Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > April > 29 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USCourt’s voter-ID ruling vindicates a whipping boy
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Apology Window is OPEN.
First up should be the American Civil Liberties Union, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama and other partisans on the left who made former Justice Department official Hans A. von Spakovsky the whipping boy of their vicious campaign to whip up the Democratic base against the reasonable requirement that voters produce identification at the polls.
They were brutal. Kennedy, according to The Washington Post, wrote to then-Chairman Trent Lott of the Senate Rules Committee objecting to his nomination to the Federal Elections Commission. Von Spakovsky, who was appointed in 2001 to the election-reform unit of the Justice Department’s voting rights section, “may be at the heart of the political interference that is undermining the Department’s enforcement of federal civil laws,” said Kennedy.
Obama, Kennedy and other Democrats blocked von Spakovsky’s permanent appointment to the FEC on the basis of his belief that states could require voters to produce proper identification before voting.
Guess what?
The U.S. Supreme Court agrees with von Spakovsky. The court said so Monday in an opinion that is as emphatic as it gets these days.
The Associated Press described the 6-3 opinion upholding an Indiana’s Voter ID law as “splintered.” Five-four is splintered. Six-three means that even the liberal bloc “splintered” to join the majority. “We cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters,” wrote —- sit down, conservatives, you’re not going to believe the name that follows —- Justice John Paul Stevens.
He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.
In an election, the 6-3 outcome would have been interpreted as a landslide. A landslide, slam-dunk, blow-out for the very view that got poor old Hans von Spakovsky vilified.
Von Spakovsky, a former chairman of the Fulton County Republican Party and member of the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections , was appointed by former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft as counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights, specializing in voting and election issues.
President George W. Bush gave him a recess appointment to the Federal Election Commission in January 2006. Democrats blocked efforts to make the recess appointment permanent before it expired on Dec. 31, leaving the six-member FEC with just two commissioners, two shy of the number needed to conduct official business. Von Spakovsky has since become a Heritage Foundation scholar researching and writing about election issues, though the Senate could still confirm him to the FEC.
While opponents needed no excuse to oppose Von Spakovsky, the pretense for declaring him an enemy of the voting rights of humankind was an article he wrote for the Texas Review of Law & Politics in which he declared that there was no evidence a voter ID requirement disenfranchised minorities, as alleged. The article contained this truth: “The objections are merely anecdotal and based on the unproven perception that minority groups such as African-Americans do not possess identification documents to the same degree as Caucasians.”
There’s never been any question that states can impose reasonable requirements on voting. Requiring proper identification proving that you are who you say you are is eminently reasonable, as von Spakovsky and —- pinch me! —- Justice John Paul Stevens acknowledge. (Von Spakovsky has written two pieces for Heritage that bear reading: “Stolen Identities, Stolen Votes” on March 10 and “Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire” on April 16 about 100,000 fraudulent votes cast in Chicago during the 1982 Illinois gubernatorial election.)
This is an example of small matters made large for partisan purposes and of good public officials trashed without mercy.
For Hans A. von Spakovsky, though, a day of vindication comes.
It was Monday, April 28.
The Window is OPEN.
Permalink | Comments (188) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Comments
By TW
April 29, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this
This is gonna bite the right in the butt (in a bad way). Watch the left’s organization to get IDs to people over the next decade. This move will provide the nails that ultimately seal conservativism shut in the casket built for it by ‘w’.
Shame on the keepers of the conservative voice…
By bob
April 29, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this
The Democrats will find another way to let illegals vote. The argument that a free ID amounts to a poll tax was amusing.
By jbmlaw
April 29, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. “McCarthyism” has been alive and well within the democrat party since the political lynchings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. No rational republican with a family and any self-respect would seek appointment to a Federal position. Any republican who accepts such a nomination today truly is a modern Cincinnatus.
At their present pace, senate democrats, in total control of judicial appointments since 2006, will approve approximately half the number approved by republicans during Bill Clinton’s final two years. Beyond judicial appointments (and the FEC, as noted by Jim) perhaps one-third of the Federal agencies have appointments pending longer than six months, due to the sluggards of the party of irresponsibility. The FEC is a particularly amusing case, in that the paralysis at the agency ensures that the agency will be unable to provide timely votes on advisory matters here in an election year (purpose of that delay is to ensure a litany of phony charges against republicans only next year.) Were honesty a trait of democrats, they would hold a vote for each nominee, and vote down those nominees they do not like; such accountability, however, would cost them at the polls, as the American public is repulsed by such raw political activity. Far from uniting America, by showing that the system works, the democrats intend to prove the virtues of division. Watch and learn.
One minor correction on the court ruling (that is springboard for today’s essay on the politics of personal destruction as practiced only by democrats): the majority ruling by Mr. Justice Stevens was joined only by Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts. The concurring opinion by Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito was a much stronger opinion, and would have foreclosed any future theoretical challenge on the subject. In order to procure his 6-3 ruling favoring the general concept, Justice Roberts joined the centrists’s position, without foreclosing future challenges. The practical effect should be the same, the issue will now fade away.
By john
April 29, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
After surviving poll taxes, tests, threats, etc, a picture will be a piece of cake. History will look at this case and decison for what it really was …. an attempt to suppress the vote.
By jbmlaw
April 29, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
One more note, re: Jim’s observation on Justice Stevens, does this not prove that Justice Roberts is the best chess player on the court since Earl Warren? After the death penalty opinion a couple of weeks ago, Justice Stevens almost seems mainstream now.
By James
April 29, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this
Now if we could just find a way to make sure that only people who “contribute” to our society can vote. Right now, people who pay “zero” income taxes outnumber those of us who do. I would even vote for a sliding scale. The more you pay - the more you vote counts. With modern computers, it could be done.
