Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 01-12-2017, 12:20 PM   #31
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Should we again discuss how the GOP is constantly trying to impose rules on voting (that aren't in the const.)
Actually, Paul, it is in the Constitution. Being "in the Constitution" does not mean that it is actually, verbatim, listed there. The Constitution mostly limits what government can do within a small list of broad categories. Anything outside of those categories is prohibited to government abridgement.

Voting, the right for citizens to vote is assumed by the nature of the form of government instituted. It does not fall into any constitutional category of government power, except to arrange times and places as well as the qualifications of those running for office. But it is assumed, by Amendments, to have powers of regulation in that it is prohibited from certain types of regulation. Thereby assuming that it can regulate voting except in those Amended circumstances.

There is no prohibition in the Constitution against government regulation of the voting process except for the prohibition against doing so by "sex" (19th Amendment), or "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment), or by the age of anyone over 18 (26th Amendment).

If there is no reference to any of those prohibitions, then government is not prohibited from imposing voting rules. Of course, there is that notion that a Judge can "interpret" that a regulation actually denies the vote to any of those categories, even if they are not mentioned in the regulation. But that notion can be extended infinitum to include endless ways that someone could be denied the vote. However, if the regulation applies to all categories of citizens, it would be judicial activism to strike it down on the basis of a judges opinion of what harm the regulation might incur to a particular category. That does occur. But in the strictest sense, such personal interpretation is not constitutional. It is actually destructive of the Constitution in that it introduces precedent for abrogating the Constitution, rewriting it by judicial fiat.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 12:28 PM   #32
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
Good point.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 12:29 PM   #33
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 15,692
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_...ist_League_USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolu...ist_Party,_USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun..._(Provisional)

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 12:29 PM   #34
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
So how long do we have to do this -1 day, 2 days, 3 days? And then when we are done, how long until something else gets you angry and you start the same thing again?
"again discuss how the GOP is constantly trying to impose rules on voting (that aren't in the const.) that harm minorities? "

Yes, let's. Every single time this comes up, some people ask why the requirement of getting id cards, is more burdensome for anyone based on the color of their skin. And every time that question is asked, there is no response. Because unless the fee is higher for blacks, or blacks have to climb stairs to get to the right office while whites can take the elevator, it's not even close to being racist. There may be cultural forces that determine who is more likely to jump through the hoops to get an id, but it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

"trying to provide a floor of help for someone is holding them down"

Incorrect. Everyone agrees that a safety net is a good thing. Democrats want to go further, they want to make huge numbers of blacks permanently dependent on welfare, so they will keep voting for whoever will give them that welfare. Paul, this is no longer abstract theory or speculation...there is empirical, observable evidence to make my case. You can't solve poverty (on a large scale) by giving money to poor people. Because a lack of money isn't the cause of poverty for many, it's the effect. The cause of their poverty, is often poor decision-making, or destructive personal habits, and if there's one thing we know for certain, it is this - you cannot cure that by giving someone $500 a month. We have been trying that for 50 years, and all it does is make things worse. Similarly, you don't help a drug addict by giving him cash.

"you ducked the question by stating it is the same reason the communists supported the Dems"

No, I answered the question spot on, by pointing to the fact that communists support Hilary. Obviously, there is an assumption in this country (incorrect, based on the facts) that the Democrats care about blacks, and that the GOP is racist. Most media outlets re-state this constantly, so no surprise that some thoughtless morons (like those in the KKK) would start to believe it. That doesn't make it true.

The KKK supporting Trump doesn't mean he's more racist, any more than Black Lives Matter's support of Democrats, means that Dems want to murder police officers. You cannot judge a huge political group by the actions of the lunatic fringe of either party. If Trump invites the head of the Klan to the Oval Office 70 times like Obama invited Sharpton, then I will be the first to comment that you are right, that Trump is a white supremacist. He hasn't gone down that road yet. Obama has. BIG difference.

"Obama met with him bc he speaks for a large black pop"

Agreed. But that's BAD for blacks, Paul. Blacks need to learn that he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. By inviting him to the Oval Office every month, it legitimizes the disgusting bile that Sharpton spews. The reason why blacks turn to to Sharpton, is because your party, and the media in their control, tell blacks that Sharpton is right when he blames everything on whitey. That hurts blacks in the long run, it increases the racial divide, but it helps democrats at the voting booth, and that's all they care about.

