Free Republic

I am thrilled they didn’t name them. Those bastards are neither Baptists or a Church, or even Christians. When you must refer to them, please refer to them as the Phelps family.

May they rot in hell.

Horrible idea, at the worst possible time in history. In a general election, wih a veto-proof Dem majority and a President Obama at stake? WTF are you thinking?

I agree also. The Olympics were historically a time of truce. This is a big thing to the Chinese. Going will be a big deal to them, while not going would accomplish nothing good. Confont them when it would help, not when it would just piss on them.

I am not sure why I continue to be surprised, but this hit piece is just unbelieveble. See if you can spot any actual facts anywhere in the piece. This is so full of propaganda, biased opinion and misleading partisanship it is scary. I really hate the dinosaur media, especially the Lexington Herald mis-Leader.

PS I searched the site for info about which publications can be posted or excerpted, and could not find anything. Mods feel free to edit if appropriate, or ask me to re-post.

Sweet! I will drive my SUV another lap around New Circle Road in celebration!

I believe you are confusing voter photo ID with the national ID card issue. Very different. Voter photo ID is not a different ID, it is just a requirement that you show your drivers license or military ID or similar to prove your identity. No chips, no new programs, no nothing. Show the ID that 99.8 of us have already.

After the SCOTUS Crawford decision we had a discussion about future voter ID efforts, and in particular Missouri. When one poster questioned whether Missouri's invalidated photo ID law could now be valid, I reminded that the law had been invalidated under the state constitution and that Crawford would not directly affect it.

An effort has begun to amend the Missouri Consitution to allow for photo ID. It has gotten first-round approval in the House, and needs one more before going to the Senate. From the article, at least, it appears that the amendment may not need the Governor's appproval to get on the ballot. Any Mo. folks able to shed light on that?

They stopped because they believed he was carrying a gun, the chief said. What gave the police officers cause to believe he was carrying a gun?

- The article doesn’t say. We do know that (1) there was a report of shots fired and (2) he was in the vicinity of it. Anything else is an assumption by the reader of the article.

they are cruising down the street at 35 or 40 miles an hour (conservatively),

-Made up fact. Their job was to go to the area the call was reported and look for people who might have fired the shot. Why do you believe they would do it a 40 mph?

they see this guy walking down the street and say to each other, “That guy has a gun. We can’t see the gun, we don’t have anyone that says he’s got a gun, but we know, he has a gun.”

- Made up fact. From the article, it could be read that he had his hand in his shirt. Perhaps he was sweating, out of breath, matched a description, had a bulge under his shirt, the gun was partially visible, he turned away when he saw them, acted suspiciously, etc. The point is that we don’t know, but you make up out of whole cloth a conversation between the cops leaving capriciousness as the only explanantion. Whatever it was that piqued their suspicion, they were RIGHT. He did have a gun.

, they come to a screeching halt and tell him to take his hands out of his pockets.

-Exactly as they should do. Him not complying is where this goes wrong for him.

Something doesn’t look right here.
Either they saw something that gave them pause or this is right out of Minority Report.

-Either they saw something that gave them pause.... Exactly. Either the cops saw something that gave them pause, or they happened to coincidentally stop someone who coincidentally had a gun coincidentally in the vicinity of a shots fired report who coincidentally refused to comply with their instructions to show his hands, and coincidentally pulled the gun out on the police. Which version is more likely?

Not a mention of the fact that they could all cast provisional ballots and then have their vote counted by singing an affidavit at the clerk’s office. None of these voters will be denied their vote if they do that, but of course they could have just gotten the free ID beforehand for as little effort.

No, they didn’t need probable cause. They only need an “articulable suspicion” for a stop and a pat-down. They may well have had enough for probable cause even for a more thorough search here, it is hard to say.

When responding to a shots fired call in the vicinity, they likely have an articulable suspicion to stop anyone they see in that vicinity. How exactly would you have the cops respond to a shots fired call at your house? If they pull up and see a suspicious person standing on the sidewalk, should they stop him and ask him what he is doing, or just tell you tough luck?

In this case, the officers believed he had a gun. It is hard to tell from how the article is phrased, but that might be because he had his hand in his shirt. Easy case for articulable suspicion - a good stop.

In any event, he did have a gun, and pulled it out. He chose poorly.

good post

I am thinking that too. No way in hell a black preacher, forget the candidates’ own preacher and close friend, does anything intentionally to hurt the first viable black presidential candidate in history. No way.

Stevens cited some in the opinion. Washington State, New York City, etc. There was evidence, and no it was not a lack of preparation. The problem with citing more is that if voter impersonation fraud is going on, virtually the only way to catch it is if the real voter shows up at exactly the same time as the impersonator (not going to happen for fraudulent registrations, out of state or dead voters) or the poll worker actually knows the real voter. The Dems have cited the paucity of prosecutions as proof that this is a partisan conspiracy; however, logically there would not be much direct proof (as opposed to statistical or anecdotal, such as more votes than living registered voters, votes cast for dead folks, etc.).

