Octopus Overlords

noxiousdog wrote:

This is a bizarre hill you've chosen to die on. The fact of the matter, and it's really not debatable, is that it's not a simple matter for many people to comply with many o these voter id laws. Why keep insisting that it's not much of a burden? If you want to argue that it's OK if it's a burden to combat some sort of fraud, fine, let's have at it. But beyond that, I really don't get it.

Because it's a classic example of why politics is so crazy and people like Trump can get traction. For those that aren't invested in hating the other side, the solution is obvious. Get people the IDs they need to function and check them when they go vote.

ImLawBoy wrote: Isn't that only the case if you think there's a problem with voter fraud? It's been a while since I looked, but I do remember seeing that there wasn't actually much voter fraud going on, and it seems like the potential negative impact to otherwise legitimate voters outweighs whatever gains we're making in the fight against voter fraud. Maybe I'm wrong and we've discovered a lot of voter fraud in the last few years that would be resolved by picture ID laws.

The other issue of making it easier to get picture IDs is a legitimate issue, but unless there's compelling evidence of voter fraud that would be resolved by picture ID laws, I think it's a separate discussion.

noxiousdog wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: Isn't that only the case if you think there's a problem with voter fraud? It's been a while since I looked, but I do remember seeing that there wasn't actually much voter fraud going on, and it seems like the potential negative impact to otherwise legitimate voters outweighs whatever gains we're making in the fight against voter fraud. Maybe I'm wrong and we've discovered a lot of voter fraud in the last few years that would be resolved by picture ID laws.

The other issue of making it easier to get picture IDs is a legitimate issue, but unless there's compelling evidence of voter fraud that would be resolved by picture ID laws, I think it's a separate discussion.

Or if I think there's a significant potential for voter fraud, which everyone acknowledges. They just say it's easier with absentee ballots.

It is odd that they'd do it one way, but not the other.

ImLawBoy wrote: If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

noxiousdog wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

noxiousdog wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

Rip wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

This. My kids can't even go to school without a photo ID. The fact that getting one isn't a simple matter for everyone is inexcusable.

We have to educate everyone and provide health services to everyone, adding an ID to that shouldn't even be an issue.

noxiousdog wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument

ImLawBoy wrote:

Rip wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

This. My kids can't even go to school without a photo ID. The fact that getting one isn't a simple matter for everyone is inexcusable.

We have to educate everyone and provide health services to everyone, adding an ID to that shouldn't even be an issue.

And yet it is an issue. What's the solution?

noxiousdog wrote:The Democrats should absolutely be pushing that message instead of Voter ID laws are bad.

Rip wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Rip wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

This. My kids can't even go to school without a photo ID. The fact that getting one isn't a simple matter for everyone is inexcusable.

We have to educate everyone and provide health services to everyone, adding an ID to that shouldn't even be an issue.

And yet it is an issue. What's the solution?

To add it and I for one have no issue with that.

It sounds silly that anyone would. It shouldn't cost as much as providing cell phones does.

noxiousdog wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

geezer wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

So you now acknowledge that, in fact, it's NOT "...pretty easy to get an ID.. The arguments that a person can't find a single afternoon off IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE to get a govenment ID is preposterous.

...the reality, in all but the most extreme cases, is that it's laziness."

I'm not picking on you, and I'm not trying to be a wanker, but I don't even understand what you're defending now. I guess we all agree that it should be easier to get an ID, for whatever reason, but in the absence of that, why are we making it harder to vote?

noxiousdog wrote:

geezer wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

So you now acknowledge that, in fact, it's NOT "...pretty easy to get an ID.. The arguments that a person can't find a single afternoon off IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE to get a govenment ID is preposterous.

...the reality, in all but the most extreme cases, is that it's laziness."

I'm not picking on you, and I'm not trying to be a wanker, but I don't even understand what you're defending now. I guess we all agree that it should be easier to get an ID, for whatever reason, but in the absence of that, why are we making it harder to vote?

No, I still think it's preposterous in all but the most extreme cases (I have heard birth certificate stories), but I'm willing to remove that excuse.

geezer wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

geezer wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

So you now acknowledge that, in fact, it's NOT "...pretty easy to get an ID.. The arguments that a person can't find a single afternoon off IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE to get a govenment ID is preposterous.

...the reality, in all but the most extreme cases, is that it's laziness."

I'm not picking on you, and I'm not trying to be a wanker, but I don't even understand what you're defending now. I guess we all agree that it should be easier to get an ID, for whatever reason, but in the absence of that, why are we making it harder to vote?

No, I still think it's preposterous in all but the most extreme cases (I have heard birth certificate stories), but I'm willing to remove that excuse.