By Redneck Convert
April 29, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this
Well, us rednecks finally got a Supreme Court that will vote the godly Republican way. Its real simple. If you appoint a godly Republican to a court you get a Republican way of voting. Once in a while you will even get a librul voting the godly way on the SC.
Now if My President will just keep this commission down to two members they won’t never meet and push this civil rights stuff onto us.
I’m awful glad Those People will think twice about showing up at the polls. And the Mexicans too. They know they will get a good lookover and questions if they try to vote so maybe they will just stay home. They all look alike so maybe a poll worker can say the photo don’t look like the person and maybe do a little hassling. Besides, us godly rednecks don’t need to be having our vote cancelled out by scum like that.
So it looks like My President got the SC he wants. Cases are being decided in favor of big business, so Free Innerprize can run wild and pretty soon the money will come Trickling Down to us. It ain’t our fault if that woman that claimed pay discrimination didn’t find out she was being paid less than anybody else till it was too late to go to court. I’m pretty sure any employer would tell you what he’s paying anybody else if you just ask nice. And the SC has turned us loose to kill all the murderers waiting on Death Row. Now we learn the SC says photo ID is fine. I feel like it is Christmas in April.
So have a good day everybody. It feels great to be a Real American and have a SC that’s packed with Real Americans. Besides, its good payback for getting appointed anyway. With a lifetime job and a big salary they ought to be willing to return My President a favor.
By ron
April 29, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this
Good morning Jim,You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t share in your glee over the issue of voter ID.I believe that all Americans lost in this decision.
By jbmlaw
April 29, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this
Dear James @ 8:30, you are surely aware that Dr. Walter E. Williams is also a proponent of the “corporate management” style of voting. I think his compromise idea is that everyone gets one vote, plus one vote for every $10,000 in taxes paid. Leftists are horrified at the idea of “whoever pays the fiddler calls the tune.”
By ray
April 29, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
James@8:30 - amen, bro. and then we ought to bulldoze them freeloaders down to mexico before we build the wall, especially the greasy fat do nuthins. especially the fat baptist welfare hypocraps who clog up the buffet on sundays. darn right my vote ought count more. good post.
By Ally
April 29, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
Amen to only allowing taxpayers to vote.
By john
April 29, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
bob wrote:
The Democrats will find another way to let illegals vote. The argument that a free ID amounts to a poll tax was amusing.
Boob: What FREE ID? You are missing some facts. Also, there are NO reports of any large scale voter fraud cases. The 100K number for Illinois is laughable. Most of the real fraud can be traced to absentee ballots and no one is even talking about those.
By JK
April 29, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
James, what do you call the form of government where representation only belongs to those with money? Oligarchy? Plutocracy? Fascism? (To heck with the Constitution, right?)
BTW, if you are indeed a “contributing” member of society (your post here during working hours casts some doubt), you still have more means to influence the U.S. government than poor people do. You can buy your Congressmen like all the other rich folks and corporations (who now, after paying big $$$ to their lawyers, have more rights than individuals). Stop whining and write a check to the who-, I mean legistlator you want to own.
BTW, with modern computers, all manner of fraud is easy, even elections. Have fun subverting what’s left of our Democracy!
By munchi
April 29, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
REDNECK CONVERT…
You crack me up! What you say in your folksy way is absolutely on target…
By JeremiahWright
April 29, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this
Voter IDs are common sense. That’s all there is to it. Only the loons are opposed. The only reason against Voter IDs is to let illegals vote, and that’s just unAmerican.
By George Washington
April 29, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
It gives me great pleasure to announce to you retards the continuing, slow, painful DEATH of the American newspaper industry. Of most interest to the ajc clowns, their sister paper, the washingass post, had a circulation decline of 3.57% yoy March 07 to March 08. Overall, yoy newspaper circulation declined at an accelerating rate of 3.6% — This is great news, an indicator of the declining ability of Americans to read or to even care about events in the world…Soon, liars like Dusty will be able to manipulate the truth at will via talk radio….Reading and Writting matter not as long as the brats have school sports, music, and art….I will have an abundance of field hands soon…the ignorant scum…pull that plow boy, hoe that row, hag….The export market will pay me in hard currency for that wheat, corn, and tobacco…..With no export taxes or I will burn the whole field…..
By Webster
April 29, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
corporate management style of voting - term used by those who yearn to go back to the days when lesser people only counted as 3/5ths; often referred to in rightwing circles as ‘the good old days.’
By roylee
April 29, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this
Here is the scary thing about the court’s decision. Three members of the court believe that it is wrong to require people to prove their identity before they vote. This comes on the heels of three members of the court saying that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is bound by the view of an “international” court sitting in the Netherlands. What is to keep these same justices from believing that the views of a Dutch (or French or Danish) court also represent an “evolving standard of decency” and holding US state courts to that standard. Scary stuff. Scary times.
By George Washington
April 29, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this
Will no one rid us of that meddlesome monk? An English king once had but to utter that phrase once to rid himself of the ArchBishop of Canterbury….Ah guess black knights are not very bright, eh? Come on Barak, give yourfollowers a hint as to the fate of the stupid rev….Give us an Executive decision…..
By GS
April 29, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
I never thought voter ID laws were all that necessary. Remember, you have to show an ID to get registered; so in order to vote you at least to present a correct name in the correct precinct. The risk of voter fraud occurring after votes are cast is much greater. For example, many precincts in New York reported 0 votes for Obama in the primary. That’s a statistical impossibility; somebody was tampering with the ballot boxes.
On the other hand, the evidence that the poor and elderly will have a hard time voting is totally overblown. Consider that these groups manage to cash their welfare and Social Security checks. Either at a bank or at a store, eventually you have to show photo ID to get cash. Therefore it cannot possibly be a burden to show ID to vote.