"a compassionate country should have - like food stamps for poor or preschool funding, etc"

Again, you can go too far with the amount of welfare you give someone. At some point, you rob them of their ability to stand on their own two feet. Despite what you clearly believe, liberals don't have a monopoly on compassion. I have posted repeatedly, the study called Who Really Cares, which de-bunks that myth. But Democrats keep saying it, and the media keeps saying it, so people like you start to believe it.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 12:34 PM   #35
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
So how long do we have to do this -1 day, 2 days, 3 days? And then when we are done, how long until something else gets you angry and you start the same thing again?
"are no policies that Sharpton wants that gets proposed other than things a compassionate country should have"

You seem to be forgetting that in the past, a handful of innocent people have been murdered at Sharpton rallies, after he hets the crowd good and riled up. Then there's the whole Tawana Brawley thing.

For you to say with a straight face that Sharpton's platform is based on "compassion", is probably the most demonstrably false thing you will ever post.

I suppose it was compassionate when Sharpton referred to New York City as "hymie-town".

You are proving my exact point, Paul...I call out the scumbags on my side, you are bending over backwards to ignore all the damage Sharpton does, and act as if all that matters are the few good things he supports.

Paul, one is judged on the totality of everything they do...not just the good stuff.

Donald Trump gives a ton of money to charity, and he is know to give big money, at the spur of the moment, to people having tough times. His family just recently raised tens of millions of dollars for, I think, St Judes Children's hospital. He is to be commended for that. But that doesn't mean I am wrong when I say that he is an obnoxious, egotistical pig.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 01:12 PM   #36
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"again discuss how the GOP is constantly trying to impose rules on voting (that aren't in the const.) that harm minorities? "

Yes, let's. Every single time this comes up, some people ask why the requirement of getting id cards, is more burdensome for anyone based on the color of their skin. no, I have answered the question a few times (the whole surgical precision thing)- so here we go again.

From an article I just found -
The court wrote that various provisions of North Carolina's law "target African Americans with almost surgical precision,"
The [original] version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs, even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to DMV-issued photo IDs....With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.

....Legislators also requested data as to the racial breakdown of early voting usage....The racial data provided to the legislators revealed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting in both 2008 and 2012....After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting.

....Legislators similarly requested data as to the racial makeup of same-day registrants....SL 2013-381 eliminated same-day registration....Legislators additionally requested a racial breakdown of provisional voting....With SL 2013-381, the General Assembly altogether eliminated out-of-precinct voting....African Americans also disproportionately used preregistration.... Although preregistration increased turnout among young adult voters, SL 2013-381 eliminated it.

....As “evidence of justifications” for the changes to early voting, the State offered purported inconsistencies in voting hours across counties, including the fact that only some counties had decided to offer Sunday voting. The State then elaborated on its justification, explaining that “[c]ounties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”

It's not just that every provision coincidentally happens to affect blacks disproportionately. In at least a couple of cases, provisions were added only after the legislature had racial breakdowns in hand so they could make sure they weren't accidentally targeting whites too.
And every time that question is asked, there is no response. not true, we have discussed it a few times. Because unless the fee is higher for blacks, or blacks have to climb stairs to get to the right office while whites can take the elevator, it's not even close to being racist. There may be cultural forces that determine who is more likely to jump through the hoops to get an id, but it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

"trying to provide a floor of help for someone is holding them down"

Incorrect. Everyone agrees that a safety net is a good thing. Democrats want to go further, they want to make huge numbers of blacks permanently dependent on welfare, So I guess you thing blacks aren't smart enough to recognize what the Dems are doing?so they will keep voting for whoever will give them that welfare. Paul, this is no longer abstract theory or speculation...there is empirical, observable evidence to make my case. You can't solve poverty (on a large scale) by giving money to poor people. Because a lack of money isn't the cause of poverty for many, it's the effect. The cause of their poverty, is often poor decision-making, or destructive personal habits, and if there's one thing we know for certain, it is this - you cannot cure that by giving someone $500 a month. We have been trying that for 50 years, and all it does is make things worse. Similarly, you don't help a drug addict by giving him cash.

"you ducked the question by stating it is the same reason the communists supported the Dems"

No, I answered the question spot on, by pointing to the fact that communists support Hilary. Obviously, there is an assumption in this country (incorrect, based on the facts) that the Democrats care about blacks, and that the GOP is racist. Most media outlets re-state this constantly, so no surprise that some thoughtless morons (like those in the KKK) would start to believe it. That doesn't make it true.

