Another ACLU outrage

[Guest 2smart4u]

Once again, the American Communist Liberation Union has demonstrated

their hatred for America. Indiana has passed a state law that mandates that

everyone have a state-issued photo I.D. to prove their identity and legal

status to vote in Indiana elections. Good idea, right ? No one wants illegal

aliens or terrorists voting, right ? Wrong !! The ACLU is suing Indiana to try to

overturn the law. Their reasoning ?? It discriminates against poor people.

Even though the I.D. cards are free, it will be a hardship for poor people to

go to their local office to get it. Poor people go to the polls to vote without it

being a hardship, but it's a hardship to pick up an I.D. card. This is the kind of

Loony Left thinking the ACLU is famous for. Paul/Rex/Guest is a card-carrying

Loon, he'd agree with them.

[Bern]

Once again, the American Communist Liberation Union has demonstrated

  their hatred for America. Indiana has passed a state law that mandates  that

  everyone have a state-issued photo I.D. to prove their identity and legal

  status to vote in Indiana elections. Good idea, right ? No one wants illegal

  aliens or terrorists voting, right ?  Wrong !!  The ACLU is suing Indiana to try to

  overturn the law. Their reasoning ??  It discriminates against poor people.

    Even though the I.D. cards are free, it will be a hardship for poor people to

  go to their local office to get it. Poor people go to the polls to vote without it

  being a hardship, but it's a hardship to pick up an I.D. card.  This is the kind of

  Loony Left thinking the ACLU is famous for. Paul/Rex/Guest is a card-carrying

  Loon, he'd agree with them.

80839[/snapback]

This illegal voting bs is just that, made up bs. And loonies like you eat this bs by the shovelful. You're a useful fool who is diverted by phony issues.

Illegals aren't going to take the chance of getting caught by registering and trying to vote. Individually, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by attempting to vote. But people like you eat this up because you're told that.

It is not easy for some, especially the poor, to get a valid id. In NJ, we have the new id validated drivers license. I have a friend, who is not poor and who had the hardest time proving his id. In the land of the free you were not expected to carry id's like in the old Soviet Union and his parents never bothered to get him his birth certificate. All of a sudden, to renew his license, he had to prove his id. It wasn't an easy task getting all the other id's needed to prove his identity. It would have been easier if he paid for forged documents, such as birth certificates (which are not standardized). The Republicans know that and their id plans are a useful voting rights barrier against the poor. It also costs money to get the other Id's needed to prove citizenship.

Get a life and worry about real issues.

[Guest Paul]

Once again, the American Communist Liberation Union has demonstrated

  their hatred for America. Indiana has passed a state law that mandates  that

  everyone have a state-issued photo I.D. to prove their identity and legal

  status to vote in Indiana elections. Good idea, right ? No one wants illegal

  aliens or terrorists voting, right ?  Wrong !!  The ACLU is suing Indiana to try to

  overturn the law. Their reasoning ??  It discriminates against poor people.

    Even though the I.D. cards are free, it will be a hardship for poor people to

  go to their local office to get it. Poor people go to the polls to vote without it

  being a hardship, but it's a hardship to pick up an I.D. card.  This is the kind of

  Loony Left thinking the ACLU is famous for. Paul/Rex/Guest is a card-carrying

  Loon, he'd agree with them.

80839[/snapback]

No, it's not a good idea. It has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with vote suppression. As usual (always?), you don't understand the issues. Sometimes I think you're Stephen Colbert and you're just pulling our collective leg. Honestly, do you have to practice to be that ignorant?

Even if mandatory photo ID cards are Constitutional, the application of those ID cards to voting procedures has nothing to do with terrorism. In the first place, what makes you think someone plotting a terrorist attack is going to be worried about voting? Second, even if he would like to vote, what makes you think that he will if he is planning a terrorist attack? Third, what makes you think a terrorist is going to register? Fourth, even if a terrorist obtains an ID card, what do you think is going to happen when he goes to vote that wouldn't happen when he goes to get the card? Fifth, assuming that a mandatory ID card is constitutional, what does it have to do with voting?

The proper purpose of a voting law is to prevent fraud. But we all know that the real purpose behind these laws is to make it harder for "certain groups of people" (wink, wink) to vote, thereby suppressing the Democratic vote and helping Republicans do what they can't do if they play fair, which is get a majority of the votes.

