History will be extremely unkind to Justice Scalia, between his dubious reasoning and his outspoken behavior that would lead to ethics charges being filed for anyone but a SCOTUS justice.
Unfortunately, he's only 77, and, judgment of history aside, it seems like he still has plenty of time to hurt the court, and the country.
Justice Watch: Scalia’s latest: Unethical or merely appalling?
Even as Scalia and his colleagues consider a challenge to a key provision of that law, Scalia chose this forum to elaborate on a claim he first raised during oral arguments, when he called the law a “…
53 view(s)
Why is it always assumed that a voter ID law always suppresses the votes of the poor and people of color and nobody else? Answer: you have an agenda.
It's not "assumed." There is solid statistical evidence of this effect. It isn't some imaginary liberal agenda.
Also, don't forget the elderly.
Answer: because the people who have the most problems getting the Official Approved Acceptable State IDs tend to be poor, which people of color more often are.
Of course, that's only marginally what the article is about.
+Kit Malone I don't believe you.
+Dave Hill Seems to me they are the same people who have problems getting anything, like a job, education, etc. How hard exactly is it to pull off? Answer: not that hard. And if you can't managed to accomplish such simple tasks then quite frankly I'm not that interested in your political opinion nor do I think you have an informed vote. Indeed acquiring an informed political opinion is magnitudes harder then getting an ID card. As such I would personally rather you didn't vote. But hey, that's just my opinion – protected by the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.
And while the article may be only marginally about this topic, it was the only portion I was interested in commenting on.
The Founders, regardless of their personal opinions, wisely decided not to add "informed" political requirements to the franchise, lest the country fracture over whether being a regular Fox watcher, MSNBC watcher, or neither watcher meant that one was "informed."
As to the difficult of someone getting Official Approved Acceptable State IDs, and those being the same people who have problems getting jobs, education, etc., I am sure that it is comforting to you to think that anyone could do it, and that it's not that hard.
+Dave Hill You did see the part where I said it was my opinion right?
I had no idea that Fox and MSNBC were around at the framing of the Constitution…
As for how hard it would be I see you provided absolutely no evidence to suggest it was even any more difficult than getting a library card. As such I remain unconvinced.
+Andrew DeFaria ProTip: You should spend less time trying to preach from a soapbox and more trying to read and listen.
One thing about Dave is he's a pretty amicable guy and can be reasoned with. Your style comes off as yelling and beating with a stick. Do you actually want to converse with anyone? Or just get your point across? If the later why come onto someone else's post and comment? Just post it on your own page.
+Andrew DeFaria You may have that opinion, but statistics do show it (voter ID requirements) disproportionately affects minorities and the elderly. And, because many individuals have wrong opinions a majority of the time, we really should stick to basing policy on statistics.
+Jon Weber As if you're some sort of pro. Listen son, I'll post where I want and I will say what I want.
+Gary Roth Yeah right. There's lies and then there's statistics (which I still haven't seen).
'You did see the part where I said it was my opinion right?'
Um, yes. And I'll protect to the death your right to express it. Did I somewhere imply otherwise?
'I had no idea that Fox and MSNBC were around at the framing of the Constitution…'
Aside from the Founders being quite aware of partisan media in their era, you've clearly missed my point about the idea of trying to define an "informed" vote.
'As for how hard it would be I see you provided absolutely no evidence to suggest it was even any more difficult than getting a library card. As such I remain unconvinced.'
Many states that have imposed Voter ID laws limit what IDs are eligible. For folks who don't have them (e.g., drivers licenses), the burden to get them in terms of cost, time from work, travel to locations that issue them, cost of the supporting documents (e.g., birth certificates), etc., may be prohibitive for poor individuals.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/18/542501/study-photo-id-laws-place-substantial-burdens-on-low-income-and-minority-voters/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/14/fox-ignores-significant-costs-that-come-with-fr/184318
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/09/164658/wisconsin-voter-bill-id-recall/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/07/313262/wisconsin-dept-of-transportation-memo-tells-staff-not-to-mention-free-voter-id-cards-unless-people-ask-for-it/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/10/05/336392/96-year-old-tennessee-woman-denied-voter-id-because-she-didnt-have-her-marriage-license/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/26/395287/93-year-old-tennessee-woman-who-cleaned-state-capitol-for-30-years-denied-voter-id/
The great things about your posts lately +Dave Hill is it makes it easy to find the people to block.
