Loading ...GIVE ME A F****** BREAK!
Normally I don’t use such coarse asterisks on my web blog but allow me some leeway. The complaints about the U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding Voter ID have already started. You know by now Voter ID was upheld 6-3 by the Supreme Court.
I just think it’s hilarious that the same people who are still complaining about Voter ID (and still can’t produce one person in seven elections who was denied the right to vote because of Voter ID) said nothing when several polling places didn’t open last year about this time and 3500 identifiable voters were disenfranchised.
Maybe they should follow that same course of action now, go somewhere and sit down and shut up.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Julia is spinning in her grave!
April 28th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
The Drudge Report today suggests that it could hurt Obama. Evidently Matt Drudge doesn’t know how things work in Center Township.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Now you know they won’t…
April 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Melyssa, you’re a rascal…;)
April 28th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Melyssa hit the nail on the head!!!
April 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Today I got a nice franked letter from my Congressman telling me all about this nice FHA program, etc. It was of such urgency he had to spend the taxpayers dollar (probably after lunch with Danny Burton and getting his advice on free congressional mailings) to inform me of this program here just 2 weeks before the election. Hum. I so appreciate my congressman and his ethics are above reproach. I think he gets the Burton Mailing Award for Young Congressman…. I bet he got a nice hardwood plaque from Dan too.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Is your scorn reserved for the lack of evidence of disenfranchised voters or do you also hold in contempt those who added to the voting bureaucracy but cannot demonstrate the existence of voter impersonation at the polls?
April 28th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
You are the best Melyssa
Love Flipper :)
April 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Did the state prevail in all of the court cases leading up to this decision?
How much money was spent arguing this case?
Who paid who on this merit-less case?
April 28th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
We just received a push-poll from American Research referencing Senator Obama, Rev. Wright, American flag pins, and the energy bill!
April 28th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Doug, actually there HAS been documented evidence of voter “impersonation” at the polls. I believe it was the Wall Street Journal that went around with some of Julia Carson’s supporters and wrote about them forcing voters through the lines as well as several other election “irregularities”. I’m not arguing that fraud is widespread. But it happened and our system was not designed to discourage it.
In the “old days”, poll workers generally knew the people coming in to vote. That is no longer the case. The Indiana law is just simple common sense.
April 28th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Jim, The ACLU was pushing the case and Indiana won at every level–which is why the law has actually been used for the last 2 years.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
“Jim, The ACLU was pushing the case and Indiana won at every level–which is why the law has actually been used for the last 2 years.”
The ACLU should have to pay the state’s legal bills. Since this likely won’t happen, then it is time to tax all those rich liberal elites who make $100K+. Another 1% of their paycheck to cover legal fees by the state should be plenty.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
I had to go to the federal building late last year and could not even enter that building without showing ID.
If I wanted a carry permit, to exercise my (Indiana) constitutional right to carry arms, not only do I have to supply ID, I have to get fingerprinted and pay a fee. Retired cops, 99.99% of which are white, don’t have to pay fee. Talk about disenfranchisement.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
There was another case mentioned today where a vacant house was used as the address for a “voter” for years. This is common sense as Joel said…and Indiana won two other court cases before it went to the Supreme Court. A liberal judge wrote the decision and voted in favor of it today.
-
6-3. case closed. stop whining about nothing.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Actually, there are just as many retired minority cops as there are ones that work. A retired cop doesn’t need to get a permit because a retirement badge serves a role similar to an active one.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:23 am
For once we have a law that makes use of a very strange and unusual thing in legal and political circles……..COMMON SENSE!. I know it’s hard for some folks to get a grasp of that but you know what? It’s about time. For those who don’t like it I have one question? What are you afraid of?
April 29th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Some people are so devoted to our democratic ideals that they will exert themselves to the point of voting more than once, while dead, or while living out of the district. Who are these Justices that they can snuff out such fine sentiments and actions?
April 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
For those “civic minded individuals” who opposed voter identification, your money would have gone much further if you spent it finding voters without ID and getting them some documentation, rather than financing opposition to adding some integrity to the voting process. Now your money is gone, these “ghost” disenfranchised voters are still without ID, and rather than promote your cause, you’ve enabled it’s antithesis to become protected by the supreme law of the entire country.
.
You’ve now established a legal precedent that even the most careful planning would never have endured. Congratulations.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
The core Carson constituents in Crown Hill must be rolling over in their graves.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:49 am
If people REALLY want to vote they will get ID. They shouldn’t have to be coddled and have their hands held like it seems Shorebreak is suggesting.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Jon - I never suggested that people should have their hands held. Read again. I clearly stated that people who wasted time/money on opposing voter ID would have better invested their time and resources in finding the so-called disenfranchised voters and getting them some ID.
.
The obvious subject is the wasted time and resources of those who opposed voter ID, and ended up with their opposition plan (taken at face value) backfiring on them. My comment was not directed towards the disenfranchised voters who have yet to make an appearance.