It doesn't matter that the ID is free. It's an unnecessary impediment on the franchise. (That means right to vote.) Everyone knows what happens: some people don't get their cards, and of those who will be turned away, most will be indigent, and a significant number of those people will not or cannot do what is necessary under the law. If the law served a legitimate purpose, you might have a point, but it doesn't. It has nothing to do with terrorism. It's an equal protection issue related to voting rights. It's not the first time we've seen this from Republicans and unfortunately it won't be the last. Vote suppression has been going on against African Americans ever since they gained the legal right to vote. It took nearly a century for the courts and the Congress to do anything about it the first time. That's why the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging this. You don't have a clue what the issues are. It's an appropriate challenge, and the courts should uphold it. Only time will tell whether they will.

[Guest Guest]

No doubt the fact that there's no source cited means this is only your delusional version of the story and overlooks those simple things you hate.............FACTS

[Guest Guest]

Once again, the American Communist Liberation Union

The warrantless wiretapping you endorse is more communist than anything the ACLU has ever done, you idiot.

has demonstrated

  their hatred for America. Indiana has passed a state law that mandates  that

  everyone have a state-issued photo I.D. to prove their identity and legal

  status to vote in Indiana elections. Good idea, right ? No one wants illegal

  aliens or terrorists voting, right ?

There has been no voting fraud in Indiana that warrants making it harder to vote.

  Wrong !!  The ACLU is suing Indiana to try to

  overturn the law. Their reasoning ??  It discriminates against poor people.

2. Don't forget the elderly and the disabled. Can't have them voting either, right? Retard.

    Even though the I.D. cards are free, it will be a hardship for poor people to

  go to their local office to get it. Poor people go to the polls to vote without it

  being a hardship,

Actually, most of them DON'T. They vote with absentee ballots. Same goes for elderly/disabled/etc. But there is no 'absentee' method of getting the ID. Therefore, the law destroys the ability for someone unable to get to the polls for whatever reason, from being able to vote (if they can't get to the polls, surely they also can't get to wherever they need to go to get the ID).

but it's a hardship to pick up an I.D. card.  This is the kind of

  Loony Left thinking the ACLU is famous for. Paul/Rex/Guest is a card-carrying

  Loon, he'd agree with them.

80839[/snapback]

Can't let those cripples vote, eh 2dumb? DIAF.

[Guest 3smart4all]

Once again, the American Communist Liberation Union has demonstrated

  their hatred for America. Indiana has passed a state law that mandates  that

  everyone have a state-issued photo I.D. to prove their identity and legal

  status to vote in Indiana elections. Good idea, right ? No one wants illegal

  aliens or terrorists voting, right ?  Wrong !!  The ACLU is suing Indiana to try to

  overturn the law. Their reasoning ??  It discriminates against poor people.

    Even though the I.D. cards are free, it will be a hardship for poor people to

  go to their local office to get it. Poor people go to the polls to vote without it

  being a hardship, but it's a hardship to pick up an I.D. card.  This is the kind of

  Loony Left thinking the ACLU is famous for. Paul/Rex/Guest is a card-carrying

  Loon, he'd agree with them.

80839[/snapback]

It's way more complicated. Not everyone has a photo ID, especially if you don't drive and are retired. Is it a small group? Yes, but it deprives a person of his right to vote. And yes, is is a hardship for some. Read on for more of the story:

On Wednesday, discussion of the law’s justification, and of the extent of the burden it placed on voters, was inconclusive. Mr. Fisher, Indiana’s lawyer, said that because photo identification was “necessary to do so many everyday activities,” the number of those affected was “infinitesimal.” Mr. Smith said the number was more likely in the hundreds of thousands.

Under the Indiana law, voters who are turned away for lack of identification may cast provisional ballots, which are counted only if the voter travels to the county clerk’s office within 10 days to show the required identification or sign a sworn statement that he cannot afford to obtain such an identification. The plaintiffs have argued that this extra step and required travel create an unnecessary burden that other states with identification requirements do not impose; those states do not require voters to make a second trip in order to have a provisional counted.

