Posted on 01/20/2014 9:08:19 AM PST by John Semmens
Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley voided Pennsylvania's statute requiring that voters show a photo ID at the polls before they can obtain a ballot. As the judge sees it “forcing a person to show ID places an unreasonable burden on the right to vote.
McGinley dismissed comparisons with the ID requirements people must meet to buy liquor or cash a check, as “misapplied and confused. Transactions in the commercial sector are privileges extended by private parties. Voting is a fundamental human right that may not be limited in any way.”
The Judge pooh-poohed contentions that IDs may be needed to prevent fraudulent voting. “The attempt to segregate voters into valid vs. fraudulent categories strikes at the very heart of our democratic values,” McGinley asserted. “Every human being is entitled to vote for those who rule over him. To exclude some on grounds that they fail to meet some geographic criterion or bureaucratic regulation is undemocratic.”
“The rule for voting should be simple: everyone who requests a ballot must be given one,” McGinley argued. “The fear that some individuals mat vote multiple times is exaggerated. Even if it were true, all it signifies is an above average concern for the outcome of an election. Aren't such committed voters more in tune with the spirit of democracy? Shouldn't we want such commitment to carry greater weight than the lesser exertions of others who limit themselves to voting only once?”
Mcginley pointed out that “major league sports and American Idol have demonstrated successful adaptation of the 'no-questions-asked' distribution of ballots to all who request them. They accept votes from all over the world without quibbling over citizenship or place of residence. Since the scope of government is even broader than these entertainment enterprises shouldn't its election processes be at least as inclusive?”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/148813-2014-01-17-semi-news-a-satire-of-recent-news-january-19-2014.htm
He needs is A$$ kicked!
I think that having to show a driver’s license places an undue burden on me.
I’m thinking there is no difference between satire and reality anymore.
Is Bernard McGinley an admitted communist?
Hasn’t a higher court already ruled on this?
Gotcha! It’s satire.
Right, like gay marriage is, and abortion.
Lib judges think they are Kings.
Try cashing a check down at your local Winn-Dixie without a photo ID issued by some state agency.
Possible, but it takes several degrees of persuasion. If the person who refuses to provide a photo ID, then the vote should remain “provisional”, not subject to being counted, until an acceptable form of identification is presented.
He got you. It’s satire.
Time to for the Governor to emulate Obama and use an Executive Order to enforce duly-enacted and approved state law.
This one actually looks real.
Dems do talk exactly that way on MSNBC.
Lib judges strike down voter ID bills in some cases citing voting as a right (but maybe not in this satire case), but rule that requiring licenses to own a gun is constitutional.
Let me offer shampoo rules for such judges:
Impeach, remove & replace.
Continue with all like judges!
The left wants PA badly; we’re the last gunny state thumb in their eye in the northeast.
The AG seat is currently held by a democrat lunatic activist. If the can fraud the Governor election enough in 2016, they’ll be VERY happy...
Corbett should use his executive power to enforce this law. The law was passed by the people of this state. If we have to show ID for everything else, it should apply here too.
Blood of Tyrants, do you have a life?
Things are not satire because they are called satire. This is not satire — it is happening.
Gaffer, I couldn’t quite put it into words, but you have. Thank you, your statement is spot on!
Chill out. Yes, I know how liberals think and the article is spot on the money. Do you realize that the judge never actually SAID what was written, don’t you? THAT is what makes it satire.
Those who cheat do not want voter registration. Those who don’t care do. Why is it that all the democrats don’t want voter registration? I haven’t seen where any republican doesn’t want it. All the big cities don’t want it. The second election of Bill Clinton had 8 precincts in Philadelphia with 100% participation. Nobody died? Nobody moved? Right! Need anymore proof the democrats are cheating?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.