A Case of Why WI Voters Should Show ID

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

So you are maintaining the judge is not a fair and impartial judge, but is strictly political. And that judges cannot be fair and impartial due to their personal political leanings?

Wow - guess the Founding Fathers blew that one!

Can you demonstrate how that is so? Is that based upon his previous performance as a judge? Or how you act?

The trial is April 16th. The legal team can come up with arguments against what the judge has outlined in his reasoning for the injunction. Or, they can try for a different judge.

I wonder why they didn't ask for a different judge immediately, when his name was announced to hear the case? No reason?



Well, no. It was expert testimony that currently over 220,000 people do not currently meet the new law voting requirements, and the important part is that disinfranchised group was overwhelmingly not representative of the voting public at large. They are specific individual different groups. That makes the law discriminatory.



???? What does that have to do with the expert testimony that the law discriminates against specific groups? That is the illegal part!

Potential disinfranchisees are not required, by law, to attempt to fulfill the law, as proof that the law is discriminatory. That's absurd <g> You are saying that the victims of the discrimination have no choice.

If there are 220,000 people that are disenfranchised by this voter ID required than doesn't current gun legislation disenfranchise that same segment then? I don't own a gun nor do I even like guns but if that is the basis for your argument the constitution has already been violated with the current gun laws. Those so called 220,000+ people that do not have an ID or can't reasonable obtain one can not legally own a gun even though the constitution provides:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

I don't see where it says that we need an ID to bear arms, but yet we do.

In today's world nothing can be done without an ID. You can't buy cigarettes, cough medicine, go to a bar, drive a car, obtain a bank account, fly on a plane, etc without an ID, but you can vote for the politicians without an ID that are spending your hard earn tax dollars.

As far as voting the constitution says:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.


Couldn't you argue that you need an ID to prove that you are 18

[nebrady]

If he isn't being bias, then explain to me why in the madison paper they say the judge should know better! "He's supposed to be impartial, not actively involved in the issues that come before him." "Judges are similarly supposed to strive hard to stay and appear impartial and independent in every case they rule on. And if they can't, they're supposed to disclose any conflicts and, if warranted, recuse themselves." This is from the editorial of the wisconsin state journal. You tell me now how he isn't being bias? Check it out in todays paper. My favorite quote is there last sentence in the editorial, "Judge Flanagan should have known better." Just like you getting involved in wisconsin politics!

[dellinger63]

My concern is those 200,000 are being disenfranchised from playing cornhole as most places require an ID to get a set of bags.

[Riot]

The judge itemized in detail the reasons within the temporary injunction that this law is restrictive and disinfranchising, and goes against current Wisconsin Voting Law.

Looks like the lawyers who want this law implemented should be working on answering those concerns - rather than ridiculously trying to smear the judge through newspaper Op-Eds.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

The judge itemized in detail the reasons within the temporary injunction that this law is restrictive and disinfranchising, and goes against current Wisconsin Voting Law.

Looks like the lawyers who want this law implemented should be working on answering those concerns - rather than ridiculously trying to smear the judge through newspaper Op-Eds.

Since you love the word so much and it is the basis of your arguement you might want to try and learn how to spell it "Disenfranchising"

I may spell things wrong or have typos from time to time but since you use it all the time it might help you to learn how to spell it

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Since you love the word so much and it is the basis of your arguement you might want to try and learn how to spell it "Disenfranchising"

I may spell things wrong or have typos from time to time but since you use it all the time it might help you to learn how to spell it

And if you had only spelled "argument" correctly during your lecture on spelling, you might have had a point

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

And if you had only spelled "argument" correctly during your lecture on spelling, you might have had a point

Got me.

Now how about those 220,000 + citizens of the state of WI that are disenfranchised by the voter ID requirement. Isn't that same segment disenfranchised with the current gun laws? Why don't you care about that since that right is guaranteed under the US constitution? Anyone without an ID can't legally own a gun yet the constitution states

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

What is the difference between that right and the right to vote or do you just choose which rights you fight for and let the others go

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Since you love the word so much and it is the basis of your arguement you might want to try and learn how to spell it "Disenfranchising"

I may spell things wrong or have typos from time to time but since you use it all the time it might help you to learn how to spell it

i have tried to get a lot spelled correctly, so good luck with that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Got me.

Now how about those 220,000 + citizens of the state of WI that are disenfranchised by the voter ID requirement. Isn't that same segment disenfranchised with the current gun laws? Why don't you care about that since that right is guaranteed under the US constitution? Anyone without an ID can't legally own a gun yet the constitution states

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

What is the difference between that right and the right to vote or do you just choose which rights you fight for and let the others go

Guns laws have nothing to do with this. That's merely an argument for why the proposed new law was written.

What is pertinent now is Wisconsin's Voting Laws, which are very well-written and one of the most detailed and inclusive of all the fifty states, regarding outlining Wisconsin citizens freedom to vote.

Again: the judge itemized in detail the reasons within the temporary injunction that this newly proposed law is objectively measurably restrictive to certain groups, disenfranchising them, and thus goes against current Wisconsin Voting Law regarding maintaining Wisconsin voters rights.

The only way the new law gets implemented is if that changes.

So if I were you, I would quote sections out of the PDF detail of the Judge's decision - the actual reasons why the new law does not comply with the lawful standards Wisconsin has established - and show why the judge is incorrect in interpreting the law in that specific way.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Guns laws have nothing to do with this. That's merely an argument for why the proposed new law was written.

What is pertinent now is Wisconsin's Voting Laws, which are very well-written and one of the most detailed and inclusive of all the fifty states, regarding outlining Wisconsin citizens freedom to vote.