By JK
April 29, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
Yes, James and Ally, if you get your way on “only taxpayers vote” issue, y’all can go explain to the veterans in the nursing home, the moms who spend all their lives feeding and caring for others, and the severely disabled that they can no longer vote. Then write to the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and tell them they’re “defending the freedoms” of a much smaller group of people than they were when they signed up, and explain to them exactly why you hate America. Have fun with that!
By roylee
April 29, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
Dear Redneck Convert, The more murderers on death row that are snuffed out the better. I guess it makes you feel good to think of yourself as an advocate for murderers. You and your mom up in New Jersey must be really proud. But that’s the way it is with liberals. It is not about what is good for the country or society, it is all about what makes the liberal FEEL GOOD.
By George Washington
April 29, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
The Rev Wright has just announced that he is suffering from the effects of Senile Dementia, and no one should pay any attention to his words….He has been Baker Acted in the State of Florida…imho
By Aquagirl
April 29, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
6-3 is a “blowout”? What would a 5-4 decision be, a “landslide”? I know conservative wackos are unable to master the basics of science, they seem to have decided normal math is also tainted by Secular Humanism.
And I’m not shocked Justice Stevens deviated from Jim’s expected course…you see, “liberals” often do so, unlike the five other justices named, who rarely deviate from siding with big government. Unless it’s about guns, and then suddenly America is the land of individuality and freedom from government interference.
People who can’t/won’t get an ID lack the capacity to locate their wazoo with both hands and a flashlight. I’m surprised they could even find their way to the polling place. Why in God’s name would we let them in?
By Keeper of the Conservative Voice
April 29, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
All I have to say is: nah-nah-nanah-nah! Damn right that a person has to show an ID to vote! Get real, you dumbazz liberals - everyone you say is going to be “disenfranchised” already has a picture ID - how else are they going to buy their malt liquor, obtain their cell phones, drive a car, use a credit card, buy cigarettes, etc., etc., etc! The tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of people who don’t have one, WILL BE ABLE TO GET ONE FREE OF CHARGE! How is this a problem? Stupid azz liberals!
By Capitol Hack
April 29, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this
I’m not sure whether Jim is trying to mislead us here or whether he just didn’t get all the facts of the Supreme Court decision. To say that this decision was not splintered and is actually “as emphatic as it gets” is either intentionally misleading or just wishful thinking.
In fact, the court issued three opinions. Not surprisingly, Scalia, Thomas and Alito found that the Indiana voter ID law is an innocuous non-discriminatory voting regulation. Stevens, Roberts and Kennedy found that, even though there was NO EVIDENCE presented of the alleged voter fraud that voter ID laws are supposed to prevent, the plaintiffs also presented no evidence that the voter ID law had a harmful impact on voters. This middle-of-the-road opinion leaves open the possibility of more lawsuits in the future.
Finally - and again not surprisingly - Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer found that the voter ID law is an obvious attempt to deter certain voters and even pointed out that the cost to get a birth certificate copy in Indiana is more than the old $1.50 poll tax that the Court struck down years ago.
If three opinions split among 9 justices don’t constitute a splintered decision, I don’t know what does. Of course, in our sound-bite society, nuance and details can easily be sacrificed for bluster and BS. But come on, Jim, we expect better of you!
By Gary
April 29, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Apologize for what? Can anyone name one single case in Georgia where where having a picture government ID would have stopped someone from voting that shouldn’t have? This is another example of Big Government spending our money to fix non-existent problems.
By ENOUGH is ENOUGH
April 29, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
Let’s take it one step more. If you receive ANY taxpayer handouts (notice I didn’t say goverment), ie WIC, welfare, food stamps, housing, etc. YOU DON’T GET TO VOTE!
By Peter
April 29, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this
Well good thing Jim Whooten is still NOT talking about the ECONOMY…..the WRONGS here would have ZERO to say.
Better blind them with the Bull Sh!t, so no one pays any attention to how bad it is really getting.
Great Job Jim, at least you are diverting attention to the real issues in America!
By James
April 29, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
To JK:
You amuse me. You get on to me for being here during “working hours” but what are you doing ? By the way - USMC Vietnam veteran, 34 years Federal law enforcemnt - fully retired.
Now - if you read my entry you will find I was suggesting the “more” you contribute the “more” your vote counts. By the way, our country is NOT a democracy (mob rule) and never has been. It is a Constitutional Republic - much different.
Chill out …………
By George Washington
April 29, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
More than Enough - If you have citizenship in any foreign country, you do not get to vote in Georgia - No dual citizens should ever get to vote anywhere in america….america for americans only….
By Truthifier
April 29, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this
Couldn’t a requirement to show identification actually be a means to prevent voter disenfranchisement? Let’s say that I don’t like the way my neighbor votes. For fun, let’s call my neighbor jbmlaw (no offense, just using you as an example!). Without an ID requirement, couldn’t I, hypothetically, go to the local polling site and present myself as jbmlaw and cast my/his vote in favor of one of jbmlaw’s leftist friends?
By Forrest
April 29, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this
If you receive ANY taxpayer handouts (notice I didn’t say goverment), ie WIC, welfare, food stamps, housing, etc. YOU DON’T GET TO VOTE!
Stupid is as stupid does.
By Peter
April 29, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
Come on folks what did you expect….this is the same group that GAVE the Presidency to BUSH in the first place.
By TW
April 29, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
Many thanks to the ‘conservatives’ for paving the way for a tsunami of registered Democrat voters over the next decade.
2008 republicans are nothing but closet liberals. Watch.
By javaman
April 29, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
6 - 3 == No-Brainer
By Get OVER it!
