A mighty battle-of-the-lawyers is coming over "voter fraud," etc.

[BrainGlutton]

And I mean, on Election Day. And before and after, of course.

Obama prepping thousands of lawyers for election

Jun 26, 8:26 PM (ET)

By MIKE BAKER

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - President Barack Obama’s campaign has recruited a legion of lawyers to be on standby for this year’s election as legal disputes surrounding the voting process escalate.

Thousands of attorneys and support staffers have agreed to aid in the effort, providing a mass of legal support that appears to be unrivaled by Republicans or precedent. Obama’s campaign says it is particularly concerned about the implementation of new voter ID laws across the country, the possibility of anti-fraud activists challenging legitimate voters and the handling of voter registrations in the most competitive states.

Republicans are building their own legal teams for the election. They say they’re focused on preventing fraud - making sure people don’t vote unless they’re eligible - rather than turning away qualified voters.

<snip>

This year in that state [Florida] alone, Obama and his Democratic allies are poised to have thousands of lawyers ready for the election and hope to have more than the 5,800 attorneys available four years ago. That figure was nearly twice the 3,200 lawyers the Democrats had at their disposal in 2004.

Romney has been organizing his own legal help for the election. Campaign attorney Ben Ginsberg did not provide numbers but said the campaign has been gratified by the “overwhelming number of attorneys who have volunteered to assist.”

“We will have enough lawyers to handle all situations that arise,” he said.

The GOP doesn’t necessarily need to have a numerical counterweight to Obama’s attorneys; the 2000 election showed that experienced, connected lawyers on either side can be effective in court.

Former White House counsel Robert Bauer, who is organizing the Obama campaign’s legal deployment, said there is great concern this year because he believes GOP leaders around the county have pursued new laws to impede the right to vote.

“The Republican Party and their allies have mapped out their vote suppression campaign as a response to our success in 2008 with grass-roots organization and successful turnout,” Bauer said. “This is their response to defeat: changing the rules of participation so that fewer participate.”

Several states with Republican leaders have recently pursued changes that could make voting more difficult, including key states such as Florida and Ohio, despite objections from voting rights groups that believe that the laws could suppress votes from low-income and minority blocs.

Republicans dispute that the laws are political, pointing to cases of election fraud and arguing that measures like those requiring voters to show identification are simply common sense. Pennsylvania’s Republican House majority leader, Mike Turzai, however, told GOP supporters over the weekend that the state’s new ID law “is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”

I expect this election is going to be close enough in a lot of states for the lawyers to really matter, like they didn’t in 2008. If you don’t have a dog in this fight, get ready to pop some corn, it’s going to be quite a spectacle.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

Apparently this is Bricker’s opinion:

@Bricker

C’mon. Tell the truth, just once. You’ll feel better for it, I promise. You want those illegal votes. You NEED those illegal votes, And you can’t stand that the people favor taking them away from you. Admit it. Catharsis brings relief. You can do it.

I know this isn’t hyperbole because he says:

@Bricker

When you do it, it might not be liberal hypocrisy either. I have no idea what you’re saying half the time anyway, so I choose to treat your words as literal claims, respond to them as such, and then see where that takes us. I treated BobLibDem the same way with his “Achtung” claim, asking how he reconciled it with the fact that Justice Ginsburg approved the measure.

And treating me the same way is just fine.

[Bricker]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

Apparently this is Bricker’s opinion:

I know this isn’t hyperbole because he says:

It’s not hyperbole.

But it was directed at one person. The “you” is used in its definite sense, not its indefinite sense.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Bricker

It’s not hyperbole.

But it was directed at one person. The “you” is used in its definite sense, not its indefinite sense.

That one person needed “illegal” votes? Why would a single person need illegal votes? That doesn’t make any sense.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

Also:

@Bricker

In short, a Voter ID system scares you because you know that losing illegal votes hurts the Democrats.

A different poster, no less. Why would he “know” that?

