it's "ado," not "adu" ... looking at the latest polls, it looks like "this too shall pass" applies to the Romney campaign!

Hate to break it to you but the one republican judge trashed their ridiculous redistricting plan..Doubt that he'll like this voter ID law..Anyway, doesn't matter..The draft dodging Romney has pulled most of his ads in Pa. and has run from the state..he's down 9 points and it'll be worse by election time..

Your right, much ado about nothing. So-o-o-o, why don't we wait until AFTER this election, so we have more time to discuss it........or, is it a last minute way to try to destroy the election???? Y'think???

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court appeared to indicate today that the law was facially unconstitutional at least if implemented immediately. Most of the Court and even the Commonwealth lawyers appeared to agree that the law could only proceed if implemented over the course of two federal elections. Justice Saylor established that the very PennDot ID specified by the statute could not and would not be provided by PennDot, as the ID could be used for other purposes. Significantly, the Commonwealth also conceded that there are 800,000 registered voters who do not have a PennDot ID; that PennDot can issue only 45,000 IDs a month; and that there are 13 counties with only one PennDot office where the office is only open one day a week. Thus, the statute, on its face and as designed, will deprive thousands of already registered voters of the fundamental right to vote. Whether Republican or Democrat, this statute is an affront to all Pennsylvania citizens and is contrary to the very principles of self-government by the consent of the governed. Regardless of party, the statute should not be implemented for this election, as it is blatantly unconstitutional. Indeed, if the word gun had been substituted for vote, I think even the most conservative would see how unlawful this law is. This is not an equal protection case, as in Indiana, but rather a fundamental deprivation case under the Pennsylvania Constitution which has a broader voting right than the Federal Constitution.

++++ famalegoods.com ++++++++++

Best online store

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

---**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 ---**** NFL Jersey $ 35

---**** NBA Jersey $ 34 ---**** MLB Jersey $ 35

---**** Jordan Six Ring_m $ 36 ---**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45

---**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 ---**** Jacket_m $ 36

---**** Hoody_m $ 50 ---**** Manicure Set $ 20

---**** handbag $ 37 ---**** ugg boot $ 43 ---****

---**** sunglass $ 16 ---**** bult $ 17 ---****

++++ famalegoods.com ++++++++++
ku9

++++ famalegoods.com ++++++++++

Best online store

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

---**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 ---**** NFL Jersey $ 35

---**** NBA Jersey $ 34 ---**** MLB Jersey $ 35

---**** Jordan Six Ring_m $ 36 ---**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45

---**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 ---**** Jacket_m $ 36

---**** Hoody_m $ 50 ---**** Manicure Set $ 20

---**** handbag $ 37 ---**** ugg boot $ 43 ---****

---**** sunglass $ 16 ---**** bult $ 17 ---****

++++ famalegoods.com ++++++++++
uk99

Were you aware that there have only been 10 cases of voter fraud since 2000? Students pay lots of money to take those tests and college entrance exam fraud is an actual problem, not like voter fraud. How do you explain that the people given the job to educate Pennsylvanian's about this law are Teabag Party members? Bipartisan? I don't think so.

Anonymous, Your comment reveals that you do not know what the law actually says and because of that you are continuing to promote false information that is destructive to our Democracy.

EXPIRATION DATE.... This is what makes your simplistic claim completely false and a lie that is being promoted by Republican Politicians, who specifically eliminate the requirement of an expiration date from their comments when discussing and/or promoting their restrictive law.

Student ID's as well as many other photo ID's do NOT have expiration dates. The photo ID's required for SAT's, ACT's, purchase of alcohol, air travel, etc. only need a photo, and a birth date to see if the person looks like that on the ID and is of an appropriate age.

People that have changed their names, People who signed their ID differently than they signed their name when they first registered to vote, people who have recently moved, people who don't travel abroad, etc. will all be challenged especially if they are not registered Republicans.

There are financial costs to seeking out and obtaining Republican required (papers) with situations of long waiting periods to obtain those papers problematic. Many Senior Citizens are finding that they no longer possess those papers that must be presented at the DMV in order to obtain the ID that has an expiration date.

What is the expiration date being put on these so called "free ID's"

Earnest,
Regarding your thoughts on expiration dates. Student ID's expire at the end of the school year and they are only used at the school, school events or for student discounts. They are noit valid for much of anything else.