Chief Justice Roberts, who grew up in Indiana, did not seem to find the burden excessive. “County seats aren’t very far for people in Indiana,” he said.

Mr. Smith replied that the county seat in Lake County was a 17-mile bus ride from the county’s urban center of Gary. “If you’re indigent, that’s a significant burden,” he said. The chief justice also seemed unimpressed by the absence of known voter impersonators. “It’s a type of fraud that, because it’s fraud, it’s hard to detect,” he said to Mr. Smith.

[Guest a proud american]

Once again, the American Communist Liberation Union has demonstrated

  their hatred for America. Indiana has passed a state law that mandates  that

  everyone have a state-issued photo I.D. to prove their identity and legal

  status to vote in Indiana elections. Good idea, right ? No one wants illegal

  aliens or terrorists voting, right ?  Wrong !!  The ACLU is suing Indiana to try to

  overturn the law. Their reasoning ??  It discriminates against poor people.

    Even though the I.D. cards are free, it will be a hardship for poor people to

  go to their local office to get it. Poor people go to the polls to vote without it

  being a hardship, but it's a hardship to pick up an I.D. card.  This is the kind of

  Loony Left thinking the ACLU is famous for. Paul/Rex/Guest is a card-carrying

  Loon, he'd agree with them.

80839[/snapback]

It's a stupid idea, which is why I could understand why you like it.

In case you forgot or have never registered to vote you already have a voter identification card. It lists your name, home address, precinct, voter ID number and party Affiliation. .

And when you go to the polls to vote, there are poll watchers from each party. Prior to voting they can challenge who you are by requesting additional information such as current electric bill, phone bill and unless you have all of this information you won't be allowed to vote until you produce enough documentation to satisfy the election judges. So having an ID card does nothing.

It truly is a shame that a person who was born and raised in this country has to prove who they really are. But of course the Supreme Court has enough neo-cons on it that they will probably go along with it.

[Guest Patriot]

It's a stupid idea, which is why I could understand why you like it.

In case you forgot or have never registered to vote you already have a voter identification card. It lists your name, home address, precinct, voter ID number and party Affiliation. .

And when you go to the polls to vote, there are poll watchers from each party. Prior to voting they can challenge who you are by requesting additional information such as current electric bill, phone bill and unless you have all of this information you won't be allowed to vote until you produce enough documentation to satisfy the election judges. So having an ID card does nothing.

It truly is a shame that a person who was born and raised in this country has to prove who they really are. But of course the Supreme Court has enough neo-cons on it that they will probably go along with it.

81216[/snapback]

The more I read your posts, the more convinced I become that you never

served in the military. You don't want people "to prove who they really are" ???

Would you want to get on an airplane with a bunch of people who didn't have

an I.D. ?? Would you allow automatic weapon sales to people without I.D.'s ??

No former military would think like you, you can't be this stupid. (Unless you've

been doing a lot of Kool-Aid).

[Guest 2smart4u]

This illegal voting bs is just that, made up bs. And loonies like you eat this bs by the shovelful. You're a useful fool who is diverted by phony issues.

Illegals aren't going to take the chance of getting caught by registering and trying to vote. Individually, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by attempting to vote. But people like you eat this up because you're told that.

It is not easy for some, especially the poor, to get a valid id. In NJ, we have the new id validated drivers license. I have a friend, who is not poor and who had the hardest time proving his id. In the land of the free you were not expected to carry id's like in the old Soviet Union and his parents never bothered to get him his birth certificate. All of a sudden, to renew his license, he had to prove his id. It wasn't an easy task getting all the other id's needed to prove his identity. It would have been easier if he paid for forged documents, such as birth certificates (which are not standardized). The Republicans know that and their id plans are a useful voting rights barrier against the poor. It also costs money to get the other Id's needed to prove citizenship.

Get a life and worry about real issues.

81039[/snapback]

You're right. It's that "vast right-wing conspiracy" that the Ice Queen spoke

of. Never believe anything at face value when it comes to republicans, always

assume that there's a hidden agenda. And remember to keep watching for

the black SUV's pulling up to your house, after all, the NSA probably read

your post. Be careful and good luck.