April 29, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
By Peter
Come on folks what did you expect….this is the same group that GAVE the Presidency to BUSH in the first place.Peter, it’s been almost EIGHT years, get over it. If there was ANY PROOF to your claim, the libs would have found it by now. Dangle MY CHAD!
By jbmlaw
April 29, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
Dear Webster @ 8:55, I am not certain whether you deceive or whether you are merely misinformed. You will recall that it was the evil slaveholder who believed the pitiful slaves should be counted as a whole person, and it was freedom lovers (libertarians like me) who believed slaves should not be counted at all. Thus the counting dispute was a compromise – a typical middle of the road, split the baby, abysmal judgment. As always, the great evil – that slaves were only 3/5ths of a person - was a result, not of firmly held beliefs on either side, but rather of the “can’t we all get along” types who compromise beliefs. I’m not sure where your strange post places “conservatives” in that calculus, but I assume you place them with the freedom lovers outside the slave states, who assigned a zero value.
As to the “corporate management” system that you and our friend JK decry, the appropriate solution is one man, one vote, and an equal share of the budget for each voter. None of this “progressive” theft as in the current (i.e., post 16th Amendment) kleptocracy.
Dear Aquagirl @ 9:32, I think you err in your analysis. Any Supreme Court ruling that finds the states have a power not prohibited by the Federal government is not a finding for “big government.” Big government is the Federal.
By Peter
April 29, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Hey By Get OVER it!…….
How is all doing in your personal economics?
Gotta a BIG CAR that sucks down a bunch of gas?
Any comments about how long our RECESSION will be ?
By Abomi Nation
April 29, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
Right on! Lets further expand the “no vote ” rule to people claiming a mortgage deduction on their income tax. This is a special right.
Any freeloader that takes advantage of special rights tax deductions for children should also be banned.
Tax rebate/welfare checks? Ban the recipients.
If you have a child in school that is supported by tax dollars, ban them. This special right costs me $4,000.00 a year. At least.
Lets face it, people that have mortgages and children take in a lot more in taxes then they pay. They should have no voice in how taxpayer money is spent. They are leaches.
By Marcel
April 29, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand the flap about showing your ID to vote. I have done it for years, it’s not that big of a deal. Just take the damn thing out of your wallet, show it to the pollster, and put it away.
Everyone has some sort of ID, whether its a driver’s license or some type of government id.
If you are here illegally, then you don’t vote. Simple? Why is this such a big deal? Can someone please explain this one to me?
By TW
April 29, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
Relax! We’re saved!
WASHINGTON - President Bush aimed Tuesday to address mounting anxieties about U.S. economic problems as energy prices soar and more Americans lose their homes in foreclosures.
Whew…close one. Can’t wait for the swell of confidence that will surely follow the speech…
By Dave
April 29, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
Redneck Convert, I am not amused. Under the image of a southern stereotype, you seem to be exactly the opposite of who you say you are.
I wager $5 that you live in midtown, drive a scooter and are angry most of the time at “neocons” and just about everyone else. A self-hating liberal is as obvious as a splinter in my thumb.
voter ID: try operating in society without an id. How does one cash a paycheck, make any sort of non-cash transaction without an ID?
How many people do you know who operate on cash alone without any interaction with banks, credit etc? Its almost impossible.
Why does the left fight this so much? No one is disenfranchised, you fight so hard for this it stinks like week old fish. As a group, do you really want illegal aliens voting?
By Keeper of the Conservative Voice
April 29, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
Come on folks what did you expect…this is the same group that nominated Al Gore and John Kerry (primo move there, guys), keeps electing Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi, used to elect Cynthia McKinney - hold on - I’m laughing so hard that I can’t stay in my seat any longer - oh my gawd - what a bunch of maroons! Voter ID Rocks!
By Abomi Nation
April 29, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
TW, the “swell of confidence” in the Bush speech will be amazing. I can’t wait. On top of that we have McCains plan to drop the gas tax to solve the energy crisis. Happy days are hear again.
Only thing is Bush has an approval rating of 28%. When it goes below 30% I believe the “Shut the F up Amendment” goes into effect and the President is banned from speaking in public. Oh well at least we still have McCain’s gas tax holiday to save us.
By Aquagirl
April 29, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
jbm @ 10:03, you are correct, I should have said the five Justices favor more power to governments of all types, and less to individuals. I stand corrected, thank you for reminding me how the past eight years has been a shaft on multiple levels for personal freedom.
And thank you, George W. Bush. You’ve set the example, from claiming dictatorial levels of Executive Privilege, to selecting a VP who believes he constitutes his own personal branch of government. You’re a true man of the people, Mr. President.
By Abomia Rodriguez Nacion
April 29, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
No problem. I still have my 2,100 absentee ballots I can use this November.
In fact its much easier. I can’t psychically wait in line that many times so its actually better for me and my people.
No id’s required! LMAO!!!!!!
What a country!
By KYJurisDoctor
April 29, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
The decision was the CORRECT one. We ask people for all kinds of IDs for just about EVERYTHING these days, so why should something as IMPORTANT to our Representative Democracy, like voting, voting be any different?
By Lee
April 29, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
The Supreme Court also previously approved “Grandfather Laws,” “Poll Taxes”, “Jim Crow Laws” and “Separate but Equal” laws. Simply because they approve of a law, doesn’t make it right. Now the problem of supplying free identification for some folks without permanent addresses will begin, and the problems of identity theft will begin all over anew. Not only is this a bad law, it opens up a whole new can of worms of which of many different id cards will be accepted, how verified, and how much they will cost, and who will pay for them, to play around with. And it is all part of the march to impose the national identity and 50 state driver’s license card. Soon we will all be talking to the local cops like Sergeant Schultz: “Ja, Colonel Klink, die papers are all in order, miene Herr!”