When my daughter took the SATs last year, she did not have her drivers license yet, so she had to show her Social Securty card and her Birth Certificate, no exceptions.

When she started college this fall, she needed a state issued ID. 10 minutes at the DMV was all it took. She showed here Social Security card and Birth Certificate. This ID expires after 4 years, much like a drivers license.

I am a registered Democrat and I have no problem with voter ID at all.

The ACT and SAT are not governmental laws. The tests are not rights guaranteed by the U.S. fundamental law, the U.S. Constitution. Student ID's will NOT necessarily suffice to enable a vote.

"Anonymous,"
It's spelled 'fraud,' and I agree to better use of money. The Commonwealth has cut off people getting $205.00 a mo.in Welfare, awaiting disability applications, leaving them out in the cold. HOWEVER, as Republican J. Simmons office said, "[The voter I'd.'s] will cost the State $2,000,000.00." Darn right it could be "better spent!!!"

Not all Student IDs have expiration dates. Not all voters (especially elderly voters, doubly so those who grew up in the south) can even get a birth certificate - and if they do it costs money (and time). And those jurisdictions want proof before sending you a birth certificate - people whose SS card has a nickname on it (it happened a fair bit, especially before the 80's) don't match and oftimes get rejected to get their birth certificate. There's a former Assistant DA in Philly who can't get one for that reason - catch-22. (She has her (expired) DA ID card, but can't use that.)

And in-person SAT fraud is probably 1000 times more common (or more, likely) than in-person voting fraud. In-person SAT fraud will get you kicked out of the test, and the person you took it for will have to take it again later (may even be barred). In-person voting fraud is a federal felony punishable by jail - and there's hugely less incentive for anyone to take that risk for 1 vote; while students (and parents especially!) will pay people (other students) thousands of dollars to get little Johnny into the "right" college by acing the test.

I just heard today that the Community College of Philadelphia is letting students and alumni exchange their Student IDs for ones with expiration dates for free so that they can vote - I thought that was pretty awesome. Their management might be boneheaded in general, but that's a great call. Hopefully it won't be necessary for November, though - reports from the Court seem to indicate they aren't terribly pleased with the law going into deliberations.

Jean if what you say is true.......

1- When did this "admitted illegal" that (you know) register to vote?

2- Anyone that wants to "show up at the polls" can do so however, they must be on the rolls.

3 - First time voters have always been required to present some form of identification however,...... They have NOT been required to have an EXPIRATION DATE on that form of identification.

4- And this is most important: If you "know an admitted illegal" and have not reported them, then you are guilty of aiding and abetting, which means that you are committing a felony. People who commit felonies are NOT eligible to vote.... Hmmmm? I wonder of those that run the PATCH will report you?

Listen to "Earnet's" last line. (Actually, his whole post).

Jean, you're already a criminal if you haven't turned him in. Do it now!

I think you're lying, however, in my job I HAVE TO report this, BY LAW. (I have a very SPECIAL picture I.D).

The homeless person you helped - he was very fortunate to have someone like you who cared enough, and was educated enough to help him. You deserve a lot of credit for gong the extra mile ... But seriously, do you believe there is one of you for every one of him?

Requiring A photo ID and the Republican Requirement to have an EXPIRATION DATE on that photo ID are completely two different requirements.

Having to obtain a birth certificate for employment is not the same thing as having to present a photo ID with an expiration date. Also, your experience is just that, only your experience. Further, that situation did not challenge an American citizens constitutional right to vote and have a voice in what is supposed to be a representative government.

Having to pay even one cent for documentation to meet the Republican Political Party's Dictate is a poll tax that is being demanded and obstructing American citizens from being able to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

Except picking up a DNC package isn't the foundation of the electoral system and a right we grant to all adult citizens, and conflating that sign with an underlying validity of photo IDs for elections is disingenuous at best.

Was he part of 750,000 people, trying to get it, at the time???

He has no problem obtaining and using fake IDs. This is the new reality we face.

By progressive do you mean someone who cares about the underpriviliged and downtroden, have you seen the latest numbers of Americans below the poverty line,or do you only watch those zombies Republican moronson Fox and Friends who would not recognize the truth if it hit them on the head.

Mr. Bartman, I believe that I read another thread in which a registered Republican spoke out against this anti-American law.