This is why the level of scrutiny involved is so important. In a normal case, the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove that the state’s regulatory interest is not reasonably calculated to protect a legitimate state interest in a non-burdensome manner. In the case of a protected class or invidious discriminatory effect (speaking non-precisely, if any other counsel are grading me), the burden is on the state to show that there is a legitimate or compelling state interest and that the burden is narrowly tailored and balanced aganst the benefit. In this case, 6 justices found the burden to be on the plaintiffs, who could not show much in the way of disenfranchised voters.

It raises the burden for future voter ID challenges. Watch for the Arizona law to be challenged again “as-applied” with a best-case plainitff after this election. They might make it through the 9th Circus on it, though the 9th did follow the SCOTUS on its previously challenge to that law.

Arizona’s law is still in litigation, so keep fighting. The 9th circus enjoined enforcement of it the first time around, and the SCOTUS smacked them down, so it is now back in the trial court. It is NOT enjoined this time, so it will be in place for this election.

Watch for the Rats to manufacture some best-case challenges and take it back up; however, also watch for a very clean election with insignificant burdens on voters. It could cut both ways.

As for the questions about what IN did differently, there are a number of things, but IN is actually a more burdensome law than others. Georgia, for example, had a voter ID law invalidated, so went back and amended the law and it passed muster at the trial court.

The keys seem to be 1. the ID must be free, so as not to be a poll tax; 2. several different types of photo ID must be accepted, and 3. provisional ballots can be cast without ID that can be supported by affidavit executed w/in 10 days at the clerk’s office.

The libs in Missouri very smartly decided that Voter Photo ID was unconstitutional under the MISSOURI Constitution. Unless Congress mandates photo ID (never happen, even assuming it would be desirable) or the Missouri Court makeup changes, this decision will have little effect on them.

It has been a long time since I read that MO decision, so I don’t recall if the law could be re-crafted for a “less burdensome” law and get a different result. IIRC, though, the Rats now have that governorship anyway, so it wouldn’t likely get passed.

This is a great decision, though, and should clear the way for the Arizona law and similar ones that could follow. Significantly, the Arizona law requires proof of CITIZENSHIP, not just residency and identity.

Doesn’t California have a ballot initiative underway for Voter ID?

German “Gary” Talis speaks on being framed, being the victim, and being denied his rights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrNuAQwekuY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFSGhyjoltM

What a tool.

Now you’re talking. It will treat you right.

The Tom Jurich/Bobby Petrino legacy lives on. The University of Louisville sold its integrity to win some football games by recruiting convicts (not an exaggeration) that other schools would not take, not even Miami (Willie Williams).

I am sorry to say that Arkansas may go the same direction after taking Petrino when he abandoned his Falcons team mid-season.

No, I was wrong. Sumner was the Yankee. Here is what Wiki has on it:

Sumner said Douglas (who was present in the chamber) was a “noisome, squat, and nameless animal...not a proper model for an American senator.” Most serious was his extreme insult of Butler as having taken “a mistress who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean, the harlot, Slavery.” Not content to leave his assault on a political level, Sumner’s three hour oration took a very personal and cruel turn as he began to mock the 59 year-old Butler’s manner of speech and physical mannerisms, both of which were impaired by a stroke that Butler had suffered earlier.

Two days later, on the afternoon of May 22, Preston Brooks, a congressman from South Carolina and Butler’s nephew, confronted Sumner as he sat writing at his desk in the almost empty Senate chamber. Brooks was accompanied by Laurence M. Keitt also of South Carolina and Henry A. Edmundson of Virginia. Brooks said “Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine.” As Sumner, who was six feet and four inches tall, began to stand up, Brooks began beating Sumner on the head with a thick gutta-percha cane with a gold head. Sumner was trapped under the heavy desk (which was bolted to the floor), but Brooks continued to bash Sumner until he ripped the desk from the floor. By this time, Sumner was blinded by his own blood, and he staggered up the aisle and collapsed, lapsing into unconsciousness. Brooks continued to beat Sumner until he broke his cane, then quietly left the chamber. Several other senators attempted to help Sumner, but were blocked by Keitt who was holding a pistol and shouting “Let them be!”

Sumner did not attend the Senate for the next three years, while recovering from the attack. In addition to the head trauma, he suffered from nightmares, severe headaches and (what is now understood to be) post-traumatic stress disorder. During that period, his enemies subjected him to ridicule and accused him of cowardice for not resuming his duties in the Senate.

It was a Southern Senator (SC?) named Sumner who caned the crap out of some Yankee who had been spouting off about the South. I recall that the guy returned to the legislature, but it was after a long convalescence. It was a seriously bad beating.