16 of 17
16
New voter ID laws politically motivated?
Posted: 14 October 2012 12:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 226 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Dead Monky - 12 October 2012 02:33 PM
Bryan - 12 October 2012 02:11 AM

Seriously, this helps make my repeated point that our system makes it hard to detect cases like this one.  It’s disingenuous to opine that only one party’s doing it.  I’ve already provided an example of a Democrat caught doing the same thing.  What’s the solution, other than pretending there’s no problem?

The only reason I cared that it was a Republican is because the GOP is the party that most prattles on about this and I found the irony amusing.  Democrats doing it?  Not surprising, still amusing, but not as ironic so not quite as amusing.

Point taken.  I tried to craft my response to you to reflect that I was staying neutral in judgment of whether you were suggesting only Republicans engage in voter fraud.  It’s more a thing where if the shoe fits, wear it.  I’m still interested in solutions. 

I think I see some grappling with the fact that a perfect voting system is very difficult to design.  That’s a good place to start when trying to figure out ways to improve the system.  At the same time, failing to achieve perfection is not a particularly solid grounds for not making changes.  And I’d like to emphasize to those of you who favor a wide latitude for the exercise of government power that reasonable changes typically pass the courts regardless of proved efficacy.  It’s for that reason that the courts, especially liberal courts, should tend to side with the government.  When they don’t, it tends to suggest judicial bias.  And if that’s happening then it in turn suggests that biased judges are affecting election outcomes.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2012 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 227 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5187
Joined  2010-06-16

I’m not going to get into this argument, but your last three statements, Bryan, seem to indicate that one problem is that court decisions are biased because of liberal judges.  It should be noted that a significant majority of all federal judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2012 12:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 228 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Occam. - 14 October 2012 12:19 PM

I’m not going to get into this argument, but your last three statements, Bryan, seem to indicate that one problem is that court decisions are biased because of liberal judges.  It should be noted that a significant majority of all federal judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents.

Occam

Why is it significant to note who appointed the judges?  Regardless of that, it remains true that some courts are dominated by liberals.  Lawyers scheme to get their test cases heard by sympathetic judges.  My point is actually that liberal courts should by judicial tendency prefer ruling in favor of government power in terms of legislation (as with the ruling in Kelo).  When they don’t show that tendency it makes sense to suspect a biased application of principles.  It doesn’t matter who appointed them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2012 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 229 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5187
Joined  2010-06-16

No, from my recollections about a variety of decisions, it seemed to me that the judges appointed by Democratic presidents made fair and unbiased rulings, even if going against the liberal preference, while rulings from Republican president appointees frequently were decisions strongly biased in the direction of their conservative orientation.  I’m not going to waste my time going back and documenting this, but, as I said, over many years of reading published reports, that appeared to be the case.

Quoting Bryan:

My point is actually that liberal courts should by judicial tendency prefer ruling in favor of government power in terms of legislation (as with the ruling in Kelo).  When they don’t show that tendency it makes sense to suspect a biased application of principles.

  Huh???  First sentence:  That’s your assumption.  I see no reason that they “should . . . prefer ruling in favor of government power. . .”  Second sentence:  Again, huh???  I’m sure you didn’t mean to be arguing against your own position, but that’s what this sentence seems to do.  Are you saying that if a judge appointed by a Democratic (liberal) president doesn’t show the tendency to hand down liberally biased decisions, that you suspect a biased application of principles????

Occam

[ Edited: 14 October 2012 01:11 PM by Occam. ]
 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2012 01:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 230 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Occam. - 14 October 2012 01:03 PM

No,

What did I write to which you respond with “No, ...”?

I asked you a question.  It wasn’t a yes or no question.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2012 02:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 231 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5187
Joined  2010-06-16

The “no” was stating my disagreement with your whole post.  Your question:

Why is it significant to note who appointed the judges?

I’ll ask one in response:  What correlation do you see between the political views of the president appointing them and those of the appointee?  Let’s take the Supreme Court Justices as an example.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2012 04:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 232 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

Bryan,
I do not agree that courts should tend to side with the state. I believe courts are for the cirizens protection from the state. In the absence of a uniform method of voting in the various states, perhaps higher courts are trying to prevent injury to voters.
I can see a problem with establishing residency in a state for state elections, but residency in the US should not be dependent on burdensome procedures between different states, it should require simple but credible identification and allow for maximum participation.

Assuming a picture ID. When would the state require replacement of the picture by a new more current picture?  Every 5 years? 10? 20?, you get the point. Restrictive laws on businesses are more burdensome as many “conservatives” would argue. IMO, so it is with restrictive voting laws.

Laws which result in voter suppression in any form, intended or unintended, should be avoided at all cost, in spite of an occasional fraudulent vote. With current technology, it should be possible to identify any person “in the system” and avoid most fraudulent or duplicate voting by a simple computer program administered by the State Department, Justice Department, or possibly the Treasury Department.

[ Edited: 16 October 2012 04:54 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2012 12:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 233 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5187
Joined  2010-06-16

Quoting Write4U:

I believe courts are for the cirizens protection from the state.

  Excellent point, Write4U!!!  It’s unfortunate that the Supreme Court forgot that when they ruled on the Citizens United case.

(Although it appeared to deal with the citizen groups, it allowed wealth even greater control of the state.)

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2012 01:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 234 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Occam. - 14 October 2012 02:27 PM

The “no” was stating my disagreement with your whole post.