[BrainGlutton]

For my part, I don’t know that losing illegal votes hurts the Democrats. I don’t even know that there are enough illegal votes cast to show statistically or to swing any election anywhere in America now or at any time in the past. And neither does Bricker.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@BrainGlutton

For my part, I don’t know that losing illegal votes hurts the Democrats. I don’t even know that there are enough illegal votes cast to show statistically or to swing any election anywhere in America now or at any time in the past. And neither does Bricker.

Thank you,

This is the problem with these measures. They’re causing real harm over an unquantified threat, that wouldn’t necessarily be stopped anyway.

All they can do is pull numbers out of their ass that they made up. Made up numbers are not the not the thing to steal a fundamental right over. IF Republicans were interested in prevent fraud without hurting vulnerable voters they would institute a program to help those folks get an ID without undue burden.

Why haven’t they?

[BrainGlutton]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

Thank you,

This is the problem with these measures. They’re causing real harm over an unquantified threat, that wouldn’t necessarily be stopped anyway.

All they can do is pull numbers out of their ass that they made up. Made up numbers are not the not the thing to steal a fundamental right over. IF Republicans were interested in prevent fraud without hurting vulnerable voters they would institute a program to help those folks get an ID without undue burden.

Why haven’t they?

Because then those folks might get an ID without undue burden.

[Zebra]

Well at least one Republican is willing to admit what it is really about.

[MsRobyn]

@Zebra

Well at least one Republican is willing to admit what it is really about.

When I heard Turzai’s comments, my head exploded since there is a fine tradition of Republican legislators using their their taxpayer-paid staff and taxpayer-paid state-owned equipment and office space to conduct their political campaign. Some are doing actual prison time over it, and others may still be facing charges.

Things are about to get real interesting here in the Keystone State.

[Bricker]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

That one person needed “illegal” votes? Why would a single person need illegal votes? That doesn’t make any sense.

My guess would be his peace of mind. Or maybe liberal guilt. I don’t know, and I agree it doesn’t make any sense. I can’t really explain in this forum.

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

For my part, I don’t know that losing illegal votes hurts the Democrats. I don’t even know that there are enough illegal votes cast to show statistically or to swing any election anywhere in America now or at any time in the past. And neither does Bricker.

And you don’t know how few people both don’t have an idea and can’t reasonably get an ID. But there, you’re willing to speculate.

[Bricker]

@MsRobyn

When I heard Turzai’s comments, my head exploded since there is a fine tradition of Republican legislators using their their taxpayer-paid staff and taxpayer-paid state-owned equipment and office space to conduct their political campaign. Some are doing actual prison time over it, and others may still be facing charges.

Things are about to get real interesting here in the Keystone State.

Yes, fine tradition.

Hey, by the way, do happen to have Rod Blagojevich’s current mailing address? I wanted to drop him a card and see how he’s doing. Also William Jefferson – wonder what’s up with him? You haven’t heard any juicy cell block gossip, have you?

Jim Traficant? Frank Ballance? I think Frankie might be out now. Mel Reynolds? Walter Tucker? Barbara Rose Collins? Austin Murphy?

Is it possible that the fine traditions of lawbreaking are not limited to, or even overrepresented by, Republicans?

[Zebra]

No response to my post Bricker?

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

And you don’t know how few people both don’t have an idea and can’t reasonably get an ID. But there, you’re willing to speculate.

1. What does “don’t have an idea” mean in that first sentence?

2. False equivalence, of course.

3. If you want to change things, e.g., institute voter-ID requirements, the burden is, of course, on you, not on the defenders of the status quo, to prove the necessity. You have never yet done that in any thread here. Postulating that ineligibles might be voting and getting away with it and we’d never know is not any form of proof of the necessity, is it? You’re a lawyer, you should know that.

4. Your statement Tao’s quoted in post #5 is speculation and a whole lot worse.

[Randvek]

@Bricker

And you don’t know how few people both don’t have an idea and can’t reasonably get an ID. But there, you’re willing to speculate.

Just like you’re willing to speculate that voter ID is actually needed to combat a fraud that does not actually happen in anything remotely close to a statistically significant sense? Throwing government money at problems that don’t exist is supposed to be the strawman for liberals, right?

[elucidator]

Oh, they will borrow it if they need to, they can be very open-minded when it comes to bending the truth.