I would suggest that you take the time to educate yourself, read the details, and learn about the specific requirements and what groups of voters specifically target. When one reads the details and takes the time to actually think about the realities of the number of times that college students must move, the number of women who have had name changes since they first registered to vote, the number of people that live in the cities, never had a need for a drivers license and/or used that form of photo for identification, or have the financial ability to travel abroad.

On top of all of that a simple photo ID is unacceptable if that photo ID does NOT have and expiration date.

Are you aware of the fact that most photo ID's do not have expiration dates?

Are you aware of the fact that when required to show a photo ID it is just to prove that you look like the photo and/or that your date of birth is proof that you are of legal age to purchase alcohol or cigarets?

These are Republican Party Dictates that have been written into law only in states in which the Republican's control the State Legislature and hold the Governors office. Why? Because they would never pass with a balanced Legislature as they obstruct the American citizens constitutional right to vote and is destructive to democracy.

I don't think anyone's saying it only affects Democratically-inclined voters, just that its rush to implementation leaves voters without a valid ID a 67 day window to obtain one, and the people most likely to need one are not drivers, don't have access to the information detailing the process, and don't have a lot of weekday business hours in the next 2 months to spend at the DMV. That demographic is largely low-income laborers and young voters, who are often Democratic voters.

It's completely obvious, though - I mean, right? - that adding a new requirement to the voting process in the last few months leading up to a major election is a partisan action intended to sway the election results. You wouldn't see nearly this level of resistance if these measures had been put forward following the 2008 election after a reasonable amount of bipartisan debate over its implementation and its expected efficacy at preventing actual cases of fraud.

The difference is that the Democratic Party believes in the inclusion of all our citizens whereas the Republican Party looks to exclude people who are not pure enough in ideological strain, physical health, skin color, means of income retention, religious affiliation, or control of the bodies, actions and motivation of others.

The Democraps seek to include all... even those who are not citizens, as they will vote for Democraps to give them more free stuff, and support their out of control irresponsible breeding activities. The more people we get in this country who are part of the Democrap party, the worse shape we get into financially. Bums.

Hey... Ronnie Lefteton..... If your amateur president is doing so well, why are so many in poverty? Huh? Tell me Lefty?

@Earnest I recommend finding a hobby. Perhaps RC planes.

You should not have abbreviated RC. Ol' Earn my claim that the "RC" stands for "Republican Controlled".

Leftists, listen to me. I will not address Earnest, he needs a hobby - I'm thinking trains or RC planes. Instead, I am going to address the left tonight. Educate your group. Teach them. Show them how to get an ID. You can do this! Come together and perhaps blog on how to get an ID - it is not that hard! Recall the Inquirer report when they had to admit how easy it was. You got this, progressives - you can do it! I would bank on it a blog on how to get an ID would be a huge hit.

There ya go writers and journalists... You're welcome.

Republicans have determined that they needed the Senior vote during the primary, but don't need it during the November election. Proven over and over again is the unfortunate fact that Seniors have a higher turnout in primaries than the middle aged and student voters and in those states affected those Seniors tend to vote Republican. These facts would demonstrate the reason that the Republican Dictate was not put in place during the primary election.

In a Presidential election, the turnout numbers can afford less Senior Republican votes. As the numbers of middle aged voters and student voters increase. Also, Senior Republican voters tend to live in the suburbs, where they have drivers licenses where there are much higher numbers of Democratic voting Seniors living in city areas, where they do not have drivers licenses.

See, no problem. Nancy is full or Democrap moral outrage... she will drive them all to the DMV. See.... that was easy....

Democrats are mostly worried about illegals not being able to vote, and worried about their century long history of voter fraud being derailed. Democrats will break any rule to achieve an ends that they think is more "just". And "just" is always taking money away from workers and giving it to dependent breeding stock.

QED, that might be an argument in favor of the law had the fact not come out during testimony on the subject that there has not been 1 single incident of provable in-person voter fraud during the past number of years. To disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people in the name of a non-existant problem is not only insane, it is immoral and illegal.

Wouldn't that require there to be more fraudulent in-person voters than people unable to vote due to lack of ID? I've seen no data from either side that shows that to be the case - if there's 750,000 registered voters without the required ID and actually zero cases of in-person voter fraud since 2000 in PA, how can this possibly balance out to represent the majority of voters?

So no ID, just ink their finger like 3rd world countries? Are you serious? Think about it, so a foreigner, traveling in America, can walk in, vote and get their finger inked? That works for me!