[Guest 2smart4u]

No, it's not a good idea. It has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with vote suppression. As usual (always?), you don't understand the issues. Sometimes I think you're Stephen Colbert and you're just pulling our collective leg. Honestly, do you have to practice to be that ignorant?

Even if mandatory photo ID cards are Constitutional, the application of those ID cards to voting procedures has nothing to do with terrorism. In the first place, what makes you think someone plotting a terrorist attack is going to be worried about voting? Second, even if he would like to vote, what makes you think that he will if he is planning a terrorist attack? Third, what makes you think a terrorist is going to register? Fourth, even if a terrorist obtains an ID card, what do you think is going to happen when he goes to vote that wouldn't happen when he goes to get the card? Fifth, assuming that a mandatory ID card is constitutional, what does it have to do with voting?

The proper purpose of a voting law is to prevent fraud. But we all know that the real purpose behind these laws is to make it harder for "certain groups of people" (wink, wink) to vote, thereby suppressing the Democratic vote and helping Republicans do what they can't do if they play fair, which is get a majority of the votes.

It doesn't matter that the ID is free. It's an unnecessary impediment on the franchise. (That means right to vote.) Everyone knows what happens: some people don't get their cards, and of those who will be turned away, most will be indigent, and a significant number of those people will not or cannot do what is necessary under the law. If the law served a legitimate purpose, you might have a point, but it doesn't. It has nothing to do with terrorism. It's an equal protection issue related to voting rights. It's not the first time we've seen this from Republicans and unfortunately it won't be the last. Vote suppression has been going on against African Americans ever since they gained the legal right to vote. It took nearly a century for the courts and the Congress to do anything about it the first time. That's why the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging this. You don't have a clue what the issues are. It's an appropriate challenge, and the courts should uphold it. Only time will tell whether they will.

81042[/snapback]

Yes, it is a good idea. Without an I.D. people could vote over and over. Without

a computerized I.D. registration system, a person could vote multiple time in

multiple locations. Voter fraud is real. Perhaps you recall an old Chicago saying;

"vote early and vote often", that had nothing to do suppressing the black vote.

I can understand a loony like yourself agreeing with a loony organization like

the ACLU, but you and the ACLU lose on this one.

[Guest Guest]

It's a stupid idea, which is why I could understand why you like it.

In case you forgot or have never registered to vote you already have a voter identification card. It lists your name, home address, precinct, voter ID number and party Affiliation. .

And when you go to the polls to vote, there are poll watchers from each party. Prior to voting they can challenge who you are by requesting additional information such as current electric bill, phone bill and unless you have all of this information you won't be allowed to vote until you produce enough documentation to satisfy the election judges. So having an ID card does nothing.

It truly is a shame that a person who was born and raised in this country has to prove who they really are. But of course the Supreme Court has enough neo-cons on it that they will probably go along with it.

81216[/snapback]

I am a register voter in town for many years and I was never issued a voter ID card. None of the people that I question over the age of 30, none of them were issued an ID card, so my question is when did they start issuing these cards.

[Guest Paul]

It's a stupid idea, which is why I could understand why you like it.

In case you forgot or have never registered to vote you already have a voter identification card. It lists your name, home address, precinct, voter ID number and party Affiliation. .

And when you go to the polls to vote, there are poll watchers from each party. Prior to voting they can challenge who you are by requesting additional information such as current electric bill, phone bill and unless you have all of this information you won't be allowed to vote until you produce enough documentation to satisfy the election judges. So having an ID card does nothing.

It truly is a shame that a person who was born and raised in this country has to prove who they really are. But of course the Supreme Court has enough neo-cons on it that they will probably go along with it.

81216[/snapback]

The outrage is that the Supreme Court has been hijacked by right-wing activists who now want to promote their agenda. Unlike the "agenda" on the left, the agenda on the right is not in the people's interests or, in this case, in the interets of important principles like the right to vote.

It's going to take a long time to undo the damage the right wing has done to our courts, but it's time to begin. Let's start calling this what it is: a hostile takeover of our judiciary system by a group of political radicals with a private agenda, not the best interests of the country, at heart.

[Guest Guest]

Yes, it is a good idea.  Without an I.D. people could vote over and over. Without

  a computerized I.D. registration system, a person could vote multiple time in

  multiple locations. Voter fraud is real. Perhaps you recall an old Chicago saying;

  "vote early and vote often", that had nothing to do suppressing the black vote.

