State Supreme Court considers ruling on voter ID law
March 29, 2012 at 10:37 am in RiverTowns.net
Wisconsin News
It’s now up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide whether the state’s controversial voter ID law is constitutional. A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice that is defending the law says the court could rule by the end of the week and require voters to show photo ID’s before voting in next Tuesday’s election. Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
44
Really? On what grounds? By State Constitution or Federal? Alice, do tell.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
10
So proving you have health insurance is constitutional in your world, but proving you have the right to vote isn’t? You do make me laugh Alice, you do make me laugh.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
9
It’s unconstituational because Alice and the rest of the “compassionate” liberals think women and minorities are too stupid to figure out where to go and how to get a valid id. Most insulting excuse ever.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
31
We don’t play like you do…you know; ridicule, recall when you don’t get your way, run across borders…we are adults unlike you and your juvenile progressives.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
27
Hey Walter, Alice is really treating you differently…she didn’t call you a “chump” like she did Wizconie*.
The saint doesn’t apologize for unkind words (aka progressive civility), so the comedic (/sarc) h8te, obtuse observations, and ridicule just keeps flowing…
(* http://topics.areavoices.com/2012/03/19/man-dies-trying-to-save-dog-senator-targeted-for-recall-resigns-packers-player-competes-for-dancing-trophy-more-briefs/)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
27
Gees Alice, would you quit being in love with me…I’m not your sweetie, dear, or honey. I’m beginning to wonder if you are trying to stalk me, especially since I’ve asked before why you use those terms of endearment in you comments to me, and you did not answer.
I’ve looked up the definitions of chump, lackey, and laughingstock, and while laughingstock is probably the worst of Walter’s words, it still isn’t as offensive as chump.
You’ve been making things personal for quite a while. I held off until I felt your nastiness had reached such a degree of offensiveness that something had to be said.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
11
If facts are you are a sheeple for the liberal/progressives, I guess you’re right. I never personally called you anything close to a “chump”, you hate that I point out, factually, you are spreading the same hyperbole that is on your favorite station, Current.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
27
Alice: “you’re embarrassing yourself” (to quote Alice)
But why don’t you tell us why voter ID will be found unconstitutional?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
8
Alice, I am all for an honest open debate…I will treat those who want to put their OWN thoughts into a debate the same way they treat others. You are like many liberals I know, you don’t want to discuss facts, only hyperbole and sound bites…so, I don’t bother rattling you with facts only pointing out how uncompromising and one sided you are.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
11
I have to add, I’m impressed with your research Alice…surprised you have time when you should be out looking for voters from other states and/or countries right now or casing the cemeteries for recently deceased to vote. The union have it all figured out and are only in it for people like you…LMAO.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
12
Back to the topic at hand. Alice, you call this law unconstitutional, how so? Also how do you balance the administrations call for all citizens to carry proof of insurance with them, yet not have to show proof of citizenship to vote?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
10
Don’t know about Wissconsin walter, but here in MN we’ve had to carry proof of insurance since the early ’70′s.
Which leads us to another question: you do realize that ‘the adminstration’ has nothing to do with our having to carry proof of insurance? I do believe that falls under state law.
Or, are you speaking of the adminstration of Wissconsin?
Like or Dislike:
10 
19
Yes bac, Walter was speaking of WI. It used to be you had to show proof of vehicle insurance. Now you have to have the insurance company issued card in your vehicle which shows not only the company information, but the actual coverage on the vehicle. Paid the policy but forgot to put the card in the vehicle? Minimal fine (I think $10).
Another recent ID requirement: high school kids taking ACT / SAT tests MUST show ID prior to taking the test.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
8
BAC, your federal government is going force you to show proof of health insurance should NObama care doesn’t get struck down. Alice is up in arms about the constitutionality of voter ID, but she seems ok with the fact that we would have to show proof of health insurance and be forced to purchase or PAY A NATIONAL FINE…I would her to way in on the constitutionality of this vs voter id.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
18
An interesting article on the IRS enforcement of the individual mandate. Finally, insight into how the 2700+ page bill is actually going to be enforced, some of the costs (exposes some of the hidden costs too), and the effect on personal privacy.
Too bad President Obama, who seems to have mentioned something about fine print during the signing ceremony, did not bother to give people time to read the bill after it was shoved through Congress.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/03/29/irs-already-gearing-up-for-health-care-crackdown/
Like or Dislike:
14 
7
Medicare became a mandate in 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson not during Reagan’s presidency.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
I don’t have but a minute tonight, I’ll expand on this more tomorrow why they are TOTALLY unrelated. One thing that should stand out to all Americans is this….every single one of the programs you mentioned are in financial trouble…thats a good thing? I’m assuming that since you are firmly for “mandates” you would have no problem with voter ID. At least were on even ground there.