It is good to keep the stupid and dependent from voting. They just vote for more stuff from idiot Democrap officials. Time for workers to take back the country. Don't pay Federal Taxes, you shouldn't vote in Federal election. We workers will decide if we want to give you more of OUR money. Democratic Bums.

Guilty until proven innocent? Not an American Ideal.

Walter, say you are an elderly person in a nursing home who no longer drives or travels. You are not likely to have a driver's license or a passport and good luck finding your original birth certificate. To say it is easy to get an ID, is inaccurate, and frankly, without compassion. It involves getting to a PENDOT office, at the limited times they are open, and waiting, sometimes hours, to be served (that is if you have filled out the proper forms.) If you are elderly, disabled or in frail health, this is not an easy task by any measure. Everyone in this country has a right to vote. It is a right and not just a priviledge for those who are physically able to jump through the hoops that are now being proposed.

Andrea, how did this elderly person get to the nursing home? How do they know who he is? I mean, if he has no identification and just appeared there one day, who pays his bills?

@Fly on the Windshield: PennDOT says approximately 9% of registered voters don't have the correct ID. We can quibble about who those people are, but the numbers run to a bit over 750,000 people. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec12/pennsylvania_07-24.html. PennDOT cannot issue that many IDs between now and the election. That alone should be reason to put this law on hold until after the November election. The infrastructure cannot accommodate all who need the ID.

There is no reason why this needs to go into effect today. Why can't this wait until December to take effect, thereby giving everyone time to get a new ID before the next election.

PS: It's obvious you do not have much experience with the elderly when you throw around careless statements like this. One day, you will be old. I suggest getting to understand what that will be like so you can prepare yourself.

Fly, it is obvious that you have never dealt with an elderly relative who had to go into a nursing care facility. I have. They do not ask for the kind of ID that is being required of the current law. Because many of the residents no longer drive or travel they should not lose their right to vote or be required to jump through huge hoops in order to do so.

There is a much simpler answer. These elderly and others in nursing homes don't need to go anywhere to get their acceptable ID! Photo ID can be issued by a PA care facility, including long-term care facilities, assisted living residences or personal care homes. see: http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1174114&parentname=ObjMgr&parentid=4&mode=2

Did that Photo ID requirement include the need to have an expiration date on it? NO!

Mike I suggest you read the link below describing the fallacy of false equivalencies. Your example is a classic case of just this type of fallacy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Except attending a NAACP Convention isn't the foundation of the electoral system and a right we grant to all adult citizens - the argument isn't about the usefulness of photo IDs, its about implementation.

I wonder if Holder wants the Black Panthers to show ID before they stand outside polling places for mostly whites. Holder is a maggot.

The Speaker of the Pennsylvania Legislature, through his very public comments, obviously felt that a law to tighten regulations by specifying legal elements that would limit the voting of more Democrats than Republicans and more pointedly in the limited time frame of this Presidential Election.

Then consider that there appears to be few new constraints on absentee ballots, which have been a source of fraud in voting, but more likely to be cast by voters registered as Republicans.

John-
the number of people who may be disenfranchised by this law (~750,000) comes from comparing lists of registered voters to lists of licensed drivers, so, to answer your question, YES, we know that these people are registered to vote. However, many people who are affected don't even know they are affected because the state hasn't begun advertising this law yet, and by the time they do it may be too late for people to get the documentation they need to comply with the new law's ID requirements. As for how we know that the people who will be affected are disproportionately Democrats, the answer is that party affiliation is included on the registration rolls. Plus, when you consider who is likely to be affected (women whose names changed as a result of marriage or divorce, senior citizens, disabled citizens and the urban poor who don't drive), these groups overwhelmingly vote Democratic.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court appeared to indicate yesterday that the law was facially unconstitutional at least if implemented immediately. Most of the Court and even the Commonwealth lawyers appeared to agree that the law could only proceed if implemented over the course of two federal elections. Justice Saylor established that the very PennDot ID specified by the statute could not and would not be provided by PennDot, as the ID could be used for other purposes. Significantly, the Commonwealth also conceded that there are 800,000 registered voters who do not have a PennDot ID; that PennDot can issue only 45,000 IDs a month; and that there are 13 counties with only one PennDot office where the office is only open one day a week. Thus, the statute, on its face and as designed, will deprive thousands of already registered voters of the fundamental right to vote. Whether Republican or Democrat, this statute is an affront to all Pennsylvania citizens and is contrary to the very principles of self-government by the consent of the governed. Regardless of party, the statute should not be implemented for this election, as it is blatantly unconstitutional. Indeed, if the word gun had been substituted for vote, I think even the most conservative would see how unlawful this law is. This is not an equal protection case, as in Indiana, but rather a fundamental deprivation case under the Pennsylvania Constitution which has a broader voting right than the Federal Constitution.