By getalife
April 29, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
Yay, cheer on another blow to Democracy and keeping the poor and disabled from voting.
Good for you, you should be proud Jim.
Pathetic hack.
By A'Nesthesia
April 29, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
Me and all my babydaddys has our ID’s so we can vote for more welfare money for more babies you has. It wasn’t hard to get my ID’s - the local check cashing store/nail salon/convenience store/money order/title pawn shop in my neighborhood have them all. And I gots a few bags of barbecue chips when I was there.
By rdhood
April 29, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
The only group of voters that this decision affects is those who are voting fraudulently. To the overwhelming vast majority of voters, this is a non-issue.
Further, this affects folks on both sides of the aisle EQUALLY. Why is one side of the aisle shouting louder and longer than the other? I suspect that it could be that some cities and states DO have a problem with fraudulent voting, and the party on the side of the aisle that is shouting the loudest is committing the most fraud. There is no other reason to oppose this legislation. I’ll leave it to the reader to figure out which bunch that is.
By Lakeman
April 29, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
Let’s not forget the AJC and Cynthia Tucker. She beat the drums of rascism regarding this issue as loudly as she could. I’m sure we will be getting a blast from her within a few days. And the paper lost 8.5% of its readership in the last quarter. They certainly are not “Thinking Right” about why circulation continues down the tank. It’s not the internet…it’s the content!
By Seriously ....
April 29, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
So, Mr. Wooten, did the Dred Scott decision (7-2) “vindicate” slavery? Did Plessy (7-1) “vindicate” segregation?
The Court sided with that great champion of American democracy, Karl Rove, in deciding it is in the right-wing’s interest to limit the ability of the elderly, the poor, and the infirmed to go to the polls and exercise the most sacred of our inalienable rights. Rove, von Spakovsky, et al. believes that if you can’t win an election fairly, suppress the turnout. How many law-abiding Americans were prevented from voting in 2000 in Florida based on the felony disenfranchisement, which, as enforced by that great champion of American democracy, Katherine Harris, basically came down to honest individuals having to prove they weren’t the John Doe who had committed the felony?
The irony here is that real conservatives are appalled by the Bush/Cheney/Rove assault on the Constitution and the rule of law. Is limiting the right to vote more significant than Bush/Cheney refusing to uphold laws they don’t like under some absurd reading of Executive power and signing statements? If they wield absolute power in the area of, say, national security -– in effect, a military dictatorship that would have made Adolf Hitler envious – does it matter who we elect to Congress anyway?
You “conservatives” are destroying our laws, our liberties, our very nation, over blind loyalty to trash like Rove, von Spakovsky, Dick Cheney, and George W, Bush. But you are not going to get away with it.
By GWB
April 29, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
My fellow Mericans. Today you can expect to hear me talk about your economic fears. There is nothing to fear. Our problem is that too many people don’t look on the bright side.
Sure, the number of home foreclosures has doubled in the past year. So you lost your home. Well, look on the bright side. You don’t have that big mortgage payment to make any more.
And some of you are grumbling about the cost of gasoline. You claim you’re being squeezed hard at the pumps. Well, look on the bright side. Somebody is making big profits, and that’s good for the economy. It will get you a better job some day and allow you to look for another home.
A few are quibbling about lost jobs in this country. They are saying jobs have been sent overseas and that we are producing only a tenth of the new jobs we had during the Clinton administration. Well, look on the bright side. Do you really want to work and make good wages under an administration that has You Know What with interns in the Oval Office?
And some are griping about the deficit. They claim we owe trillions to the Chinese. Well, look on the bright side. Would you rather get your taxes raised to pay for the wars and the things we want, or would you rather just borrow money to get those things? Sort of like using your credit card.
So my message is the same as Herbert Hoover’s. Just suck it up and stop the harping. Some day you will have a chicken in every pot. That is, if the nut cases don’t go wild and send all the illegal workers back to their own countries.
God bless Merica.
By Shar
April 29, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
If “the apology window” is indeed open, there are many, many folks in line ahead of Mr. von Spakovsky. I’d put Valerie Plame up towards the front of the line, along with Lawrence Lindsey, the former economic advisor to the President who quoted an unacceptably high “upper bound” of $200 billion tax dollars for the war in Iraq and was promptly fired. Or how about those folks who were illegally spied upon? The tortured prisoners whose Geneva Convention rights have proven to be inconvenient and therefore illegally expendable?
Mr. Wooten’s refusal to acknowledge or address the relentless marginalization of dissenting views undertaken by this Administration, or their personal attacks on those whose voices they cannot silence, makes this column’s smug self-satisfaction particularly offensive. In fact, the parallel to the remarks of Reverend Wright, lambasting one kind of prejudice while asserting his right to his own, is striking.
As to the tripartite decision of the Court, the prospect of more doctrinaire (Scalia), hidebound (Alito) or just plain insensate (Thomas) Republican appointments to the bench is the major reason I hesitate in supporting John McCain.
For those who may believe that getting a photo ID is a simple matter, I suggest that you spend a morning at the downtown DMV. Circumstances obliged me to do so before the primary in February, and I saw three people who, after long bus trips, had their documentation (medicare cards, employment cards and the like) turned down and who were told to go back home, apply for replacement birth certificates or passports, and to return. Getting an official Georgia ID may seem easy to those who have a car and quick access to lots of documentation, but it is a convoluted process for those not so fortunate.
Jbmlaw @ 10:03, as a female I would not qualify under your “one man one vote” scenario, and there are clearly those on this blog who believe that the views of the people I witnessed at the DMV should be subordinate to their own on economic grounds. I am grateful that our country embraces the views of all the adults its government serves, and wish that the monied class was rather less well represented by personal ties and fat contributions.