OK. But you're wrong.

noxiousdog wrote:

geezer wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

geezer wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

So you now acknowledge that, in fact, it's NOT "...pretty easy to get an ID.. The arguments that a person can't find a single afternoon off IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE to get a govenment ID is preposterous.

...the reality, in all but the most extreme cases, is that it's laziness."

I'm not picking on you, and I'm not trying to be a wanker, but I don't even understand what you're defending now. I guess we all agree that it should be easier to get an ID, for whatever reason, but in the absence of that, why are we making it harder to vote?

No, I still think it's preposterous in all but the most extreme cases (I have heard birth certificate stories), but I'm willing to remove that excuse.

OK. But you're wrong.

Shrug. If you say so.

If we live in a nation where citizens can't prove they are citizens that's a much, much bigger problem than voter ID laws.

You have to prove you're a citizen for medicaid (exceptions for some CHIP situations). You have to prove you're a citizen for WIC. You have to prove you're a citizen for Social Security. In many states you have to have a photo ID for unemployment.

How come we haven't heard any outrage over that?

Combustible Lemur wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

geezer wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

geezer wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

So you now acknowledge that, in fact, it's NOT "...pretty easy to get an ID.. The arguments that a person can't find a single afternoon off IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE to get a govenment ID is preposterous.

...the reality, in all but the most extreme cases, is that it's laziness."

I'm not picking on you, and I'm not trying to be a wanker, but I don't even understand what you're defending now. I guess we all agree that it should be easier to get an ID, for whatever reason, but in the absence of that, why are we making it harder to vote?

No, I still think it's preposterous in all but the most extreme cases (I have heard birth certificate stories), but I'm willing to remove that excuse.

OK. But you're wrong.

Shrug. If you say so.

If we live in a nation where citizens can't prove they are citizens that's a much, much bigger problem than voter ID laws.

You have to prove you're a citizen for medicaid (exceptions for some CHIP situations). You have to prove you're a citizen for WIC. You have to prove you're a citizen for Social Security. In many states you have to have a photo ID for unemployment.

How come we haven't heard any outrage over that?

Voting is the liberal, GUNS!

noxiousdog wrote:All those over 18 docs have picture ID. That's the whole point of list B.

noxiousdog wrote:Because it's a classic example of why politics is so crazy and people like Trump can get traction. For those that aren't invested in hating the other side, the solution is obvious. Get people the IDs they need to function and check them when they go vote.

noxiousdog wrote:How come we haven't heard any outrage over that?

RunningMn9 wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:How come we haven't heard any outrage over that?

Because requiring a photo ID to get Medicaid isn't designed to make it harder for the supporters of your political opponents to vote for your political opponents. Which is the sole purpose of Voter ID laws.

The Supreme Court has refused for now to block a strict voter identification law in Texas that critics say will make it harder for as many as 600,000 registered voters who lack driver's licenses to cast a ballot this year.

The justices turned down an appeal from civil rights lawyers who said the court should put on hold the requirement for showing a driver's license or U.S. passport.

They cited three separate rulings in which a federal judge and two appeals court panels said the Texas law violated the Voting Rights Act because it has a discriminatory effect on blacks and Latinos.

But the law has remained in force while the full U.S. 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans weighs the state's appeal.

In Friday's order, the high court said it would be open to considering another emergency appeal if the 5th Circuit has not ruled by July 20.
...
Despite the court’s decision, a lawyer who filed the appeal said he was pleased with the deadline set by the justices.

The Supreme Court on Monday avoided issuing a major ruling on a challenge brought by religiously affiliated non-profit groups to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate.

The justices, in a unanimous decision, wrote that they were not deciding the case on the merits but instead sent the case back down to the lower courts for opposing parties to work out a compromise.
...
In its ruling Monday, the court said it is not deciding whether the religious exercise of the challengers has been substantially "burdened."

Unnamed sources have told Washington Examiner's Paul Bedard that Clarence Thomas is considering retiring from the Supreme Court after the 2016 election. They say Thomas never planned to stay on the Court until he died, and has been considering retirement for a while.

Defiant wrote:

Unnamed sources have told Washington Examiner's Paul Bedard that Clarence Thomas is considering retiring from the Supreme Court after the 2016 election. They say Thomas never planned to stay on the Court until he died, and has been considering retirement for a while.

link

Holman wrote: That would allow a two-term President Clinton to appoint replacements for Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer that would then be held up indefinitely by a Republican congress, leaving Roberts the sole conservative and Alito the sole reactionary.