@John,
AMEN! (oops, that might sound too religious for some posting here.)

didn't the state admit in it's argument that there is indeed, no real evidence of in-person voter fraud that would warrant this legislation?

perhaps they weren't aware of these cases - two of them are from the news just this week!

Stinson committed absentee voter fraud, where these new measures would have been ineffective and unrelated. How many legitimate voters will be blocked to prevent a few scattered incidents? If the fraud prevention is blocking more legitimate votes than it prevents fraudulent ones, isn't that a failed system?

Current voter ID is just one part of voter fraud preventon. It's more than just the picture - a current address is also important. Every part of the transaction - registration, in person voting, early voting, absentee voting, travelling board, people moving, etc each needs its own protections or else the weakest link will be targetted.

Having been a poll worker in Indiana in the past, but since the ID law was implemented, I can say it works quite well.

No one is turned away from the polls, and there is a system in place that starts with the ID that gets "displaced" voters to the right place, And that works in most cases.

In no case is a voter ever completely turned away - they can always vote provisionally and resolve the issue at the courthouse in the two weeks before the election is certified. They often don't need any ID to resolve it then if they attest to who they are.

If it's not your intention to come across as a 4th grader (an oddly xenophobic 4th grader, at that), may I suggest avoiding mocking portmanteaus of people's names?

Morgan - What?

Walter - What part of that is confusing?

state spends 54 million just to hold one statewide election

What was the price tag that the Republicans charged the Pennsylvania Tax Payer's to put their dictate into law? Was it $11 Million? How many of those tax payers will have their constitutional right to vote denied and/or stolen by the Republican Party in November?

Are you aware of how little $1 million is to educate an entire state's population about a new requirement to vote, months before an election? Specifically, when the population is disparate and speeks/ reads many different languages?

And of course, make sure to be home in time to meet the kids as they get off the school bus. You have a full six hours or so for the full journey, unless one of your kids is in kindergarten, in which case you have maybe three. If you had lived in the neighborhood longer, you may know someone you could trust to watch your kid for a bit until you returned, but you just moved here a couple of weeks ago and don't know anyone well enough yet.

And since you had to sell you wheelchair, due to having only one leg, you now have to hop to catch the bus which is at the top of the hill. Not to mention getting to the Acme to pick up some pork chops for dinner that needs to be on the table but 5:15 or Bill will be angry again after a long day at the plant to make enough money to buy that new washing machine so you don't have to do it by hand anymore.

@Fly On the Windshield: Be as disparaging as you would like, but seriously, have you ever had to rely on the LANTA bus to get around town? Have you spoken to anyone who is affected by this law? Please take some time to imagine what life is like for other people. It is easy to judge from the pulpit if you don't spend any time in the pews.

Like the guy who wrote this article whose worldview began to change when he found that kids in a juvenile facility had never gone to a sit down restaurant and did not know how to order off a menu and calculate a tip: http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2012/09/13/confessions-of-a-former-republican/

George,
To answer all of your questions, Yes I have! I have relied on public transport, I have been to the DMV, I have done everything required that a person who needs an ID has to go through in order to get it.

If people are going to have that much trouble getting to the DMV for an ID, they will have just as much difficulty getting to the polling place. DMV has late hours 2 nights a week, they are open on Saturdays. I was in there this past June to get my daughter an ID. Took us less than 10 minutes. It was a Saturday and it was busy.

On the LANTA bus? You have taken the LANTA bus from your current neigborhood to the DMV? I'm not talking about the NYC subway system here. I'm talking LANTA bus. It's nice that you took your daughter to the DMV. How would it have been if she had to take herself?

It's the word for what that thing is called, what would you prefer me to use? This is an adult conversation, I don't expect to have to avoid 'big words' to communicate succinctly.

Preventing 1 act of voter fraud is worth preventing 10 people from voting legitimately? 100 or 1,000? If your fraud prevention system ultimately creates a less accurate vote, you are doing something wrong.