    I can understand a loony like yourself agreeing with a loony organization like

  the ACLU, but you and the ACLU lose on this one.

81326[/snapback]

You completely missed his point, D***a**. He accepted for the sake of argument the existence of an ID, then made the point that requiring that ID as a condition for voting has nothing to do with terrorism.

Since you're obviously not too smart, I'll draw the connection so maybe you'll have a chance of understanding it.

The Indiana law requires citizens to display a photo ID to vote.

The requirement of an ID isn't the issue before the US Supreme Court.

Applying the ID to the right to vote is the issue before the US Supreme Court. That is what the ACLU challenged.

It's an equal protection issue pertaining specifically to the right to vote, not a question whether the state may require citizens to have an ID. Requiring an ID might be part of an effort to combat terrorism. Making the ID a requirement for voting has nothing to do with terrorism.

It's always a good idea before you criticize something to make sure you understand it. But of course, if you held yourself to that standard, you'd never be able to criticize anything.

Get it now, D***a**? Of course you don't.

[Guest Guest]

I am a register voter in town for many years and I was never issued a voter ID card. None of the people that I question over the age of 30, none of them were issued an ID card, so my question is when did they start issuing these cards.

81362[/snapback]

The law is in effect in Indiana, not New Jersey.

[Guest Loki]

The outrage is that the Supreme Court has been hijacked by right-wing activists who now want to promote their agenda. Unlike the "agenda" on the left, the agenda on the right is not in the people's interests or, in this case, in the interets of important principles like the right to vote.

It's going to take a long time to undo the damage the right wing has done to our courts, but it's time to begin. Let's start calling this what it is: a hostile takeover of our judiciary system by a group of political radicals with a private agenda, not the best interests of the country, at heart.

81396[/snapback]

Yeah, we only like it when the Supreme Court gets hijacked by liberals who write legislation from the bench. Problem is, the Supreme Court, whatever their particular ideology, is only supposed to DECIDE the case. Instead they invent new LAWS to solve the problem the way they see fit.

It's all of them Paul, not just a select few that you disagree with.

[Guest Guest]

You're right. It's that "vast right-wing conspiracy" that the Ice Queen spoke

  of. Never believe anything at face value when it comes to republicans, always

  assume that there's a hidden agenda. And remember to keep watching for

  the black SUV's pulling up to your house, after all, the NSA probably read

  your post. Be careful and good luck.

81323[/snapback]

Don't you get bored repeating your black SUV trip, over and over? Is, what is left of your mind, in some kind of a loop?

[Guest 2smart4u]

The outrage is that the Supreme Court has been hijacked by right-wing activists who now want to promote their agenda. Unlike the "agenda" on the left, the agenda on the right is not in the people's interests or, in this case, in the interets of important principles like the right to vote.

It's going to take a long time to undo the damage the right wing has done to our courts, but it's time to begin. Let's start calling this what it is: a hostile takeover of our judiciary system by a group of political radicals with a private agenda, not the best interests of the country, at heart.

81396[/snapback]

I see the Kool-Aid is working.

[Guest a proud american]

The more I read your posts, the more convinced I become that you never

served in the military. You don't want people "to prove who they really are" ???

  Would you want to get on an airplane with a bunch of people who didn't have

an I.D. ??  Would you allow automatic weapon sales to people without I.D.'s ??

    No former military would think like you, you can't be this stupid. (Unless you've

  been doing a lot of Kool-Aid).

81322[/snapback]

We're talking about voter ID's not flying on airlplanes. A drivers license is proof enough to fly on a plane. Please get real. This voter ID is nothing more than an attempt to suppress the minority vote in Indiana. And if you read my post you already have identification when you first register to vote.

Why don't you suggest we all wear name tags so that we can all know who each other are. That makes about as much sense as your response. Please, Patriot, get real.

[billydee4]

Yeah, we only like it when the Supreme Court gets hijacked by liberals who write legislation from the bench.  Problem is, the Supreme Court, whatever their particular ideology, is only supposed to DECIDE the case.  Instead they invent new LAWS to solve the problem the way they see fit.

It's all of them Paul, not just a select few that you disagree with.