The KKK supporting Trump doesn't mean he's more racist, any more than Black Lives Matter's support of Democrats, means that Dems want to murder police officers. You cannot judge a huge political group by the actions of the lunatic fringe of either partySo I'm confused bc isn't that the intent of the thread you started?. If Trump invites the head of the Klan to the Oval Office 70 times like Obama invited Sharpton, then I will be the first to comment that you are right, that Trump is a white supremacist. He hasn't gone down that road yet. Obama has. BIG difference.

"Obama met with him bc he speaks for a large black pop"

Agreed. But that's BAD for blacks, Paul. Blacks need to learn that he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. By inviting him to the Oval Office every month, it legitimizes the disgusting bile that Sharpton spews. The reason why blacks turn to to Sharpton, is because your party, and the media in their control, tell blacks that Sharpton is right when he blames everything on whitey. That hurts blacks in the long run, it increases the racial divide, but it helps democrats at the voting booth, and that's all they care about.

"a compassionate country should have - like food stamps for poor or preschool funding, etc"

Again, you can go too far with the amount of welfare you give someone. At some point, you rob them of their ability to stand on their own two feet. Despite what you clearly believe, liberals don't have a monopoly on compassion. I have posted repeatedly, the study called Who Really Cares, which de-bunks that myth. But Democrats keep saying it, and the media keeps saying it, so people like you start to believe it.
So again, how many days do we do this - 1 day, 2, 3 and when will something that angers causes you to start the same type of thread?
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 01:34 PM   #37
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
So again, how many days do we do this - 1 day, 2, 3 and when will something that angers causes you to start the same type of thread?
Paul, you can post all the articles you want saying that when id laws are put in place, black turnout is reduced more than white turnout.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S RACIST.

Way more black children are born into homes without a father, than white babies. Does that mean the institution of fatherhood is racist? No. It means that certain cultural triggers lead to disproportional fatherlessness, and blacks are more likely to embrace those cultural triggers (thanks to liberalism, by the way).

If the process for getting the id is the same for blacks, but blacks choose not to get the id, that's not racism. That's cultural laziness.

Cry all you want. Unless the process is designed to make it more burdensome for blacks to get the id, it ain't racist.

"I guess you thing blacks aren't smart enough to recognize what the Dems are doing"

Not at all. I am saying that blacks are either being specifically targeted by liberals to become welfare dependent on a large scale, or liberals are too stupid to see the clear damage being done by the policies they endorse.

How bad do things have to get in the cities, exactly, before liberals conclude that the policies are not working? And why is it racist for conservatives to claim that people in the cities deserve better, and therefore we need to try something different than what we are currently doing?

"So I'm confused bc isn't that the intent of the thread you started?. "

No. The thread isn't pointing to the "lunatic fringe" of the Democratic party. This is a sitting US Congressman. Have any Democrats suggest said that the painting should be removed, and that the guy who out it up is a jerk for doing so?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 02:24 PM   #38
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Paul, you can post all the articles you want saying that when id laws are put in place, black turnout is reduced more than white turnout.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S RACIST.I agree it doesn't mean it is racist. But who is the judge? A certain % of the population believe it is. The judge said it specifically targeted blacks.

"So I'm confused bc isn't that the intent of the thread you started?. "

No. The thread isn't pointing to the "lunatic fringe" of the Democratic party. This is a sitting US Congressman. Have any Democrats suggest said that the painting should be removed, and that the guy who out it up is a jerk for doing so?
Sorry, I thought the title of the thread was difference between the parties.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 04:35 PM   #39
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
[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
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 08:48 AM   #40
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1115114]
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
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.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 09:28 AM   #41
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
[QUOTE=PaulS;1115150]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post

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.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 10:36 AM   #42
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1115156]
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

"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 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 10:45 AM   #43
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
This weekend, Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai (R-PA) finally admitted what so many have speculated: Voter identification efforts are meant to suppress Democratic votes in this year’s election.
At the Republican State Committee meeting, Turzai took the stage and let slip the truth about why Republicans are so insistent on voter identification efforts — it will win Romney the election, he said:
“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 10:49 AM   #44
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
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.”
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 10:57 AM   #45
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
[QUOTE=PaulS;1115150]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
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.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 12:24 PM   #46
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
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.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 01:11 PM   #47
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"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.

Last edited by PaulS; 01-13-2017 at 01:16 PM..
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 01:47 PM   #48
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
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.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 02:38 PM   #49
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
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.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 04:04 PM   #50
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
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.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 04:45 PM   #51
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"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.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com