Is the GOP Suppressing Democratic Votes?

[Assuredcw]

Owning and carrying a gun is a Constitutional right, is it not? Given that Stamper is so supportive of Holder's making sure that our Constitutional rights aren't violated by requiring an ID, I wondering when he's going to be suing the states that require an ID. Any insights on when? I'm sure Holder has it on his list of priorities.

I don't agree with the analogy - for all intents and purposes, people might interpret the right to "bear arms" as an individual right, but it has become a privilege like driving - you have to pass a background check (or test) and purchase a license. That is because just like driving a car, owning a gun is dangerous. It's hard to compare gun ownership and voting, because they are apples and oranges and you have to set them up differently.

 

[Assuredcw]

South Carolina does indeed provide free ID's, so my point stands

Do we know what the Dept of Justice didn't like? Do you have a link?

Maybe they got carried away by making too many changes at once, or took away the early voting that is so popular in the South, where a lot of people aren't able to get off from work, and have to vote early the Sunday before.

I'll see what I can find. Maybe they thought they'd provide free ID and thought they could add other discriminatory things that would get a pass - Ha!

 

[Assuredcw]

Found it.

Quoting from this link:

Department of Justice objects to South Carolina's voter law - CNN

"Although the state has a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud and safeguarding voter confidence ... the state's submission did not include any evidence or instance of either in-person voter impersonation or any other type of fraud that is not already addressed by the state's existing voter identification requirement," Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Perez wrote in a letter to the office of the South Carolina attorney general, explaining the decision.
Perez cited a number of statistics in showing that the law does not meet the burden required by a portion of the Voting Rights Act saying that states must demonstrate their laws will not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters. Among them: "minority registered voters were nearly 20% more likely to lack DMV-issued ID than white registered voters, and thus be effectively disenfranchised by" the law's requirements, Perez wrote, citing data provided by the state.

Translation: too many people don't have ID's in South Carolina, making the ID requirement itself (too many minorities hustling to the DMV all at once) a discrimination problem. Wow - Indiana obviously had different numbers. A lot of minorities in South Carolina don't have ID yet - it was too sudden a change for them. They might have to allow these people more time to get one, and then maybe that will fix the problem. Too narrow a window was given for these people to get one. "Disenfranchisement" means "they won't get ID in time for the 2012 election."

I'm afraid I've oversimplified it. The (Assistant) Atty General really appears to be looking at how many minorities won't be able to vote in 2012, regardless of why. Because if the state has done this right, everybody's got ID by now.

Also, quoting from Oliverb's link:

Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics - msnbc.com

There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification.

Bingo. And Holder knows that the precedent he was dealing with, was based on this crucial distinction.

 

[oliverb]

I don't agree with the analogy - for all intents and purposes, people might interpret the right to "bear arms" as an individual right, but it has become a privilege like driving - you have to pass a background check (or test) and purchase a license. That is because just like driving a car, owning a gun is dangerous. It's hard to compare gun ownership and voting, because they are apples and oranges and you have to set them up differently.

Some people might interpret the right to "bear arms" as an individual right? Yeah, some do...including the Supreme Court, which has now incorporated the right. And no, it has not become a privilege.

 

[heymikey80]

And the only proof that he ISN'T partisan, is ruling that the Black Panthers intimidated people?

Video from a television station showed that Black Panthers armed with weapons were too close to the voting entrance. People were of course intimidated into not voting, just as much as someone with a weapon standing in front of a voting entrance. In addition, the Black Panthers actually stated they had done as much by way of apologizing for their behavior.

Give me a break - it doesn't even compare to the scores of African Americans who weren't just uncomfortable or nervous -- they didn't GET to vote because they were prevented from voting.

Actually it compares quite well. Are you saying skinheads can deploy partisans with swastikas and blunt weapons to every voting place? You let me know if that's okay with you. It's not okay with me.

I don't think Holder was partisan -- I can see this. Holder would have to book them on felony annoyance - LOL!

Voter obstruction would be the felony charge.

Because everyone voted - they actually investigated to see if they could find someone who'd been PREVENTED from voting. If that's the test, then there's no intimidation.

Yeah. Riiiiight. I'm sure there was not a single black person in the 40's & 50's who would tell the fat white sheriff they were intimidated, either.

So it's a matter of applying what the law actually says. Ditto with DOMA. See if you can Google this and see if a Constitutional Law scholar has written anything about this decision. They will spot a problem in interpretation if there is one.

Eric Holder, the Panthers, and the Constitution

Note Kuligowski's credentials.

 

[stamperben]

What don't y'all get about the fact that in order to use my right to bear arms I don't have to be registered, but the states (as in that mantra y'all have about states rights) do require a voter to be registered for the reason that voters don't get over-indulgent and vote more than once.

 

[Assuredcw]

Kuligowski is running some sort of "Renew America" thing that is *probably* a 501C with secret donors. This doesn't provide enough independence for the attorney to tell the truth and risk ticking one of his donors off. So you can assume in advance that he's not going to. And you can tell that "Renew America" is always going to spew right-wing stuff, regardless of what is being "evaluated." That isn't independent enough for me. Oh, and he is also a columnist for the Washington Times. (Washington Times seems to have a lot of 501C guys.)