Like or Dislike:
18 
11
Well, 2 days now, and walter hasn’t been able to come up with a thing.
Meanwhile, ‘g.s.” and ‘westby’ have chosen to speak for him?
And neither of them have managed to come up with a direct answer to the “MANDATE” question.
Just one misdirect and one link to Faux.
Like or Dislike:
4 
12
We’re all working hard to get out the vote for Gladys Huber in the dem primary for gov next month. With 5 dems on the ballot she’s got a great chance. Thank goodness for open primaries.
Like or Dislike:
12 
4
I wasn’t speaking for anyone. Just answering your statement that medicare became a MANDATE under Reagan which is false. I didn’t even to look that one up because I remember when it became a MANDATE under LBJ.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
I think the response speak for themselves bac. MANDATES, such as social security, are not meant to control control commerce such as the health care…someone with your vast knowledge should know that. Social Security is a “nice”, ill conceived program that provides for SOME while raping others. Not everyone who puts into it, gets anything back and if we continue to let the government “run” the program it will be insolvent (without massive adjustments to contributes), I know, I know…the “rich” can pay more…the hyperbole from the “progressives” cry that for everything. Bottom line is progressives like to think of Social Security as some sort of retirement plan…it was NEVER intended as such and if so, the people who are on it now are sucking off the teet of the working man as they didn’t contribute NEAR enough to it to subsidize their “retirement”.
Medicare/Medicade is a decent plan however, letting the government “run” it is the downfall. Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with the establishment of either BTW.
Lets also look at government run programs such as the postal service and to a lesser extent Amtrak. NEITHER can operate in the black, yet, we keep pumping money into it.
I’m not even going to get into the Solyndras of the world…pathetic what Obama did with BILLIONS.
Bottom line…the FEDERAL government FAILS at every level when it tries to operate a business. NOW, a voucher system, that allows states to handle health care (i.e. BadgerCare) make a lot more sense. Do you really want the bureaucrats in Washington telling you who and when you can seek medical attention?
Personally, Walter does not want my choice limited by what people in DC think is right for me. ObamaCare is a program that will not only bankrupt the country it will also, in the long run, hurt the healthcare industry.
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
Won’t wash, walter. You are intentionally missing my point, and throwing in more than a few misdirects, to boot.
My point is, all these MANDATES are PRECEDENTS the SCOTA just have to follow. They can’t decide one thing in several cases, then turn around and decide the opposite in another.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
bac, I wasn’t trying to misdirect the conversation. I was waiting on walter to share his views, and just thouht I’d post some important information the lame stream media ignores.
Yes, in my mind obamacare is a sweeping mandate like SS. Just because we have ss, do we need obamacare? (Notice I didn’t say constitutional, I said, need.)
How many companies get waivers so they don’t have to provide their share of social security? Maybe someone who remembers ss being implemented can tell us how many companies/individuals were given waivers when ss began. And how many companies and unions have received healthcare waivers from this administration?
When ss was mandated, did you have to buy a seperate product? No, the goverment “took” the $, supposedly to hold in trust, but has that $ been safe from spending politicians? And how is this almost-a-ponzi-scheme-mandated program going to continue after the money given out is more than what is coming in (some say as early as 2018)?
If you listen to the insurance companies, they are signalling they will go out of business if Obamacare mandates are implimented. Doesn’t that leave JUST the US govt as the sole insurance provider…which is to say, state run healthcare? So why didn’t Obama be honest and pass single-payer/ federally run healthcare, a la Canada and Great Britain?
Part (note, part) of the reason health care costs increase are because of tests ordered to protect against lawsuits, time wasted by health care professionals doing paperwork needed by excessive regulation or to protect against litigation. (ex: haven’t seen your Dr in 3+ years? Because of federal regulations, you are now considered a “new” patient, and because of paperwork the cost for the first dr visit increases.)
Health insurance costs were high before obamacare. Two parts to that increasing cost: state mandates added to basic insurance; and, no interstate commerace for insurance.
I don’t use drugs/alcohol; why do I have to buy that coverage? (because it’s mandated) Why can’t I buy health insurance from a company in Idaho, where insurance is cheaper because of fewer mandates? No interstate commerce allowed.
I asked Feingold’s office when obamacare was being debated why Congress didn’t address the litigation issue and the interstate sale of health insurance issue. No answer for the first. The reason for the 2nd had me thinking Feingold’s whiz kids thought I was incredibly stupid: “Congress doesn’t insert itself in state business.” (paraphrased) ya right…55 mph….. .08 federally-forced alcohol limit on states…the list is endless.
Obamacare is the half-step to socialized medicine. Government sucks at business.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
There has NEVER been a commerce MANDATE period.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0