The BookWORM Loses Again!!

"The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting,” so said US Supreme Court Justice Scalia in the recent decision over voter identification.

This ruling is going to shake up our ever more lax election process in America.

One of the dissenters in the Voter ID case was the tiny mind from New Hampshire, David Souter. If there was some way for New Hampshire to apologize to the rest of the country for this guy being on the Supreme Court we should do it. He is an utter embarrassment.

Here is his David Souter’s flimsy, paper thin, excuse for handing a vehicle for voter fraud to those who wield it in election after election: Voter ID, "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens," “targets of the law, he said, are "voters who are poor and old."

What, no racial connection Mr. Souter? Where is your liberal bleeding heart? I thought you guys never passed up a chance to label your opponents as racists.

In any case you lost, thank goodness only two moonbat justices sided with you.

David Souter, sad, sad, little man.

Comments

[dave]

Want to take a bet on how long before our legislature introduces a photo id law. I moved to a new town about 3 years ago. I have voted in every election since and have never been asked for id. I just give them my name and if it is on the list I get a ballot.

We all know fraud happens in NH given the same day registration hoax in this state, where we don't even ask for prrof of residence (as you know all you have to do is sign an affadavit attesting to where you think you live). Why do you think the dems paid a Florida lawyer watching the Boscawen polls 4 years ago as waves of patients from the state nursing home up the road were assisted in the booths by their state (unionized I'm sure) care givers?

[Concerned Taxpayer]

A voter ID law passed both houses of the legislature during Lynch's first year in office and he vetoed it using similar Souter-logic (i.e. flimsy). It's an absolute disgrace that voter fraud is so easy to commit here in this state. But it's also a disgrace that the citizens don't demand that this sort of common sense law be passed. Apathy is our main enemy here, in addition to elected officials who depend on "suspect" votes to stay in office.

[Ed Naile]

Gents:

Greenie Shaheenie vetoed voter ID THREE times!

And by the way. CNHT is going to either create a new site or dedicate a part of our CNHT site just to our excellent voter fraud collection. Ten years in the making.

I envision a photo of the House Election Law Committee for starters. Barring one or two individuals this is the single biggest crock of crooks in the House.

We need to weed them out of office.

[Bill Gnade]

Hello, everyone!

Here's the logic -- as I see it -- of this whole thing.

Democrats, by and large, OPPOSE voter picture ID laws. That these laws are meant to protect the electorate, even the whole nation, from voter fraud and election sabotage seems to elude them. But surely the Democrats are wary of those election-stealing tactics of the Republican Party, no? Surely they know that without a serious voter ID law on the books, the Republican Party is going to do all it can to illegally place Republican partisans on voter-lists everywhere, right?

Wrong. Democrats, by opposing these laws, PROVE that they are not at all worried about such voter fraud coming from Republicans, because they know this is not a Republican Party tactic. Hence, and here's the rub, we can conclude that the Democrats DO employ these tactics. THAT is why they are not worried about the RNC stealing Florida or New Hampshire or Indiana. Democrats NEED to keep these laws from being enacted because they benefit from voter laxity, fraud and even incompetence.

Moreover, opposing such laws is a real indictment of the Democratic Party's voter base by the Democrats themselves, as they tacitly admit their party members are too weak, too poorly educated, too harried, or too out-of-touch to get a picture ID. It strikes me as a weird form of apartheid: Democrats don't think their voters SHOULD meet the most basic requirements associated with a purportedly sacred Democratic right to vote. But such a cynical attitude actually keeps voters DOWN, even further disenfranchising them. How democratic is that?

Just some insane thoughts, I know.

Peace,

Bill Gnade

[dave]

I doubt Jimmy Carter when he takes his entourage to a third world country as election observers would certify NH's process of no positive id as clean and sane.