81499[/snapback]

And what new laws has the Supreme Court made?

[Guest Paul]

Yeah, we only like it when the Supreme Court gets hijacked by liberals who write legislation from the bench.  Problem is, the Supreme Court, whatever their particular ideology, is only supposed to DECIDE the case.  Instead they invent new LAWS to solve the problem the way they see fit.

It's all of them Paul, not just a select few that you disagree with.

81499[/snapback]

I'll tell you the difference. From the late 1940s to the 1970s, the US Supreme Court handed down a series of decisions that took our founding principles seriously for the first time in American history. There's no question that the Court responds to the tenor and spirit of the time: it always has and probably always will. So it's no coincidence that these decisions came in the thirty years or so after World War II. We had just fought a war against one of the most terrible and most dangerous evils ever to confront the world: Hitler's third Reich. He and others like Mussolini tried to bring the world under authoritarian tyranny, and were close at one time to succeeding. That would have been unprecedented in history: the whole world under a brutal and ruthless dictatorship, based on denial of freedom and equal treatment for all.

So it is no accident that our progress in civil rights in the United States came in the generation following this horrible war. How could we send black soldiers to fight for us, and yet deny equal treatment at home? How could we ignore Hitler's attempt to exterminate the Jewish people and other peoples, like the Gypsies? How could we look at what had happened in Germany and what was happening in the Communist USSR, and not fear for the future of personal freedom? For the first time in our history, we were shocked into self-awareness, looked at ourselves a little more honestly and realized that we had been mistreating an entire race of people for three centuries by that time and condoning unwarranted governmental interference with personal freedom; and that it was inexcusable.

Not everyone saw it that way. In the American South, racists were fighting to preserve white supremacy and segregation. That was the culture of the South at that time. Freedom fighters were killed, peaceful demonstrators were hosed, beaten and arrested, but also for the first time in history this was being broadcast to the entire nation on television.

Meanwhile, people also began to challenge the government's right to dictate how they lived the most personal aspects of their lives. One of those so-called liberal activist decisions was a 1965 case that held that the state has no legitimate interest in prohibiting married couples from using condoms. You may find it hard to believe today, but there was a law on the books in the early 1960s in Connecticut that prohibited the use of condoms even by a married couple. That was the case in which the US Supreme Court held that Americans have a right to privacy.

For the first time in history, the US Supreme Court said no, that is not consistent with our founding principles. Were they making it up? Not at all. The Fourteenth Amendment had guaranteed every citizen equal protection of the laws, and it was explicitly applicable to the states. The Tenth Amendment reserves unspecified powers to the people; the Ninth Amendment refers to the rights retained by the people. What right is more central to a nation built on freedom than personal privacy. What the Supreme Court did, for the first time, was take these principles seriously. This resulted in decisions on civil rights and voting rights as they pertain to issues affecting African Americans; and decisions declaring civil rights in areas of personal privacy and criminal procedure.

Predictably, there has been a backlash. There are still racists in the US. Some people even think we would be better off if the South had won the Civil War. They don't like not being "the superior race" any more. Those are the people who propelled the Republican party into power beginning with Nixon's election in 1968. Read Kevin Phillips' book The Emerging Republican Majority, which he published in 1969. It predicts the next forty years of our political history, and the essence of it is that the Republican party would pander to racist sentiments in the South, thereby transforming the South from a Democractic stronghold into a Republican stronghold. That is exactly what has happened. No region of the country is more strongly Republican now than the South, and it's mainly about racism.

There are also people who think our country has gone to hell in a handbag because we've become more free. We are less inclined these days to dictate to people how they will live.

But the truth is, most of wouldn't go back to the old ways. The problem is, good people don't see what has happened. They think the freedoms we enjoy today grow on a tree, that they are the natural state of affairs. They are not. They were fought for and won after long and hard struggles, bitterly opposed, which are still opposed by some today. The freedoms you enjoy and take advantage of today were given to you by so-called "liberal activist" courts. Maybe you want to go back to the day when government could regulate your personal life to such an extent as was challenged in Griswold v. Connecticut, but I don't, and I don't think most Americans do either.