Why am I automatically a Republican if I support this law and automatically a Democrat if I don't?

i'm not sure how using voter suppression under the guise of fighting voter fraud so that one party can have the advantage over the other in an effort to win the presidential election, and thus control the decisions that will affect our economy is a small matter.

@ George

"Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, a Republican, that the new ID law is “gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0913/Voter-ID-law-backed-by-Republicans-faces-legal-test-in-Pennsylvania

Amend- Your reply was so convincing that I have decided to change my mind.

Indiana has had a voter ID law since 2005, and in fact, it has passed US Supreme Court scrutiny. I have even worked as a polling place official there, and it was very effective in helping us get people to the right polling place on election day. No one is turned away, since they can always vote a provisional ballot, and then they have ten days to resolve any issue.

If this law stands up in other states why not PA. I have never heard anything about people in states that require voter ID complaining about being unable to vote.

Ron, in this case it's the timing of the requirement, not necessarily the concept itself. There'd be a lot less resistance to this if we were rolling it out systematically with an eye towards the 2014 elections.

The SCOTUS case about the 2005 Indiana ID law wasn't settled until middle of 2008. I suspect many states were waiting for this precedent before they acted.

That's a worldly, well written view.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court appeared to indicate today that the law was facially unconstitutional at least if implemented immediately. Most of the Court and even the Commonwealth lawyers appeared to agree that the law could only proceed if implemented over the course of two federal elections. Justice Saylor established that the very PennDot ID specified by the statute could not and would not be provided by PennDot, as the ID could be used for other purposes. Significantly, the Commonwealth also conceded that there are 800,000 registered voters who do not have a PennDot ID; that PennDot can issue only 45,000 IDs a month; and that there are 13 counties with only one PennDot office where the office is only open one day a week. Thus, the statute, on its face and as designed, will deprive thousands of already registered voters of the fundamental right to vote. Whether Republican or Democrat, this statute is an affront to all Pennsylvania citizens and is contrary to the very principles of self-government by the consent of the governed. Regardless of party, the statute should not be implemented for this election, as it is blatantly unconstitutional. Indeed, if the word gun had been substituted for vote, I think even the most conservative would see how unlawful this law is. This is not an equal protection case, as in Indiana, but rather a fundamental deprivation case under the Pennsylvania Constitution which has a broader voting right than the Federal Constitution.

Really... you think it's good that lazy idiots vote. Why? So they can vote themselves more handouts, and bankrupt the country? Having dumb dependent people vote on how to spend money when they contribute NONE, is foolish. But liberals are tards, so what do you expect. And most stupid lazy people are Democrats... the party supports the stupid and the lazy to keep in power.

Well said.

For those who commented that it's just as hard to get to the polling place as the DMV, that's ridiculous. For the person who lives at Main Street and Station Avenue, the polling place is Borough Hall, just two blocks away.

tough. Do it. You need a license for 100 other reasons. This is a hypothetical of absurd proportions. Find this man for me... oh ya, he also has NOBODY to give him a ride. Find him. Derp.

Ha! "a hypothetical of absurd proportions" - you mean like the widespread problem of in-person voter fraud?

@Crestor: When you throw around hateful words like that, even the best of your arguments look ridiculous. I am not a Republican nor a Democrat, though I have tried out both ideologies at various times. I like to think for myself, do a bunch of research, and come to my own conclusions. Same is true for the dopes talking about Republicraps, or whatever words they use. It's that sort of hateful, ignorant thinking that is ruining this country faster than the terrorists ever could.

No,l actually George, it's the entitlement sociey, full of an ever increasing number of people who think they should get a handout from government, that is ruining this country. Dependent bums are reproducing at alarming numbers, aided by the fact that the more irresponsible they are, the more they are rewarded. As for illegal immigration, Mexico is a corrupt crap hole. The more Mexicans we allow to come here illegally, the more we will look like Mexico. Not a good thing.

I can look at the issue and see the real problem. I'm not busy trying to make others impressed with how enlightened I am, and how I posess a stronger moral compass and higher degree of compassion for people. The United States is in SERIOUS trouble.... trouble caused mainly by Democraps who do everything they can to expand the dependent base, give them free money, and then know that they will vote for more Democraps. They don't hold any of these bums accountable... any problem they have is due to "A lack of opportunity". Fact is, any kid in the inner city can get a "B" average in school by studying a little, then go to school for FREE, then get hired by a company anxious to show they are diverse. Lack of opportunity? oh ya, the schools suck... the schools such because the lazy ass parents, raising lazy ass kids, make the school suck.