By Ray
April 29, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
There are no slaves in this country anymore and no slave holders. People are free to live their life as they see fit, no matter what their race. There has never been a country in the world that offers more opportunities to it’s citizens to get an education and become self supporting, responsible American citizens. Rather live in Rwanda? How about the Sudan? Quit walking back and forth over Selma bridge and join mainstream America. Dads, stick around and raise your children to be responsible adults and they will probably live longer. Or do you really care?
By willie b
April 29, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
Jim…Once again a non-issue.
I don’t know what the big deal is …Show your ID, and off you go to vote.
However, as Aqua Girl correctly points out…Democratic justices do deviate…They write opinions based on thought! Whereas the lock-step republicans always vote as ONE..
I’m not an attorney so anyone here with the bona fides I ask this question…Is this not a states rights issue rather than a federal issue..Anything you can offer would be apprecative.
BTW they’re holding a senate hearing on c-span at this moment concerning this very subject.
By Abomi Nation
April 29, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
“They certainly are not “Thinking Right” about why circulation continues down the tank. It’s not the internet…it’s the content!”
Of course you have nothing to back that statement up do you?
ajc.com had incredible growth last year. I beleive they recorded their 1 billionth hit for last year in November. How did the conservative online paper that serves the metro area do?
A comparable newspaper in size to the AJC is the Dallas Morning News. The DMN had a 10.6% loss in subscriptions and is a conservative leaning paper. The AJC lost 8.6. Does this mean conservative papers are being abandoned more because they are conservative? The Orange County Register in California, a very conservative paper in California also had big losses.
Again, there must be a conservative paper in town that these people are leaving the ajc for. What is the name of it? What are the figures for the metro conservative newspaper? What is their web address?
By Disgusted
April 29, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
There are no slaves in this country anymore and no slave holders. People are free to live their life as they see fit, no matter what their race.
The point, O great dunce, is that the Supreme Court is inherently political, a reflection of the political milieu at the time of the justices’ appointments. To view a Supreme Court decision as some objective pronouncement is to fundamentally mistake the nature of the court. The Dred Scott decision is simply one example of that political nature in action. You miss the writer’s point rather badly, and I’m beginning to wonder whether a return of a literacy test would be an appropriate vehicle for measuring qualifications to vote.
By RealityKing
April 29, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
One need only read the first two sentences of the AJC’s liberal opinion in the “Our View’ section(w/o dissent, of course) to know exactly why the AJC’s popularity and circulation are fallen soooo low in Atlanta.
And yes, I do enjoy rubbing liberal noses in their mindless positions.., It’s soo easy. Not to mention watching the liberal press lose lots of their liberal suitor’s cash.
Sorry Jim..
By The Devil You Say
April 29, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
The fact is that Democrats would not be so vociferous in their opposition to the Voter ID laws if it were not the case that they have been engaged in fradulent voter practices concerning voter IDs. If no real, official identification is given, how can we be sure if the person voting is who he says he is or that this person even exists? This ruling was not only reasonable, but these laws should have been passed forty years ago.
By getalife
April 29, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
“Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable than Democratic rival Barack Obama. Obama and Republican McCain are running about even.”
mcwar has mental problems, his positions are all over the place and will not release his medical records.
She wins the general easily.
By Abomi Nation
April 29, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
RealityKing, what were the losses/gains for the conservative metro Atlanta paper?
What were they saying in the conservative metro Atlanta newspaper’s opinion page today?
Could you also give us the total circulation of the metro wide conservative newspaper vs the ajc to prove your point that newspapers are dying because they are liberal?
By Peter
April 29, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
Ok WRONGS……. any thoughts on how long OUR RECESSION will last?
Any Thoughts on how to make all better?
Any thoughts on How we will pay for the WAR?
Any thoughts on how we will keep the banks. and mortgage lenders afloat?
Any thoughts on the Price of GAS by the end of the year?
Any thoughts about food prices driven up by Fuel prices?
Any thoughts on why it was a good idea to give a rebate to tax payers?
Any thoughts on if the CURRENT Administration is going to do ANYTHING before things get allot Worse?
Come on folks….. let’s hear what ALL has to say about the WONDERFUL state of the UNION, created by YOUR KING GEORGE.
By Glenn
April 29, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
Just so long as it’s understood that these are two clubs of Power Buffs, the Republican Club and the nominally Democratic one, competing daily for advantage. You can come to the stadium sporting the Yeoman Green of democracy if you want to, but you’d best be prepared to sit more or less alone, because these two teams wear either blue or red, and this ain’t Jersey Day. And democracy don’t win ball games.
By A'Nesthesia
April 29, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Y’all are puttin me to sleep with all your silly accusations.
By Peter
April 29, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
Gotta love Bush today scolding Congress…. as if during his first term he didn’t have the majority, and did zero, but start a WAR.
Oh wait he did allow his buddies in Texas to Bilk California.
Gee we are at 7 years and how many months into the BUSH King ship…..
Please let us know what BUSH has accomplished in that time please.
Also gotta love the message from McCain….. let’s cut Gas taxes…..YES we don’t have a big enough DEFICIT YET I guess!
Common Sense Thinking from the RIGHT…HA HA HA.
By Shar
April 29, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
Getalife @11:05, saying it’s so don’t make it so. Senator Clinton’s negative ratings among all voters are at 54%; 58% of the electorate believe she’s untrustworthy and dishonest, and twice as many Democrats believe that Barack Obama is better able to win in November. These figures are from an ABC/Washington Post poll taken in mid-April. Those numbers are consistent with polls from a year and two years ago, and reflect entrenched attitudes that are not responsiveto fall campaign rhetoric.
