SCOTUS Lets Wisconsin Voter ID Law Stand

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ucfgrad93, Mar 23, 2015.

  1. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #1
    A good move by the SCOTUS.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/23/supreme-court-voter-id-wisconsin/25108917/
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    Hooray! We've solved an issue that wasn't really a problem to begin with.

    Things are looking up.
     
  3. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #3
    Well done SCOTUS.

    This is a reasonable regulation that needs wider adoption across the union.
     
  4. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #4
    I think in order for it to be reasonable, you need to prove that it does something without negative effects. No one has been able to do this.

    P-Worm
     
  5. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #5
    Yes just like the FCC with their new rules. They fixed a whole lot of problems that never existed. Isn't fixing non-existing problems just wonderful.
     
  6. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #6
    Who knows? Maybe we'll be able to tackle actual problems now!

    I'm so excited.
     
  7. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #7
    Many laws have a downside; where in some cases a person facing a normally reasonable restriction that works the majority of the time somehow creates an unreasonable situation.

    That does mean not a law in inherently bad and needs to be chucked. The integrity of the vote is vital to the integrity of the union.
     
  8. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #8
  9. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    why would that be good?

    ----------

    I'd agree if Netflix hadn't had to pay US ISP's.
     
  10. burgundyyears macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #10
    I've always felt the energy spent fighting these laws would be better spent actually resolving people's ID issues so a lot of things become easier in addition to just voting. While some (most) people just need to put a little effort into going down to the DMV, I realize that there are a small number of people that have thornier ID issues often through no fault of their own. Throwing our hands up and saying gee, I guess we just can't verify people's eligibility to vote seemed weirdly defeatist.
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    I completely agree. ID is important for all sorts of things.
     
  12. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #12
    We are a nation of laws. Sure, no one read the ACA before passing it, but as written, and thanks to Gruber, the law states that those folks on the federal exchange cannot get subsidies. That didn't stop the administration from illegally setting up a mechanism to get them those subsidies (once you get them hooked, good luck taking away the freebies).

    Words mean things.
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    If that's really true I'd be shocked. What probably is true is that Congressmen and Congresswomen didn't read it themselves but instead delegated the responsibility to a trusted advisor.

    State is generally treated as a synonym for government. Proof reading doesn't catch every error.
     
  14. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #14
    Gruber admitted that the intent of the written word was to basically strongarm states into creating exchanges...they didn't bite.

    Section 1311 of the ACA provides for subsidies to state exchanges only. No such funding mechanism exists for a federal exchange. It was illegal, period.

    No bill should be more than 10 pages, and they should use basic English. :)
     
  15. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    Err, source?

    ----------

    Then it will have more holes than swiss cheese. I mean Jesus there were about 500 pages in the paperwork for my house.
     
  16. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #16

    What is that, Common Core for Republicans?
     
  17. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #17
    No common core would require twice as many pages.
     
  18. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #18
    These bills are not written by the people or their reps. They are written by goon lobbyists and lawyers in a way that drives a wedge between the people and their government.

    A 100 page bill is not something the majority of the population can get through, and the language in these bills is intentional in their legalese for the purpose of confusion and creating bureaucracies, which push people even further away from their representation.

    Imagine how many more bills you would personally read if they were capped at 10 pages? How many bills would you push back on? Probably a lot.
     
  19. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #19
    It's nearly impossible to prove causation. If voter turnout decreased after a Voter ID law passed, was it due to the ID requirement blocking legitimate citizens? Was it because the weather was terrible? Was it because the election wasn't as exciting? Was it because an army of fake voters could no longer vote?

    The only thing certain here is that the politically biased left and right will make up their own interpretation and be absolutely convinced its true because it fits their world view.
     
  20. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #20
    The other advantage of limiting bills to such a short length would be the inability for the sponsor to add-in unrelated laws they're trying to get pushed through.
     
  21. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #21
    Absolutely. We'd get more "clean bills" too, rather than dealing with farm funding with an amendment for an assault weapon ban and bridge to nowhere shenanigans.
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    If reading a hundred page bill is too hard for ordinary people how do you buy a house? The language used will be the same.
     
  23. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #23
    Yes, you can easily rewrite the nation's healthcare system in ten pages. The freaking iTunes Store TOS are almost, if not more, than ten pages. Every time I do a freelance job, I get ten pages of policy. And you think we can rewrite entire sections of law in ten pages? Laughable.
     
  24. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #24
    A nice simplistic thought until you can't fit all of the details of a bill on the ten pages, huh?
     
  25. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #25
    I'm just chiming in to say that this is my position as well.

    There are good arguments against requiring an ID when voting: namely the possibility that a required ID disenfranchises the poor and limits a citizen's natural right to vote. However, if some form of state issued ID is free and easily obtainable then it should be required.
     

Share This Page