And as far as the Black Panther stuff - do you really think that Holder investigated this himself, or sent only African American people to intimidate these poor folks? I don't think so. I even think that he might have tried to send white investigators so that these people would tell him the truth. I think this man doesn't want to waste time botching his own investigation by "evaluating" tainted data. If you insist on saying so, fine. But I say he would have wasted his education and all of his years of experience if he became somebody's lapdog now. Being partisan is being somebody's lapdog, and he is clearly applying the law in an independent fashion. He seems the genuine article to me, and I am so happy that he killed the AT & T / T-Mobile merger.

Please read the commentary and links that I and others have posted in this thread, because when you speak this way of Atty Gen Holder, you really don't seem to know who you're dealing with.

 

[heymikey80]

Kuligowski is running some sort of "Renew America" thing that is *probably* a 501C with secret donors. This doesn't provide enough independence for the attorney to tell the truth and risk ticking one of his donors off.

Bait & Switch. You wanted a constitutional attorney. You got him. Too bad for you he's not of your bias. I'm soooo sorrry. Not.

Holder's self-professedly so biased that he's depriving the rights of those he's biased against. And he's an appointed official. He should be removed.

So you can assume in advance that he's not going to. And you can tell that "Renew America" is always going to spew right-wing stuff, regardless of what is being "evaluated." That isn't independent enough for me.

Boring. Holder's spewing left-wing stuff, regardless of what is being "evaluated". He shouldn't be employed by the government.

 

[oliverb]

What don't y'all get about the fact that in order to use my right to bear arms I don't have to be registered, but the states (as in that mantra y'all have about states rights) do require a voter to be registered for the reason that voters don't get over-indulgent and vote more than once.

I don't know what you're saying here.

I support states being able to license gun owners and do background checks, to protect others from harm. I also support states being able to require ID for voting, to protect against fraud. To protect against abuse, all rights are subject to REASONABLE restrictions.

 

[Assuredcw]

Bait & Switch. You wanted a constitutional attorney. You got him. Too bad for you he's not of your bias. I'm soooo sorrry. Not.

Holder's self-professedly so biased that he's depriving the rights of those he's biased against. And he's an appointed official. He should be removed.

Boring. Holder's spewing left-wing stuff, regardless of what is being "evaluated". He shouldn't be employed by the government.

Is he a Constitutional attorney? I saw a Monte Kuligowski on Google who is licensed in Virginia as a criminal defense attorney - is this a different one? But anyway, I did stipulate that whoever it is, the 501C keeps people from being independent, because they have donors to please. That's why regular newspapers want people who are independent of this financial obligation so they can provide more credible commentary. That's the only reason why I was telling Wolseley that I prefer newspapers - because their commentators are carefully vetted for this kind of conflict of interest, because that's what it is. My only reason for saying, let's hear from an attorney, was because Wolseley's Washington Times guy wasn't even an attorney, let alone a Constitutional atty. Now we have an atty (who may or may not be Constitutional) with a 501C. Next? (Just kidding - I don't want to be rude. If you didn't know, I'm glad to help.)

 

[Assuredcw]

I don't know what you're saying here.

I support states being able to license gun owners and do background checks, to protect others from harm. I also support states being able to require ID for voting, to protect against fraud. To protect against abuse, all rights are subject to REASONABLE restrictions.

Well, the Supreme Court appears to agree with you. Now I guess we wait for the Justice Dept to investigate the other states. He will have to use the Supreme Court precedent as his guide again, certainly.

 

[lordbt]

There is no particular difficulty in acquiring a picture ID here in Ohio, so I see no reason for them not to be required to vote. Now, if South Carolina has some racist policy that makes it difficult for people of a certain race to acquire a picture ID, then that is the issue that needs to be addressed. But the idea that the US Supreme Court would make a nationwide ruling based upon discriminatory practices in a single state is absurd.

 

[Assuredcw]

There is no particular difficulty in acquiring a picture ID here in Ohio, so I see no reason for them not to be required to vote. Now, if South Carolina has some racist policy that makes it difficult for people of a certain race to acquire a picture ID, then that is the issue that needs to be addressed. But the idea that the US Supreme Court would make a nationwide ruling based upon discriminatory practices in a single state is absurd.

They didn't. That's why they allowed the photo ID's in the test case they looked at.

 

[stamperben]

I don't know what you're saying here.

I support states being able to license gun owners and do background checks, to protect others from harm. I also support states being able to require ID for voting, to protect against fraud. To protect against abuse, all rights are subject to REASONABLE restrictions.

Well, what sort of over regulation statist are you? I've owned weapons for over thirty years and never harmed anyone. Why do you want my name on a government list? So they can come and get me when they deem it prudent?

Cold dead fingers Oliver. Cold dead fingers.

But voting is a different right than gun ownership, just as freedom of religion is a different right. Or do we now have to worry about registering our faith, or lack thereof, in your ideal state?