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to the state of Connecticut's assault weapons ban brought by gun rights groups, the court announced Monday.

Laws in Connecticut and New York prohibit semi-automatic weapons like the one used by the gunman in Orlando, Florida who killed 49 people at a gay nightclub on June 12 before he was shot and killed by police.
...
By declining to hear the challenge, the Supreme Court left in place a ruling banning semi-automatic weapons in the state that was passed after the Sandy Hook shooting that left 20 students and six educators dead on Dec. 4, 2012.

A group of Second Amendment rights activists sued the state in federal court, claiming that the law violated their constitutional right to own a gun for self-defense. The plaintiffs had argued that the ban violated the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that said individuals have a right to gun ownership for self-protection. Two lower courts had previously thrown out the challenge.
...
In October, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment.

geezer wrote:It's becoming more and more bizarre that the Republicans won't allow a vote on Garland. The practical choice would seem to be to take the moderate they've been offered...

malchior wrote:Hurray! Even more police state!.

coopasonic wrote:

geezer wrote:It's becoming more and more bizarre that the Republicans won't allow a vote on Garland. The practical choice would seem to be to take the moderate they've been offered...

Just one thread off, but totally in the right neighborhood.

geezer wrote:

coopasonic wrote:

geezer wrote:It's becoming more and more bizarre that the Republicans won't allow a vote on Garland. The practical choice would seem to be to take the moderate they've been offered...

Just one thread off, but totally in the right neighborhood.

Yeah - I guess it could have gone in the Scalia thread (or even the Trump thread), but I was prompted by the idea that the court is now not hearing things like assault rifle bans, effectively certifying them, and I'm just feeling like they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. It's not like Hillary is going nominate someone more conservative.

Isgrimnur wrote:Declines to hear assault weapon ban case:

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to the state of Connecticut's assault weapons ban brought by gun rights groups, the court announced Monday.

Laws in Connecticut and New York prohibit semi-automatic weapons like the one used by the gunman in Orlando, Florida who killed 49 people at a gay nightclub on June 12 before he was shot and killed by police.
...
By declining to hear the challenge, the Supreme Court left in place a ruling banning semi-automatic weapons in the state that was passed after the Sandy Hook shooting that left 20 students and six educators dead on Dec. 4, 2012.

A group of Second Amendment rights activists sued the state in federal court, claiming that the law violated their constitutional right to own a gun for self-defense. The plaintiffs had argued that the ban violated the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that said individuals have a right to gun ownership for self-protection. Two lower courts had previously thrown out the challenge.
...
In October, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment.

GreenGoo wrote:

malchior wrote:Hurray! Even more police state!.

What in the fuck?!

msduncan wrote:Dipping my head back in R&P to give my opinion on the SCOTUS not taking up this challenge.

Since Heller, there have been several similar actions by the court. I believe that the direction the court is taking is to follow precedent of an 1800s case that basically ruled that the 2nd Amendment restricts the Federal government but not the states. This leaves the states to enact what laws they wish. I don't agree with this interpretation, but as the divide grows between urban northeast, the Pacific coast, and the rest of the Southern and heartland states -- perhaps this is the solution that provides the least amount of trouble.

Since Washington DC was a federal district, it was not allowed to outright ban firearms under Heller.

msduncan wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Declines to hear assault weapon ban case:

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to the state of Connecticut's assault weapons ban brought by gun rights groups, the court announced Monday.

Laws in Connecticut and New York prohibit semi-automatic weapons like the one used by the gunman in Orlando, Florida who killed 49 people at a gay nightclub on June 12 before he was shot and killed by police.
...
By declining to hear the challenge, the Supreme Court left in place a ruling banning semi-automatic weapons in the state that was passed after the Sandy Hook shooting that left 20 students and six educators dead on Dec. 4, 2012.

A group of Second Amendment rights activists sued the state in federal court, claiming that the law violated their constitutional right to own a gun for self-defense. The plaintiffs had argued that the ban violated the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that said individuals have a right to gun ownership for self-protection. Two lower courts had previously thrown out the challenge.
...
In October, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment.

Dipping my head back in R&P to give my opinion on the SCOTUS not taking up this challenge.

Since Heller, there have been several similar actions by the court. I believe that the direction the court is taking is to follow precedent of an 1800s case that basically ruled that the 2nd Amendment restricts the Federal government but not the states. This leaves the states to enact what laws they wish. I don't agree with this interpretation, but as the divide grows between urban northeast, the Pacific coast, and the rest of the Southern and heartland states -- perhaps this is the solution that provides the least amount of trouble.

Since Washington DC was a federal district, it was not allowed to outright ban firearms under Heller.