the lunatic fringe? Is the Congressional Black Caucus the lunatic fringe?

Paul, I voted for Trump. I don't feel responsible for the way he talks about women. But you can feel free to claim that I support the vast majority of his policy decisions.Did I ever do that? Pls. point it out. The only thing I have done is when you apply to all Dems. what some Dem. has done, that you don't like I have done the same to the Rep. (poorly worded sentence). I don't know if I have ever commented on his policies? Certainly about his honesty. Using that logic, if Obama kisses up to Al Sharpton, I feel it's valid to say that Democrats are comfortable cozying up to racist hatemongers who don't pay their taxes.Do Steve Bannon's views represent all Rep?

"you continue to label a whole party with something 1 person or a minority of people in that party do "

That's not how I see it. I feel you continue to deny that liberals believe in the core beliefs of liberalism - abortion, open borders, large federal government, high taxes and spending. I would never claim that one obscure lunatic speaks for all democrats. [COLOR="Red"Again, for what the 6th time? What is the title of this thread?][/COLOR] But you seem intent to deny that there are any common themes that apply, in general, to democrats.

I agree that those broadly in general are things the liberals believe it. I have never denied that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I agree that those broadly in general are things the liberals believe it. I have never denied that.

"So many, many thousands don't get to vote so we can reduce the 31 cases of voter fraud to zero?"

If the process to get an id is reasonable, then anyone who doesn't get to vote, is a result of a free choice they made not to get an id.

He found 31, huh? If someone pretended to be someone else who didn't show up to vote, and then got away with it, how would this DOJ official have known about that?

Paul, I will never say that voter fraud (pretending to be someone else) is rampant. I am saying that it happens, and I don't see that requiring an id (which reduces that crime) is all that oppressive. We all have to jump through hoops, occasionally, to function in this society we have.

You have never held me accountable for Trump's policies, not once. I am saying, you can. If Trump votes to repel Obamacare, you can say "those jerks in the GOP repealed Oamacare", and I cannot refute that.

Again, I don't know that you have ever conceded that there are some general policy beliefs that it's fair to assign to the Democratic party. No two people are identical, but it's not unfair for me to say that Dems support abortion, nor I sit unfair for me to say that Dems are attacking police officers. Maybe not all Dems do it, but very very few speak out against it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"So many, many thousands don't get to vote so we can reduce the 31 cases of voter fraud to zero?"

If the process to get an id is reasonable, then anyone who doesn't get to vote, is a result of a free choice they made not to get an id. If they can't afford an approved voter ID like a drivers license, you are correct it is their choice. Is that really what we want to do?

He found 31, huh? If someone pretended to be someone else who didn't show up to vote, and then got away with it, how would this DOJ official have known about that?IF you do a search on voter fraud, that is always the Right's arguement.

Paul, I will never say that voter fraud (pretending to be someone else) is rampant. I am saying that it happens, and I don't see that requiring an id (which reduces that crime) is all that oppressive. We all have to jump through hoops, occasionally, to function in this society we have.

You have never held me accountable for Trump's policies, not once. I am saying, you can. If Trump votes to repel Obamacare, you can say "those jerks in the GOP repealed Oamacare", and I cannot refute that.

Again, I don't know that you have ever conceded that there are some general policy beliefs that it's fair to assign to the Democratic party. No two people are identical, but it's not unfair for me to say that Dems support abortion, nor I sit unfair for me to say that Dems are attacking police officers. Maybe not all Dems do it, but very very few speak out against it.

I agree that the Dems in general support abortion and as I stated in my prior post there are other things that generally Dems support. certainly not all Dems. Just as not all who vote Rep. are against abortion or support other things on the Rep. platform.

I think it is reprehensable to attack PO. Certainly there are "bad" PO just as there are bad people in every profession. The vast majority do a great job.