I see it the way it is. And it isn't good.

@Crestor: Now you're making more sense in your arguments, though you didn't have to use the word, "Democraps," to get your point across. I don't agree with all of the conclusions you draw, but I do agree that our social welfare system is incredibly broken. It seems to me we both have a good degree of anger and concern about these times, which any patriotic American ought to have considering the staggering debt and social mess that we're in.

I am disappointed with all the infighting between the parties. The parties encourage it because nothing will get done so long as we are all shouting "Democrap!" or "Republicrap!" at one another. A lot more could be done if we could quiet the rhetoric and hate speech. The infighting is going to kill this country.

I wouldn't be so sure if I were you. Chief Justice Ron Castille has a history of voting independently. He struct down the silly, gerrymandered redistricting plan passed by the Republicans in the state legislature, and he may well sniff out and dispose of this partisan bullish*t, too.

The cardinal sin in a democracy is to disenfranchise citizens. Any law that jeopardizes disenfranchising nearly 10% of PA voters requires serious scrutiny to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks. This law doesn't come close to meeting that burden of proof. I hope that Justice Castille has enough respect for the PA and US constitutions to do the right thing and enjoin implementation of the flawed PA voter ID law before the 2012 election.

@wynnwoodie Agree. Almost anything is possible. The SCOTUS case affirming the Indiana law was decide 6-3, with Stevens in the majority. In my mind, it depends on three things:
1) This is mostly a PA case concerned with constitutionality under PA constitution, which may have different interpretations than the federal constitution.
2) The IN law had fall-back or escape provisions that satisified the federal judges. The PA judges could anticipate that the PA law could be overturned by federal SCOTUS if the escape clauses aren't comprehensive enough.
It's a close call, since the differences are very subtle, but there are some, of course.

You need ID for lots of stuff to include, at times, using a credit card. What is wrong with making sure that you are able to cast your vote? I don't understand the arguments against this practice. Why does everything boil down to Dems. and Reps.? This is another security that our government should provide us, it's tax paying citizens. To prove that, indeed, you have he right to cast that very important vote keeps the election process pure for all, no? The argument regarding obtaining ID seems week since they are available from the state.

Loans are available from banks, too, but that doesn't mean everyone can easily get one.

As for the bogus "IDs are needed for so many other things" argument: You specifically mention credit cards. Not all uses of credit cards require an ID (ordering something online, for example). Additionally, using a credit card is not a constitutional right while voting is. Smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, gambling at the Sugar House, flying on a plane and the littany of other "times you need ID" examples that those in favor of the ID laws keep parading out are NOT constitutional rights. Voting is. That is the difference. THAT is why I don't think we should be rushing an ID law into place and certainly not in the year of a Presidential election. But that goes deep into the heart of the reason it's being done now an not (for example) when Corbett would be up for re-election.

I am beginning to get the picture...good stuff! I didn't realize how polarizing every issue is these days and how people are using these issues to continue to seperate and polarize the country. It is very sad the direction we are headed. I am scared for my children, and perhaps, even for myself!

The biggest danger your children have is brought to us by Democraps who are bankrupting us, and heaping trillions of debt onto your kids. The country you kids will inherit will be a debt ridden, balkanized country with 50%+ living off the government, and those that work giving 80% of what they make to the lazy. If you fear for you kids, vote republican. If you fear for your kids working hard to get through school and then getting a good job only to have all their wealth taken from them, vote republican. If you fear so many illegal immigrants will come here and eventually we will just be North Mexico, vote republican.

Why don't you just say it Crestor, if you are a coward vote Rep. Fear this fear that, what a brave American you are. Thank God you were not on the Mayflower, we'd all be hiding behind Plymouth Rock dodging arrows.

Bull. Give us a specific example.

i don't have a problem with the idea of voter ID... what i have a problem with is the sudden decision (and yes, several months is still "sudden" in a case like this) to require ID for the FEDERAL ELECTION this year...

it is disingenuous at best to suggest that the politicians pushing these laws across the country do not have any agenda other than to make things fair... otherwise this would be a bi-partisan push...

now, rolling this out over a longer period (of at least a year, preferably two) and making sure that everyone has a fair opportunity to act upon it strikes me as sensible... i could accept voter ID being mandatory in the 2016 elections, but enforcing it now is clearly a move by Republicans to increase their chances this November... there can be no arguing that as a general truth (or, as i say, it would be a bi-partisan push).

personally, i think either the federal or local government(s) should compare the voter rolls with the social security rolls, and send notices to all those folks who are as yet unregistered, giving them clear and reasonable instructions as well as a longer time to get their registrations (2014 seems reasonable)...