 

[Assuredcw]

Stamperben:

But voting is a different right than gun ownership, just as freedom of religion is a different right. Or do we now have to worry about registering our faith, or lack thereof, in your ideal state?

Thank you Stamperben - it certainly is! (Whew!)

And there are other rights that don't involve ID or registration, of course.

 

[heymikey80]

Is he a Constitutional attorney? I saw a Monte Kuligowski on Google who is licensed in Virginia as a criminal defense attorney - is this a different one?

"Monte Kuligowski is an attorney and writer whose legal scholarship, including "Does the Declaration of Independence Pass the Lemon Test?" (Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy), has been published in several law journals ..."

More ...

Jay Sekulow on Fox News Discussing Justice Department's Challenge to State Voting Laws | American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

John Cornyn calls voter ID laws ‘reasonable, constitutional and necessary’ | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog

And of course advocates who hold elected office:

“Voting should be at least as secure as renting a car, getting a library card or any of the other tasks that routinely require an ID” -- Rhode Island Secretary of State Ralph Mollis.

 

[Assuredcw]

Yes, I visited his site and saw what he was saying. But the only Monte Kuligowski I was able to find, is some sort of defense attorney. One listing even said he was a "traffic" attorney?

Look, I am not trying to split hairs or be mean. But the guy takes "donations" on his RenewAmerica website. Conservatives pay his salary. That would tend to undermine his credibility, no matter what kind of law he specialized in. But he probably isn't a Constitutional expert, so you have someone like this criticizing the top attorney in the entire country? Holder is the Big Kahuna - there isn't anyone above him except the Supreme Court. The President can't really tell him what to do. He applies Constitutional Law independently. If anyone is going to criticize him, it can't look as though he is saying exactly what his donors want him to. And it would help if he were also a Constitutional Law scholar, or an experienced former US Attorney or Federal Judge. Andrew Mc Carthy is really more like it:

Andrew C. McCarthy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's a fellow with a conservative think tank. That's fine!

But you'll note that he knows Constitutional Law and has remained silent about Black Panthers and DOMA. He really isn't a critic of Eric Holder so much as of Obama's getting rid of enhanced interrogation techniques. I would be looking to hear from someone of Mc Carthy's stature should there be a problem with Holder. But I suspect that there may not be a problem with Holder's interpretation of the law when guys like this don't say anything, and the ones that do aren't Constitutional people and have hidden donors.

 

[lordbt]

Well, what sort of over regulation statist are you? I've owned weapons for over thirty years and never harmed anyone. Why do you want my name on a government list? So they can come and get me when they deem it prudent?

When it comes to voting, your name has to be on a government list. Only legal aged American citizens are allowed to vote, and demonstrating that you are who you say you are and meet the requirements to vote is completely logical and in no way violate your rights.

 

[Assuredcw]

HeyMikey80, Jay Sekulow appears to have some heavy-duty credentials!

Bear with me - I'm still reading...

OK, I am going to go back and read that Jay Sekulow link you gave me, but with slight reservations, because this is the criticism of him documented by Wikipedia:

Jay Sekulow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism

In November 2005, Legal Times published an article in which it was alleged that Sekulow "through the ACLJ and a string of interconnected nonprofit and for-profit entities, has built a financial empire that generates millions of dollars a year and supports a lavish lifestyle—complete with multiple homes, chauffeur-driven cars, and a private jet that he once used to ferry Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia." The article quotes a number of former donors and supporters (none identified by name) who claim that Sekulow has engaged in a pattern of self-dealing to finance his "high-flying lifestyle." And, according to a ranking by the American Institute of Philanthropy, a charity watchdog group, Sekulow is the 13th-highest-paid executive of a charitable organization in the United States if the given figure for his salary is accurate.[21]

So you see that the integrity of his commentary could be questioned, because he appears to be somewhat of a "hired gun." But an extremely experienced and knowledgeable one, so let's see what he has to say!

Oh, no! Mr. Sekulow isn't putting his commentary in writing! He's just a talking head on Fox News! How am I (or another Constitutional Law atty - one of his peers) supposed to cross-check what he's saying to me, if he isn't willing to put it in writing so I can digest each idea he is introducing? Thinking people need to read their information, but he just won't allow anyone to evaluate what he is saying. I hope you see this. Earlier in this thread I bemoaned the fact that nobody seemed to be willing to put their criticisms of Holder in writing. Here's somebody else who won't.

 

[oliverb]

Well, what sort of over regulation statist are you? I've owned weapons for over thirty years and never harmed anyone. Why do you want my name on a government list? So they can come and get me when they deem it prudent?

Cold dead fingers Oliver. Cold dead fingers.

But voting is a different right than gun ownership, just as freedom of religion is a different right. Or do we now have to worry about registering our faith, or lack thereof, in your ideal state?

No, voting is not a different right than gun ownership. Both are guaranteed by the Constitution. And reasonable regulation or restriction does not necessarily mean being on a government list. Don't even try to tell us you can't see some religious behavior being subject to reasonable regulation or restriction. Polygamists might disagree with you if you do.