Um, glad to be of service, +Jon Weber …
I, myself, tend not to block others, at least not folks who comment on my posts.Though I do spend an inordinate amount of time, sometimes, in answering them.
Interestingly, there's not much evidence that voter disenfranchisement produces a partisan effect… that is… it doesn't necessarily hurt or help one party over the other. But there's plenty of evidence that it keeps some people from the polls.
I notice that +Andrew DeFaria takes +Dave Hill to task for failing to provide evidence of his claims while simultaneously providing no evidence of his own. Statistically, hypocrites have lower credibility than scrupulous people.
Also, logical fallacies do not persuade critical thinkers, and he is therefore wasting his and our time.
+Kit Malone– What sort of studies have been done in this area? I'd presume that since the disenfranchisement efforts affect poor / minority voters more, and those populations tend to vote Democrat, that the partisan effect would be pretty straightforward (hence GOP fondness for the tactic).
What really impresses me about +Andrew DeFaria is that he's sitting in front of this amazing thing called a computer which gives him access to this amazing thing called Google where he can type in questions like "how hard is it to get a voter id" and be presented with all the articles he needs to show he's an idiot. Like this one http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/page?id=0046 or this one http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-01-2012/voter-id-laws-impact-older-americans.html or even this one http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws. And all of those were in the first 10 search results.
Instead, +Andrew DeFaria wants everyone else to do the ridiculously easy research he could've done in mere moments perhaps saving himself from coming across as such a flaming asshole in the process. For all his hand waving about being an "informed voter" it doesn't seem like he does much to check whether his opinions are well informed in the first place.
Thanks for the citations, +Les Jenkins.
+Les Jenkins It's not my job to research and substantiate your claims.
Looking over the references cited I remain unconvinced that it suppresses just the poor and people of color. Note I didn't say anything about older people or people in rural areas which the vast majority of citations above talked about.
Most complaints from these obviously biased progressive and liberal sites are about the "difficulty" in obtaining a photo ID to identify themselves properly citing the huge cost of ~$20. BFD! Being able to jump over such hurdles is part of being successful and participating in society. I believe that people who vote should have some skin in the game, some stake in society other than the fact that they live off the government tit so they will obviously vote for the kinds of people who will give them more free stuff, who will support their lifestyle where they can't even managed to get a photo ID. I want people who are more resourceful than these to be voting for this country to succeed, not become even more dependent on the system because they can't even accomplish basic things.
In my mind it's clear that the agenda here is to push the liberal/progressive agendas.
+Andrew DeFaria is an example of why I laugh anytime I hear a Conservative talk about how much they "value freedom" and "want more freedom" and how liberals just want "government to take away your freedoms." It's amazing how happy they are to restrict your freedoms (to vote, to make decisions about your body, etc.) as soon as it serves their purposes. It's clear Andrew isn't interested in an honest conversation because any citations you provide will be hand waved away as "obviously liberally biased".
Meanwhile Conservatives are making their agenda in voter ID laws perfectly clear: http://youtu.be/pxvgv0qZUbA
I believe that is the same justification, +Andrew DeFaria, as was put forward for both limiting the franchise to property holders or having some sort of poll tax — to require people to have "skin in the game." While I can see the philosophical argument for it, both have been declared unconstitutional.
$20 doesn't sound like much to you, nor is it to me. To some people, though, it is a substantial part of their monthly income. In South Carolina, for example, TANF (food stamp) payments for a family of three are just over $200 per month. $20 to get the ID to vote represents a substantial portion of that not-very-generous income. It can represent the difference in having meals, getting medicine, or paying the rent. Aside from that not sounding like a very pleasant "lifestyle," it's an unreasonable barrier.
And voting for one's own economic benefit ("the fact that they live off the government tit so they will obviously vote for the kinds of people who will give them more free stuff") isn't just limited to the poor. People of more means who vote for candidates who will cut taxes (or who will bring defense contracts to their home district) are doing precisely the same thing.
+Dave Hill I have to admit I don't have a specific source … but I remember hearing several reports about it after the most recent election. The general idea I cam away with was that it was difficult to separate out the specific effect. In many places, even where voter turnout was impacted, percentage of people voting Democrat was often higher than expected.
Doesn't prove that the logical assumption is false, by any means. It's just seems difficult to tease out what the actual political effects of such laws are.