The problem people have with the "liberal" courts of the 1940s to the 1970s is not that it made up laws. Their problem is that for the first time in history, the Court took the law seriously for what it had been all along. For the first time in history, equal treatment and individual rights were taken seriously.

Now if you don't think that the United States and its Constitution stand for equality and freedom, that's up to you. I think they do. I believe our country is founded on those principles. We turned our back on them for a long time. Finally, after World War II, we started taking them seriously. People who used to have special privileges under the old-boy school didn't like it. People who were used to dictating to others in matters that are intensely personal and rightly private didn't like the loss of power. So what else is new?

Did the courts sometimes go too far? Maybe, but that would require adjustments to specific excesses, not a return to the old patterns that were never justified in the first place. "Separate but equal" facilities for "Negroes." We are free, but somehow we can be free without having any rights of privacy. Give me a break. Unlike the Courts in previous eras and unlike the present Court, those so-called "liberal activist" courts got the main issues right. I grew up learning that America was a country founded on a principle of "freedom and justice for all." For the first time in our history, the Supreme Court took those principles seriously.

That's what happened, and that's what this is about.

[Guest Guest]

I see the Kool-Aid is working.

81507[/snapback]

As is the FOOL-Aid nitwits like you are apparently addicted to.

[Guest Guest]

Why don't you suggest we all wear name tags so that we can all know who each other are. That makes about as much sense as your response. Please, Patriot, get real.

81516[/snapback]

Chickensh*t that he is PatRat would calmly subit to a number tattooed on his forehead if asked to.

[Guest Guest]

Yeah, we only like it when the Supreme Court gets hijacked by liberals who write legislation from the bench.  Problem is, the Supreme Court, whatever their particular ideology, is only supposed to DECIDE the case.  Instead they invent new LAWS to solve the problem the way they see fit.

It's all of them Paul, not just a select few that you disagree with.

81499[/snapback]

So what rights do the people have under the Constitution that are not specified in the Constitution?

(A) None.

( Specify what rights we have under the Constitution that the Constitution does not enumerate.

Those are the only choices. Either we have no unspecified rights, or we have unspecified rights, but then what are they?

Which choice do you make? If you make choice (, what Constitutionally unspecified rights do we have?

[Guest 2smart4u]

You completely missed his point, D***a**. He accepted for the sake of argument the existence of an ID, then made the point that requiring that ID as a condition for voting has nothing to do with terrorism.

Since you're obviously not too smart, I'll draw the connection so maybe you'll have a chance of understanding it.

The Indiana law requires citizens to display a photo ID to vote.

The requirement of an ID isn't the issue before the US Supreme Court.

Applying the ID to the right to vote is the issue before the US Supreme Court. That is what the ACLU challenged.

It's an equal protection issue pertaining specifically to the right to vote, not a question whether the state may require citizens to have an ID. Requiring an ID might be part of an effort to combat terrorism. Making the ID a requirement for voting has nothing to do with terrorism.

It's always a good idea before you criticize something to make sure you understand it. But of course, if you held yourself to that standard, you'd never be able to criticize anything.

Get it now, D***a**? Of course you don't.

81467[/snapback]

Here's your "No Spin" reality.

The only reason the Loony Left is so "concerned" about poor and minority

voting is the poor and minorities tend to vote democratic ( no coincidence

that the poor and minorities are less educated and therefore naive).

So under the guise of caring about equal protection, the loony ACLU is suing

to keep the less educated people coming to the polls. After all, you don't want

to loose the vote of those who don't know any better. And who cares what their

name is or where they live, if they can reach the handle, fine.

[Guest Kearny Senior]

Yes, it is a good idea.  Without an I.D. people could vote over and over. Without

  a computerized I.D. registration system, a person could vote multiple time in

  multiple locations. Voter fraud is real. Perhaps you recall an old Chicago saying;

  "vote early and vote often", that had nothing to do suppressing the black vote.

    I can understand a loony like yourself agreeing with a loony organization like

  the ACLU, but you and the ACLU lose on this one.

81326[/snapback]

For those of us old enough to remember Mayor Daly in Chicago, Cook County

was reputed to be the most corrupt county in the U.S. Why ? Voter fraud.

Poor people were paid 10 cents to vote using phony names, even names of

dead people. A photo I.D. is vital to the integrity of our election process.