Again: the judge itemized in detail the reasons within the temporary injunction that this newly proposed law is objectively measurably restrictive to certain groups, disenfranchising them, and thus goes against current Wisconsin Voting Law regarding maintaining Wisconsin voters rights.

The only way the new law gets implemented is if that changes.

So if I were you, I would quote sections out of the PDF detail of the Judge's decision - the actual reasons why the new law does not comply with the lawful standards Wisconsin has established - and show why the judge is incorrect in interpreting the law in that specific way.

We will see what happens. I disagree with the whole disenfranchising argument and think it is ridiculous. I think gun laws have a lot to do with the arguement for photo ID since they are both rights guaranteed under the US constitution.

The majority of WI disagrees with the democrats on this issue so the reason why the republicans didn't care too much about this decision at the time it just proves their point for them. Thanks for that one. Nice job on the mining bill as well. Democrats crushed that one with one so called republican. Who needs $1.5 billion in new business 700 plus jobs in an area that needs them. Forget the fact that there were a lot of Union jobs that this would have brought as well and some more business in southeastern WI for Caterpillar, etc. The democrats are writing the TV Ads for Walker

[Riot]

The Koch Brothers, through their out of state organization Americans for Prosperity, are writing ads for Walker, too

Koch Brothers, btw, just forcefully took over the Cato Institute, making the Libertarians angry and kicking them out. This fall's election is going to be nasty. Nothing but big, big money running things.

Well, the pro-voter ID law lawyers may be able to come up with something by April 16th. Or, they'll have to re-write the law to make it non-targeted to specific groups suffering from implementation. Which is doubtful, as that wasn't the point of the law when ALEC sent it out to the Republican Governors to pass for 2012.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i have tried to get a lot spelled correctly, so good luck with that.

Yes. Correcting other people's spelling is as important as ... well, as worrying about other people's capitalization flaws!

[nebrady]

What are you just ignoring what the paper quoted! It isn't lawyers saying hes bias, its the editorial of the wisconsin state journal. Yet you just ignore it. Your amazing, even when the answer is in front of you, you ignore the truth. The truth is the judge was BIAS and should have not heard the case. But no you go off on some other tangent. I think you know he was bias and you think ignoring it will make it go away. Your just like these recall idiots a sore loser!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by nebrady

What are you just ignoring what the paper quoted! It isn't lawyers saying hes bias, its the editorial of the wisconsin state journal. Yet you just ignore it.

Yes. I am ignoring the "legal opinion" of a newspaper editor in favor of judges and lawyers

Where are the lawyers saying the judge is biased? Are there any?

Because, you know, the lawyers had a chance to ask for a recusal when the judge was announced, but they didn't. I wonder why they didn't? Could it be because this judge has no history of bias? For example, in the month before, this judge actually ruled against these very plaintiffs he just gave the injunction to in a different case? Demonstrating ... fairness?

Your just like these recall idiots a sore loser!

No. That would be a "happy winner" - as long as the injunction holds and the law is thrown out at the trial. I'd guess from your insults you would be the "sore loser".

[joeydb]

The Left will fight tooth and nail to keep voter fraud in the equation. They cannot afford to be limited to one vote per person.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The Left will fight tooth and nail to keep voter fraud in the equation. They cannot afford to be limited to one vote per person.

Who needs baseless allegations of voter fraud, with actual demographics like this so favorable for The Left and The Middle:

Polls from this past week:

67% of women will not vote Republican.
84% of Latinos will not vote Republican.

Those are loser demographics, impossible to win a national election with those numbers.

[Riot]

Kudos to Dale Schultz for standing up for Wisconsin's beautiful landscape, and against political lying.

Speaking afterward to explain his departure from the Republican ranks on the issue, R-Dale Schultz said he was against the GOP compromise largely because of provisions that would have allowed the state Department of Natural Resources to exempt mining companies from environmental protections. He cited changes to current law that would have allowed mining companies to fill in rivers, streams and shorelines.

He said such provisions led to his disagreement with fellow Republicans, who argued their bill did not weaken environmental laws.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Kudos to Dale Schultz for standing up for Wisconsin's beautiful landscape, and against political lying.

Democrats already back peddling their decision on the mining bill and trying to blame the republicans. Way to go democrats you just lost the state over $1.5 billion dollars in outside investment. Union jobs etc lost. That is what you get for backing the democrats. When they need your hard earned $ you gave it to them, when there is a bill that will make it some what viable for a mining company to bring jobs to the state and help employ your union employees the democrats said hell no. Good job. Let's keep trying to make it ridiculously impossible to do business in WI. I know you don't live here, but take a look at the Wisconsin state flag and tell me what is on it?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Democrats already back peddling their decision on the mining bill and trying to blame the republicans. Way to go democrats you just lost the state over $1.5 billion dollars in outside investment.

Reality check: didn't the mining company back out of this deal before this vote, to to falling ore prices?

Rendering the outcome of this vote only relevant to future efforts to destroy the environment in the name of "business"?

Again: Kudos to Schultz for protecting the environment from mining destruction and contamination, and Indian rivers from destruction. That doesn't matter to some. It matters greatly to the majority that voted against the removal of same.

Democracy - it hurts the plutocrats.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Reality check: didn't the mining company back out of this deal before this vote, to to falling ore prices?

Rendering the outcome of this vote only relevant to future efforts to destroy the environment in the name of "business"?

Again: Kudos to Schultz for protecting the environment from mining destruction and contamination, and Indian rivers from destruction. That doesn't matter to some. It matters greatly to the majority that voted against the removal of same.

Democracy - it hurts the plutocrats.

wrong, wrong and wrong again. Nice try. The vote had nothing to do with the environment. The mining company most likely will end up in the UP, which might as well be WI. Maybe you should read up. What is on the state flag? Have you looked at it yet?