The bottom line for me is: Enacting obstacles to voting when there isn't much of clear problem is problematic no matter who it hurts/benefits. If you are a economically disadvantaged conservative in a red state, this could just as easily effect you.
Voting is a civil right, and civil rights should only be tinkered with when there is a clear and obvious need. I don't see that need.
Requiring that you properly identify yourself as a USC so that you can vote is not restricting your freedom as you are only free to vote if you are a USC – by law! Take for example: https://plus.google.com/u/0/108257153502707936410/posts/6objoJku8Es or see https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/325207199586594816/photo/1.
Doesn't happen right?
And I'm not interested in an honest conversation with you because you've already shown your bias and closed mind. Attempting to have an honest conversation with you would be a waste of my time.
Dave, I am amused that you think that the SCotUs has a reputation to actually damage. It has been a joke ever since Sandra Day O’Conner retired and all it has done since then is just go further and further off the rails.
Also amusingly, DeFaria reminds me of the average commentor on NPR.
Like you're not displaying an obvious bias yourself? Give me a break. You weren't interested in an honest conversation in the first place. You just wanted to parrot your Republican talking points.
+Dave Hill At least I remain in good company with the founding fathers: http://troylaplante.hubpages.com/hub/Requiring-property-ownership-to-vote. Also http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/property-requirement.html.
Additionally, one should bone up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States as I see no restrictions on requiring people to properly identify themselves as USC, which is what is being discussed here. BTW it's not the voting commission who is imposing any sort of "tax", it is other agencies who are requiring a fee for a service (i.e. getting your birth certificate), which, BTW, is helpful in many situations.
Maybe those TANF people should get off their asses and mow somebody's lawn, deliver some newspapers or something like that to obtain the additional $20 they need to get their own birth cert. As I said such a document can come in handy in many other instances. Bottom line: Resourceful people will find a way to better their lives. Those TANF people will just vote for politicians who promise to bring home more of the bacon they steal from me for the TANF's. Personally I would rather people who are not resourceful enough to figure out how to earn $20 be deciding what politicians get elected into office so they can get more pork (not meat) for themselves.
+Les Jenkins Why would I parrot Republican talking points when I'm not Republican?
(Swing/Guess and a miss! You're wrong again!)
As for being bias – read my first comment. I merely made a statement.
You don't have to be Republican to parrot their talking points. Surely you're intelligent enough to know that.
+Kit Malone – Ah. I recall similar reports, but had attributed them to increased turn-out from populations motivated by feeling they were being discriminated against.
+Andrew DeFaria – I agree in principle — though we seem to have muddled through most of our history (really until Voter ID laws started popping up around 2006) without forcing people to prove they were US citizens.
And when efforts to enforce that principle demonstrably impact particular populations by putting impediments to their getting properly registered, and when that is seen (and even touted positively) as having a partisan impact, then that's a fundamental problem that must be addressed. If these states were as openly interested and fiscally committed to making sure that everyone who should be able to vote can, vs. trying to make sure that the few who shouldn't can't, then that would go a long way toward doing so.
Nice pulling in of the Boston bomber for emotional impact, btw.
+Les Jenkins Yes but just because I say things that you believe to be similar to Republican talking points does not mean that I'm parroting their talking points as you charge. These are my own thoughts on the matter.
I doubt you've ever had an original thought, but you keep telling yourself that.
+Les Jenkins OK idiot – FUCK YOU and your mother too. It was totally uncalled for to say I haven't had an original through (and spell thought incorrectly at that! Illiterate that you are!). You're a jerk and you've been blocked so I don't have to see your asinine shit anymore
Interesting. It appears our friend Andrew has deleted all of his comments in this thread. Not the least bit surprising.
+Andrew DeFaria, yes, the Founders' era restricted the franchise to property owners in most cases. They also restricted it to whites and to men. What sort of restrictions would you like to see in place?
No, there are no restrictions per se on requiring someone to prove they are a citizen, unless it provides an undue hardship in exercising a fundamental civil right.
Yes, birth certificates (when actually available — some of the cases previously cited were of folks for whom no such document was filed when they were born several decades ago in poor, rural areas) are very useful. So useful that perhaps they ought to be provided for free, so that the cost of getting one isn't a barrier to folks being able to use them.