That seems to fly in the face of “Succinctness, clarity’s core.”  A blanket one-word response to a complex statement doesn’t represent clarity.

Your question:

Why is it significant to note who appointed the judges?

I’ll ask one in response:  What correlation do you see between the political views of the president appointing them and those of the appointee?  Let’s take the Supreme Court Justices as an example.

The Supreme Court’s a decent example.  We just had a liberal justice appointed by a Democrat to replace a liberal justice (David Souter) appointed by a Republican.  And the typical swing vote comes from Justice Kennedy, who was likewise appointed by a Republican.  The ones appointed by Democrats tend to be highly ideological.  The ones appointed by Republicans cover more ground ideologically.  Then you end up with senatorial recommendations and holds on the lower federal courts, which makes those courts much more representative of the politics of the region (as I pointed out in my earlier response).  So who appointed a justice not particularly important. 

It’s so special that so many of you here like answering a question with a question.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2012 02:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 235 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5187
Joined  2010-06-16

Sorry if you didn’t understand my succinct statement.  It seemed obvious in lignt of how questionable your opening question was.

Come on, Kennedy is no liberal.  Almost all of his votes have been on the conservative side.  Just because he isn’t a Scalia doesn’t make him a liberal.

[quoteThe ones appointed by Democrats tend to be highly ideological.  The ones appointed by Republicans cover more ground ideologically.

REALLY????  From my observations of their decisions recently, it’s the conservatives who are idealogs. 

From his history, no one predicted Souter would turn out as he did.  But, I do agree that a few Republican Supreme Court appointees have worked out well.  The best example off hand was Earl Warren.  smile

Senatorial holds on lower federal court nominations?????  You’ve got to be kidding.  There were NO cases of Democrats filibustering presidential appointments, but a great many Republican ones that put holds on the nominations.

When one makes a blatently unjustifiable statement, isn’t it reasonable to use a question to request documentation?

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2012 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 236 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Occam. - 16 October 2012 02:22 PM

Sorry if you didn’t understand my succinct statement.  It seemed obvious in lignt of how questionable your opening question was.

And how better to answer a questionable question than with a question?  grin

Come on, Kennedy is no liberal.

Pretty sure I called him a “swing vote,” not a liberal.  Since he’s a common swing vote he contributes to my case that Republicans appoint with greater ideological diversity.  Doubtless Clinton picked a justice who went Souter in reverse?  Can you think of one?

Almost all of his votes have been on the conservative side.  Just because he isn’t a Scalia doesn’t make him a liberal.

If Kennedy didn’t vote with the liberals relatively often then what Supreme Court decisions would favor liberal judicial thinking lately?  Are you trying to distract from the point or what?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/12/AR2007051201586.html

 

The ones appointed by Democrats tend to be highly ideological.  The ones appointed by Republicans cover more ground ideologically.

REALLY????  From my observations of their decisions recently, it’s the conservatives who are idealogs. 

Well, if you’ve observed it then it must be true.

From his history, no one predicted Souter would turn out as he did.  But, I do agree that a few Republican Supreme Court appointees have worked out well.  The best example off hand was Earl Warren.  smile

Right. Now name the appointees of Democrats who have gone bad and you’ll make my point for me.

Senatorial holds on lower federal court nominations?????  You’ve got to be kidding.  There were NO cases of Democrats filibustering presidential appointments, but a great many Republican ones that put holds on the nominations.

Holds are popular with most senators; Democrats as well as Republicans have engaged in the practice routinely for years.

After Obama’s first year, the Senate had confirmed 353 of his 569 major nominations. During President George W. Bush’s first year, when Democrats controlled the Senate for about eight months, 513 people were nominated and 360 confirmed, according to the White House Transition Project, which studies new administrations.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/19/86529/senate-custom-of-holds-puts-brakes.html

When one makes a blatently unjustifiable statement, isn’t it reasonable to use a question to request documentation?

Occam

Heh.  Blatantly unjustifiable.  Right.  Tell us another one.

[ Edited: 16 October 2012 02:51 PM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2012 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 237 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21

Oops, yet another Republican tied to voter fraud ...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/263953-rep-jim-morans-son-resigns-in-voter-fraud-scandal

But don’t worry.  Voter fraud is a demonstrably non-existent problem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2012 11:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 238 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

Of some interest in this thread. From this week’s New Yorker, HERE.

THE VOTER-FRAUD MYTH
The man who has stoked fear about impostors at the polls.
BY JANE MAYER
OCTOBER 29, 2012

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2012 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 239 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
dougsmith - 25 October 2012 11:59 AM

Of some interest in this thread. From this week’s New Yorker, HERE.

THE VOTER-FRAUD MYTH
The man who has stoked fear about impostors at the polls.
BY JANE MAYER
OCTOBER 29, 2012

Wow.  Looks like Mr. Moran didn’t need to resign after all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2012 10:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 240 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Alagar Samy - 07 November 2012 08:05 AM

Several state legislators have been caught on video admitting their main goal was to actually suppress voting to ensure a Romney win. Purging voters from voter rolls has been another tactic used, even of persons who have voted for decades, making it difficult for people to access the proper documents to prove their citizenship and cutting early voting accessibility and hours.

With several such videos available it will be easier linking to one of them.  Thanks in advance.

Profile
 
 
   
16 of 17
16