Judge shopping is a wonderful thing.
I see they have quoted Cathy Cox again insulting her poll workers. Has anyone seen any comments from her camp about why she labels her poll workers old and easily confused? And if this is true, why they are processing voters?
Not that I'm validating her comment, because it is a ridiculous thing for a Secretary of State to say, but as to "why they are processing voters?", well, unfortunately I'd have to say because no one else seems to be standing in line to do it.
Ditto, doubledawg.It is a truism of military history that the best and brightest never get (or want) jobs guarding POW camps. Hence, Andersonville, Battan, and Abu Ghraib. Likewise, you never get top-shelf civil service types counting votes on election day.
No Buck, the Justice system is a wonderful thing. So are the 14th and 15th Amendments (you wouldn't know them, they don't cover guns), and the Voting Rights Act.But, since you're obviously sincere about this, how many federal judges did they "shop" before filing suit in Rome? And who were they?RandomThoughts, email@example.com should be able to answer your questions, and do be a dear and let us know what they say. We'd be interested to see how their communications shop spins this one. You can also visit her blog at http://www.cathycox.com/blog?cat=blog if you'd like to call her out publicly. Speaking of that, I've always (well at least for the last two years since blogging became the new pink or something) thought that a good measure of a candidate's credibility is whether they'll let a critical post stay on a blog.
You know, Buck I like you, I really do. Even though we agree about absolutely nothing, I'd imagine. But I've got to give you some props for turning the Voter ID bill into a rationalization for Abu Ghraib. You've got a quite a future if you want it. I hear VP Cheney's office mght have a vacancy or two soon.
This is good for my side: it fires up the base, much the same way those goofy school prayer or Pledge of Allegience rulings do. In exchange, you get a handful of derelict voters who lack the initiative to get a picture ID or the gumption to afford one. I'll take that deal any day.
Who needs principles when something's a "deal" and "fires up the base," right?
Pretty much. It's a moot point, anyway. The Prove You Are Who You Say You Are bill will be upheld, eventually.
I'm not familiar with that bill. Could you be referring to the "Screw Black People, Poor People, Divorced Women, Old People, and anyone else who might not vote Republican Bill"?Seriously, though. A few questions.You never explained your "judge shopping" snark. Who'd they shop? Which judges, which districts?And why, Lord, why do Republicans think that the Constitution starts and ends with the Second Amendment?How can you not see the huge Constitutional issues here? And since when is a freedom-loving Republican in favor of forcing people to get government IDs? Could it be that the Democrats are more concerned with individual liberties than the GOP? Perish the thought.
Not sure of any actual intent to shop, but Buck may be right. Judge Murphy is a Carter appointee.
You know, not that she should've said, but a lot of poll workers _are_ elderly and possibly slightly more likely to be easily confused than younger folk. On the other hand, I've never had a problem with any of them.
Are we really at odds about those who can't get off their @$$ and go get a free ID? Come on, folks. This really isn't that terrible. And I hate the arguement that we can't prove voter fraud has occured. Sure we can't. That's the point. And in a utopian society, where maybe we think that it hasn't happened, why would we want to wait until it does to do something this simple about it?And, by the way, I know plenty of black folks, retired folks, poor folks, and divorced folks (even women) who all have picture IDs. I didn't realize they had to stand in a different, longer, and more arduous line than I do.
This is pandering, pure and simple. And that's fine: politics is often about pandering. But I think this is another in a long line of miscalculations on the part of the Left. As I say, even if they win with this issue, they lose. They probably lose bigger if they win.
Someone always brings up the argument that voters who use an absentee ballot don't need to show show an ID as an example of how fraud can be perpetrated, even with the law. They never mention that hte absentee voter needs an address and a name to receive a ballot.Interesting to see the same argument used in ths context to excuse a lack of ID by suggesting the ID-less can vote absentee. Not a bad idea, really.The trick is getting people who want to vote to think about it ~before~ 6:59 PM on Election Day.
"The trick is getting people who want to vote to think about it ~before~ 6:59 PM on Election Day."Couldn't agree more. Story of my life. Stay tuned. Going to have a large post presenting some arguments against the Voter ID law. I'm just putting the finishing touches on it right now.
The post is outstanding and presents a very good - and logical - thought process. But I still believe having some photo ID component to the voting process ensures a more secure process. After all, that photo ID is not how the government is accumulating data about us. That canary is already out of the cage. As for the folks who can't get to their DMV (or to the mobile photo ID station), I am not sure they would be able to get to a voting booth. But to close the loop on this arguement, maybe a "voter's ID card" could be distributed at local libraries or city halls.
A question to anyone who supports the voter ID??Does it make any difference to you if requiring proper ID may reduce voter fraud by a certain number, but it may also not allow a much larger number of legit voters to cast their votes?? What if the ratio was 10 to 1???Just asking.
Good point.Monticello, I didn't see you had weighed in. As Samuel L. Jackson would say, "Allow me to retort."I don't deny that having the photo ID component would make the process less worrisome, but for me, the Constitutional issues, as well as the others I raised, outweigh the possible benefit, which, you must admit, we can't measure. To use (and probably bastardize) an economics concept, it's about opportunity cost. In this case, keeping the status quo is worth more to me (opportunity cost being subjective, of course)than risking the mass disenfranchisement of a certain (probably protected) class. Your results may vary.I would also point out that getting to the polls should be considerably less bothersome and significantly more possible than getting to the DMV. Most voting sites are centrally located and on the bus line.
Post a Comment