The only way that Senator Clinton will garner the nomination is by manipulating the superdelegates to override the popular vote. This would further undercut her support among Democrats.
She simply cannot win a national election.
Of course, at this point, I don’t believe that Senator Obama can, either.
By Heileger
April 29, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
It’s your own fault, of course. You used up all the accusations yesterday. (Or all the best ones, anyway.)
By Hans Apology
April 29, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry, man.
By The Truth
April 29, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
Just to clear up another matter. No one has any Constitutional right to vote. It isn’t there. I’m thrilled that people actually have to be living legal human beings to vote. Someone said that Republicans have just created new democrat votes. How? If they can’t vote then how does that create votes? I agree that republicans have made some stupid mistakes but democrats are going to make some even bigger ones when Obamaa or Hillary win the white house in November. I’d much rather them screw the country up and get blamed for it. What a country!
By Glenn
April 29, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
Peter, yes. And you know, it’s really good that you haven’t forgotten. But the bilking occurred on everyone’s watch, and they were everybody’s friends—and I do mean everybody but I also mean, a lot more than friends.
A damned dirty business overall, my friend.
By Jackie
April 29, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
Info concerning how the Montgomery GI Bill works and why Sen. Webb (D-VA, LTC, US Marines Infantry, Silver Star, VietNam) and Sen. Churck Hagel (R-NE, SSG, US Army Infantry, VietNam) have been working to change, yet the Repubs and Dubya have said it is “too expensive.”
“Many people enlist to earn money for college, and almost everyone signs up for the education benefits — which, in the case of the main GI Bill, requires a service member to pay about $1,200 into the plan— but not everyone takes advantage of it. And that buy-in is not returned even if the benefits are unused.
An independent study found that just over half use some part of the benefits, said Ray Kelley of AMVETS, a veterans support group, and only 8 percent use all. “Congress is realizing we’re not giving them the benefits we say we’re giving them,” Kelley said. “They only have 36 months from the time they start using it to the time they finish.” That means going to school full time, year-round.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802994_2.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR&sid=ST2008042803051
By Dennis
April 29, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
In his support of voter ID, Mr. Wooten writes, “This [Republican win]is an example of small matters made large for partisan purposes and of good public officials trashed without mercy.”
(Actually, in his article today, Mr. Wooten is crowing over the facct that the Republicans finally won “something”).
As an accused “far left liberal” let me say that I have no problem with voter ID if it is administered fairly across thte board.
Fact is, it will make it tougher on either political party to rig elections as was the Florida election (Let’s not forget Ohio, either) that put George W. Bush in the White House.
Crow on, Mr. Wooten! This time I think I’ll crow along with you.
The Republicans just shot themselves in the foot.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By RCH
April 29, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Its about time. An approved piece of I.D is not to much to ask for the single most important right of a citizen. The right to vote.
If you need I.D the state of Ga. will go as far as coming to your home to issue such documentation. There is no reason in this world not to be able to get I.D.
Getalife I told you so!!!
By Jackie
April 29, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
With the Repubs “fixing” the voter ID law, what are they going to do about the members of our military stationed overseas. One of the big secrets about past elections is most GI’s have to vote absentee ballot and a vast majority of those ballots were not accepted by their home states because they could not prove their identity. WHAT????
Can those who support the troops please help correct this problem?
By Hans Apology
April 29, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
I thought fraud means never having to say you’re sorry.
Voter Fraud. It only affects those it disenfranchises. Those is doesn’t disenfranchize, it doesn’t affect. The only people who suffer under the Voter ID law are the people that get disenfranchised. If a voter doesn’t get disenfranchised, then the voter ID law doesn’t disenfranchise him.
No, only those voters who actually are denied access to the polls by the Voter ID law are the ones getting disenfranchised. Not the voters who can actually get to the polls and vote.
Voter ID. It’s circular. Like Hannah Montana’s butt. She cant vote. She’s only 15. Where’s the supervision?
By jbmlaw
April 29, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
Dear Shar @ 10:46, I know you have quibbles with my ante-feminism language, but I hope you realize that you do have a vote in my one-man one-vote one-tax-amount scheme, as all women are “men” under the law. (I even thought that way before women started dressing and acting like men, and neither of the latter is a creditable development in society in my mind.) I regret that your side of the aisle believes it is ok for the government thieves to take more from some than from others – such government discrimination, applied here against its most productive citizens, is always to be deplored. I am attracted to the idea of dividing the Federal budget by the number of voters, and that is the annual tax for each; everyone who does not pay learns the hard lesson absorbed by Wesley Snipes.
I’m not sure what you are talking about in the “views of the people I saw at the DMV”; is that code for “Hispanics?” You are surely aware that I would abolish all immigration quotas, and would make citizenship a function of three tests: (1) language proficiency, (2) paying income taxes, and (3) voting. I don’t know that those tests ought to be limited to immigrants, except that the Constitution arguably says otherwise. However, I don’t know that I can justify giving leeches a vote on how to spend public money; everyone ought to pay the same taxes. Using a gun to seize wealth, and spend it in a manner contrary to the desires of the owner is theft by most definitions, and using the coercion of government for that end does not justify the evil.
Dear willie b @ 10:51, you err. “However, as Aqua Girl correctly points out…Democratic justices do deviate…They write opinions based on thought! Whereas the lock-step republicans always vote as ONE.” You have your parties reversed. The two democrats, Ginsburg and Breyer voted lockstep in the minority of three. It is the six republicans who are all over the place. You ask a thoughtful question: “Is this not a states rights issue rather than a federal issue..” It is now, thanks to the Supreme Court. Our democrat brethren believed it was to be a federal issue, and that voter identification was to be prohibited by the highest court, since the congress would not pass such a silly law. The Supreme Court ruled that each state can make that determination for itself.
