A Case of Why WI Voters Should Show ID

[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

[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.

[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 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.