@Crestor: Are you trying to have an intelligent and logical conversation about this issue, or are you here to whip up emotions by throwing accusations and calling people names? The impression your posts leave is that you are not happy in your own life so you want to share your dissatisfaction with everyone else. Whatever you are trying to make gets lost in the Glen-Beck-esque rhetoric. This isn't a politically-leaning call-in radio show.

i am a democrat, and a pretty far left leaning one at that... every democrat i know thinks voter ID is not intrinsically a bad thing, we just don't want to see it used as a political fulcrum for Republicans (see how easy it is to use the other party's name without being an insulting jerk?) to win the 2012 presidential election...

Crestor, I understand your concern. So, I assume you would fully support a mandatory pictute ID for all purchasers of any type of gun, including longarms as well as ammunition. Right?

If upheld, the Voter ID law will create a precedent that the Government may require a secure picture ID for persons to purchase or own any guns or ammunition. So, if you think about, this is a way for the Republicans to introduce gun control secretly and behind the backs of their own supporters. Precious.

lol. well i guess they shot their selves in the #$#.

Tony, the key word in your statement is "reported". How do you catch voter fraud when a person can just walk in and say I'm John Doe and then vote as John Doe. Once he has voted an left the polling place, there's no way to prove otherwise. He could do this many times using different names and no one would know. If he needed an ID he could not perpetrate such a fraud.

Bill, he would still have to know the name of a person on that particular district's voter list and have had that person not already voted, and if the real guy does eventually vote later, it ends up flagged and dealt with. Regardless, I don't think the issue here, for most people, is the idea of requiring an ID, as much as it is the rush to implement the system which leaves hundreds of thousands or previously registered voters without one. That's something that can be remedied in 2 years, not in 2 months.

Bill, reported as being fact. To that aspect, there has been voter fraud. I believe the number is 10 cases of that very instance you stated. However, and this is the most important part now for the state of PA, there are 0 cases of voter fraud. Just as there has been sightings of bigfoot and the lochness monster, there has been no solid concrete proof they exist. Now in this economic times, if we were to push $11 million of our tax dollars to find concrete evidence, then there would be an uproar. Just as the PA repubs just wasted another $11 million on voter fraud that has existed. Haha...fiscal conservatives my butt

Morgan makes a good point - in order for some one to vote for a fictious person (like those created by Acorn in many recently documented events) ot a deceased person, you would have to only need to know their name and address. Voter ID will prevent these two types of frauds.

Well, that would be $2 billion to be invested and made available to the U.S. Economy, which is receiving absolutely ZERO Leadership from The White House, instead of being funneled through the U.S. Government for worthless freebies.

We certainly can't afford Obama - http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/17/Report-Top-Obama-Bundlers-Bag-Millions-In-Taxpayer-Money

Bill - is the scandal here supposed to be that 1 of 50 major donors was nominated (and ultimately withdrew) for an ambassadorship? The last President did that by the hundreds:
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/bushs-patronage-appointments-to-ambassador-exceed-fathers-clintons/

Or that 4 out of the top 50 donors went on to serve on (largely unpaid) citizens advisory boards or council appointments? Bush, again, did it by the hundreds:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/09/AR2009020902519.html

Or is it that business owners who stood to benefit from the policies Obama campaigned on (funding hybrids and public transportation infrastructure) raised money for that campaign, and then benefited when those policies were ultimately enacted? That's hardly a newsworthy revelation.

Spoiled rich kid is hysterical, as if The President worked his butt off to get where he is. Exactly how much "work" is involved in being a "community organizer" or a State Senator for that matter. 143 days physically present in the U.S. Senate to get elected President!

Obama is a cult of personality with absolutely no accomplishments - other than convincing people to vote for him - to his credit before becoming President!

If you want to look at tax returns, look at the Obamas and how LITTLE they gave to others before they started to play hard ball in politics. Talk about your elitists, holding onto whatever they can!

The Romneys have given MILLIONS in just the past two years!

There is nothing in the Romneys' tax returns aside from success in business and Economic Leadership! Something sorely lacking from President Obama ...