Well argued, Jackie @ 12:00. I think any politician who endeavors to disallow even one military ballot for any reason ought to be hanged at sunrise.
By RCH
April 29, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
Its about time. An approved piece of I.D is not to much to ask for the single most important right of a citizen. The right to vote.
If you need I.D the state of Ga. will go as far as coming to your home to issue such documentation. There is no reason in this world not to be able to get I.D.
Getalife I told you so!!!
By The Truth
April 29, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
Jackie, How will GI’s vote? They have ID to vote. I don’t really understand your question because you have to be 18 and a US Citizen to be in the military in the first place. Nice try. I’ve never heard of anyone in the military having problems voting in elections except in 2000 when Gore wanted to stop the military from voting. Democrats are notorious for using people that don’t exist to vote. Dead people, felons and illegal aliens. Otherwise known as cheating.
By Anthony Blunt
April 29, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
Leave Hannah alone, you colonial ruffian. There’s nothing improper or untowar—nor even strictly amiss—in the Romantic Back, draped! It could be only such persons as you, who presume to take her illustrious guardian for an impressario, who dare cast aspersions upon so innocent, so pure an expression of the very meaning of Beauty.
Shame on you, sir. Shame I say!
By jbmlaw
April 29, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this
Dear willie b @ 10:51, I err in my 12:09 post. There are seven republicans on the courts, who are divided among the three opinions. I suppose in my original writing I had excommunicated David Souter.
By Jackie
April 29, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
@RCH,
Given the current downward economic spiral and upward inflation and the tight state budget, what happens when the money is not available to have the state visit those who can not get to locations to obtain the proper identification?
By The Truth
April 29, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this
Jackie, If someone can’t “afford” a $10 drivers license then they should not be voting in the first place. I love it when you hear people whine about not being able to afford a license yet they can buy a flat screen tv for their trailer. Maybe you should visit them and pay for their ID. I’d rather you do it than my tax money.
By Hans Apology
April 29, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
I’m sorry, Hans. Ya. Datz right, Franz, we are sorry that the voter ID law made little girlie-mons out of the liberals. oh? Did the voter ID law disenfranchise the poor liberal, boo hoo, if you dont get off welfare and food stamps, I will pull back the string on your jock strap so far that when I let go you will turn summersaults and fly around till you land in your own baby poo. Datz right, Franz.
By RCH
April 29, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
Jackie
The state will send representatives to churches,schools,etc where transportation can be arranged by said entities. But the voter should take some responsibility also. Is that too much to ask. Come on.
By Jackie
April 29, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
@Truth,
The GI’s have FEDERAL identification with voting being a STATE function. The state’s are not required to accept ID from the Feds yet, as we do not have a national ID card.
Consequently, a vast majority of the overseas GI had their ballots rejected by their home states.
It appears this was one of the major pushes by the Repubs and Karl Rove. He used exactly the same argument that was presented to the Supreme Court.
There were virtually zero instances of voter fraud, yet, the Repubs portrayed “illegal voters” behind every rock.
By Jackie
April 29, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
@Truth,
You sound like you still believe that only those that are free and landowners have the right to vote.
Why does someone that may not have $10 be excluded from enjoying their basic constitutional right?
By George Washington
April 29, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
In this DEPRESSION, I don’t think we should be denying anyone the right to make a little money on the side: by selling one’s vote to the highest bidder, one can put BEER on the table for all the family to enjoy….With voter ID, a working man can only sell his vote one time…Ya call that an economic stimulus package?
By The Truth
April 29, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this
Jackie, Since the military OVERWHELMINGLY votes Republican I can’t see Karl Rove trying to suppress their vote. The only way an absentee vote is thrown out is if it’s cast too late. Anyway, people in the military have to have a drivers license to be in the military. Make sense? You’re throwing out hypothetical excuses. The point is: GET PROPER ID before you vote. There is no excuse to not have one. The poorest of poor people can afford a $10 license. If not then maybe they should not go to McDonalds 4 times a week. Your deep seeded hatred for Bush is blinding you. Use common sense on this one. You can’t blame Bush for being lazy. Just ask all the people from New Orleans who were too lazy to walk out the door and get on a bus.
By The Truth
April 29, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this
Jackie, Name one person who can’t get $10. ONE! If say some homeless guy then go give him $10 to buy one. You make too many assumptions about me. Landowner? No, but I do think that people should have enough common sense to be able to vote. People should actually have to take a test to be able to vote. Too many people can not name the three branches of government. The majority of democrat voters can not graduate high school and more educated voters vote republican.
By Pavel
April 29, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
Geez. Since when did a requirement for valid identification become some sort of evil? I don’t get the controversy here. You can’t even order a glass of beer without valid id in this country. Is it really so burdensome to require id when we vote? That seems far more important than a beer. And anyone with any experience knows how crooked some votes can be (ask any Chicagoan). The country needs this.
By Oh NO He Didn't
April 29, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
You can’t blame Bush for being lazy. Just ask all the people from New Orleans who were too lazy to walk out the door and get on a bus.
I DARE you tell the people from New Orleans that you know for certain there were no other reasons they did not “walk out the door” and onto a bus that fateful day besides their own laziness. It will be so much more meaningful face to face.
By Pavel
April 29, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this
Geez. Since when did a requirement for valid identification become some sort of evil? I don’t get the controversy here. You can’t even order a glass of beer without valid id in this country. Is it really so burdensome to require id when we vote? That seems far more important than a beer. And anyone with any experience knows how crooked some votes can be (ask any Chicagoan). The country needs this.
By so what?!?!?