And, yes, I'm sure all those TANF folks are sitting about on their asses, luxuriating in that $220 a month they get for free. I think your opinions on poor people and why it's not a problem if they don't vote are perfectly clear (and disgusting, at least to me).
+Les Jenkins, they are still visible to me, so that may been artifact of his blocking you.
+Andrew DeFaria, keep a civil tongue in your head, or I'll show you the door.
His Google Profile has a quote from John Galt on it. Pretty says all that needs to be said.
Ah, I've been blocked! Never had that happen before. That's damned amusing.
+Dave Hill Voter qualification has been with us since before we were "constitutionalized". Indeed the founding fathers hotly debated the issue at the convention!
I might point out to you that we did just fine without imposing an income tax until 1913!
People who want to vote can already. They may need to prove their citizenship but then again everybody would need to prove their citizenship so the law would be equally applied. If some people find it difficult then the difficulty lies with them, wouldn't you agree. The difficulty that some may have is that they lack resources (time, money or motivation). I believe in equal opportunity which is already present – not equal ability, which requires government and force to come in and provide for those who lack the resources. As such it always involves a transfer of resources (or private property) from one party to another (since government produces no such resources or rather they only method government has to produce stuff is to take it from somebody else – by force if necessary).
As for the Boston Bomber and sympathy, dude it just happen to show up in facebook so I used it as an example, as they say, from today's headlines.
+Dave Hill Sorry but I refused to be insulted by idiots such as "what's his face" (I've already forgotten his name – Oh there it is – Les).
As for tongues – I use all of the English language and do not banish nor censor anything because of a "word" (I banish because of thoughts). So called "adult language" is for adults and I R one of them! So if you want to "show me the door" then fucking go ahead and do so.
+Dave Hill I said nothing about what restrictions I'd like to see in place other than informed people with skin in the game.
"No, there are no restrictions per se on requiring someone to prove they are a citizen, unless it provides an undue hardship in exercising a fundamental civil right."
1) I didn't see the clause that stated "provided no undue hardship in exercising that right". Can you point it out to me?
2) I don't see getting a birth cert or something like that (I also saw State IDs as being acceptable) as even an hardship (even if you only suck $200/month off the government tit).
Regarding older people in rural areas – I was never addressing this aspect of this. I was talking about what the article called "poor and people of color" only.
"And, yes, I'm sure all those TANF folks are sitting about on their asses, luxuriating in that $220 a month they get for free. I think your opinions on poor people and why it's not a problem if they don't vote are perfectly clear (and disgusting, at least to me)."
"Luxuriating in that $220 a month they get for free" – never said that. You know that. Shame on you!
Are you saying that poor people cannot mow a few lawns to collect $20? Exactly how hard is that? Or any of a myriad of other ways to earn a buck. If you can't figure a way to do that you are not only lazy but dumb. My opinion.
+Andrew DeFaria – I am not questioning that being a citizen has been a qualification forever and a day — requiring that someone prove it through having the right "papers" and ID card is a new development.
That has little to do with the case of the income tax (which was actually imposed during the Civil War, though later found unconstitutional). Interestingly enough, a major factor in passing the Income Tax amendment was Prohibition, since excises taxes on liquor were a major part of the federal budget, and booze couldn't be banned without identifying an alternative revenue source. (The idea that the income tax would be done away with was a major part in getting a number of wealthy businessmen behind the Repeal movement.)
I understand what you mean by equal opportunity, though it seems more than a bit idealistic (from an Ayn Rand ideal). If I follow you, then if we passed a law saying that everyone had to pay $10,000 to vote in each election, following your logic that would seem to be fine because everyone faces the same conditions, whether they are Warren Buffett or Fred the Unemployed Guy. If Fred can't afford $10K, that's because he's not motivated enough to be out there selling pints of blood or digging enough ditches, and so he doesn't deserve to vote.
+Andrew DeFaria – Your willingness to insult others but take wild offense at being insulted, and your conflating civil behavior with censorship, is certainly consistent with the self-centric perspective of a quoter of John Galt, but not with the folks I feel any desire to be in community with, so, as you've been so gracious as to agree, I'll be blocking you from my G+ experience. Ciao.
Oh, that guy was still talking?
+Les Jenkins now you know why I blocked +Andrew DeFaria it is clear he just wants to rant and not have dialogue.
Also, I'm sure +Dave Hill would be blocked too if it wasn't his post.