The case was so narrowly defined that all such evidence was irrelevant. Not about whether something was right or wrong, but legally permissible.
Exactly my point.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/opinion/a-missed-chance-to-reject-voting-barriers.html?_r=1
The New York Times weighs in…
“…a low-minded and sleazy political ploy…” Just so.
The quote above is but a sample of an excellent editorial analysis, brief, succinct, and pointed. Joe Bob 'luc says “Check it out!”
But doesn’t PA’s constitutionally guaranteed right to vote enter into the legality question? Don’t they have to show that any suppression of voting is outweighed by the supposed fraud crisis? Don’t they have to show that this law overall increases the legitimacy of elections? I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know for sure, but if it isn’t the case then the whole guarantee is meaningless isn’t it? Surely the authors didn’t intend it as a meaningless clause that could be ignored at the whim of the legislature?
And the Supreme Court in Crawford v Marion County?
See, the problem is your ilk keep asserting they’re right, and the other side is wrong.
But we have a system in this country. It doesn’t depend on one judge. And when all the judicial courts at all the appellate levels disagree with you, it’s time to admit that maybe you are the one that’s wrong.
“Ilk”? Now we’re throwing around words like “ilk”? Things just got serious folks. 
Got ilk?
As Judge Parker pointed out above, the judge followed a strategy (if that’s the right word) on the legalism of credibility, he was empowered to make decisions based on his own assumptions about what was reasonable, and didn’t need to ask for evidence if he chose not to. He might, if he were so moved, make his decision based entirely on a witnesse’s “demeanor”. Maybe he would be pressing his luck, but he could do it.
Also, the case was deliberately (IMHO) narrowed to only consider disenfranchisement, as the judge dismissed any minor inconveniences as unimportant. You read what the guy said, you could swear it was Bricker talking. Same phrases, same, ah, reasoning.
Now, TG, IANAL, but still, the degree of abject adoration the judge offered the Republican side of this debate sets one back a step. Especially, as I may have mentioned, that part about taking the State’s promises “at face value”. What, did they offer him a blow job from Ann Coulter? Or threaten, as the case may be…
Well, I said I *used to be *a defense attorney.
Did you ever badger a witness into a tearful confession of the crime? I always liked that part. Hamilton Burger was a Republican.
I believe there is enough voter fraud, intentional or not(some people vote when they are ineligible without knowing it), to swing a race when there’s a margin of 1000 or less. I believe Dino Rossi got robbed in Washington, and Norm Coleman got robbed in Minnesota. No, it’s not a big problem and I wouldn’t favor extreme solutions to solve it(like notarizing absentee ballots), but common sense solutions that do not pose an onerous burden should be considered.
There isn’t a right to vote in Pennsylvania’s constitution. Just a passage about qualified electors and reasonable regulations on what constitutes a qualified elector.
If I missed something, by all means let me know.
Well, you told us essentially nothing, there are so many provisos in that statement that it boils down to mush. You don’t favor “extreme solutions”? Well, good, but is what we are seeing here such a solution? Or no? And just how onerous does a burden need to be? How is any burden justifiable, if that burden falls unevenly? Or worse, falls selectively on those people that they prefer didn’t vote?
And Norm Coleman lost a very, very close race, but he was not robbed. And your inclusion here insinuates but coyly doesn’t state that you think illegal voting had something to do with it.
(John Cleese as barrister) I put it to you, sir, that Norm Coleman loss had nothing whatever to do with the issue at hand. Norm Coleman lost because he is the only person on Earth that Garrison Keillor actually hates.
There is a right to vote in our national Constitution, sir! Further, there is right to vote n every stitch in the fabric of our flag, in every inch of ground oer which our forefathers bled for Liberty! From the shining mountain majesties and the amber wavy grains…hey, quit that! Stop shoving! That’s uncool, man, really uncool…
If you’ve got enough anecdotal evidence of fraud, it might be a good idea to make a thorough attempt to get hard data. No such attempt has been made. The first sorta attempt was when Minnesota Majority referred 2000 names for investigation and the end result was over 100 convictions. And that’s only because when Minnesota gets tips they have to investigate. Which I’m sure is a law that will be targeted for repeal by voting rights activists.
There is a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of race or sex. There are still qualifications to be a voter, unlike actual rights, which are universal and apply even if one is not a citizen.
To the extent there is a right to vote, it’s equivalent to the right to bear arms: subject to reasonable regulation.
If you take the time to google them, you will find that their claims are rather more in doubt than you seem to think. Just for an instance:
County attorneys: Minnesota Majority reports on voter fraud ‘frivolous’
Further details are at the site, suffice to say you will find scant ammunition…
For who? Not for president.
Presidential electors are selected by each state, in such manner as the legislators may direct. No rule requires that a state let its citizens vote for President.
I’ve seen just about every cite on this case, and they all say it’s crap, while gliding over the fact that there were actual convictions, and not just a handful. And the only way to get a conviction is to prove that an ineligible voter voted knowing they were ineligible. That’s not easy. Which means that the 100+ convictions were the tip of the iceberg.
And I love the complaint “draining county resources”. Sounds more like sour grapes that the counties spent resources and actually found voter fraud.
nm ninja’d