remember this in November:

[callmeslick]

[Jeff250]

If anyone was as curious as I was as to why there are only 99 state legislative chambers, it turns out that Nebraska has a unicameral legislature.

[Tunnelcat]

Learned something new today.

[callmeslick]

having a fishing buddy in Nebraska, I've learned a bit about that one over the years. Unique politics in Nebraska.

[Grendel]

Something to consider as well:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08 ... ember.html

[callmeslick]

yeah, the rubes will fall for the old 'coming for your guns' again, right? Except, they've stopped doing so, for several Presidential cycles........

[Vander]

I wouldn't call them rubes in this case. Supreme Court Justices *are* the people that interpret the 2nd amendment. If that's your biggest issue, the Supreme Court is the biggest catalyst for any change in the status quo.

[callmeslick]

at no time has the court ever swung towards taking guns. Yes, there have been upheld rules against sale and possession of certain weapons, and most of the discourse, legal and otherwise is about background checks and perhaps ongoing followup around folks involved in domestic disputes or who have developed mental incapacities. This is hardly some sweeping call for confiscation. Lord knows there must be a handful out there who are that rabid, but that doesn't reflect most, and especially all history of judicial interpretation.

[Vander]

They aren't rubes for expecting a solid liberal SC majority will likely let stand greater firearm restrictions. It's not that far to travel down the slippery slope from confiscating firearms of the newly deemed mentally ill or domestic abusers to looking to confiscate a class of firearms newly deemed too powerful.

[Grendel]

at no time has the court ever swung towards taking guns.

Gee, did anyone actually bother to read the article ? 2A is only briefly covered:

Second Amendment

Clinton also vowed in her convention address that she had no interest in repealing the Second Amendment and wants only to pass common-sense reforms.

But the Democratic candidate has taken issue with the high court’s current view of gun rights. Leaked audio from a Clinton fundraiser in 2015 revealed Clinton telling donors “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.”

Legal analysts say a Clinton appointee could mean the court would no longer consider Americans to have an individual right to “keep and bear arms” – a right the court only affirmed by a narrow 5-4 decision in 2008.

“They may reverse that decision, or they may limit it so it doesn’t mean much,” Bernstein said.

Several experts said the court would most likely take a stealthy approach to avoid causing too many political problems. But it would still mark a change in the judicial winds for gun rights.

“They would say ‘you have the individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to reasonable regulation -- loosely defined,’” Bernstein said, noting that the “reasonable regulation” could include policies such as a handgun ban for all citizens unless a person could convince authorities they have a “good reason” to own one.

Such bans might then be implemented by cities such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., which banned handguns until the courts recently forced them to allow ownership.

The article lists quite a few more areas of impact, concluding w/:

Plenty of other issues, from union power to discrimination rules and more, also could come before the new court. Legal experts who spoke with FoxNews.com differed on how likely each of the above changes are -- but they agreed that major changes would be likely under Clinton.

"The court will side more with the government and against individual liberty,” William and Mary law professor Alan Meese told FoxNews.com.

Legal experts cautioned that a left-leaning court may not act on all of the above.

“The Supreme Court generally doesn't like to [overturn recent decisions] because it makes them look political, but for some of these cases I could imagine it happening,” Roosevelt said, adding he thinks a Clinton court would not outright rule that the Second Amendment is not an individual right and would likely leave school vouchers and voter ID laws intact in some cases.

The impact of a Donald Trump court, analysts said, is harder to pin down but likely to cause fewer changes – as a Trump nominee probably would be ideologically similar to Scalia.

[callmeslick]

could they put a few more maybes, possiblys and perhaps in there to show what a load of fear mongering speculation that is?

[Top Gun]

Perhaps.

[callmeslick]

bottom line is this: Sure, Clinton appears certain to be the one appointing them, but Obama's pending pick is still extant, and nothing in his record indicates some radical intent towards interpretation of the Second. Also, no matter how bad it goes this fall downballot, the Dems will have at MOST a 52-48 edge in the Senate, and perhaps get a few party defections from incumbants(Maine's two, for instance), but they won't have a filibuster proof majority, tempering any more radical selection. As I said, there seems to be a lot of fear mongering around guns....again. We're starting to see just how far fear gets you in the General Election.......

[woodchip]

I find it interesting that the liberals are for ever more identification and background checks to buy and own a firearm, yet want less and less identification and no background check to vote.

[callmeslick]

um, Woody, it is because one addresses a very real problem and the other does not, and, in fact, has been thus far only promoted to supress the votes of legal legitimate voters.

[woodchip]

I'm still waiting to see how ID suppresses voters of a particular class, race or ethnicity.

[vision]

I'm still waiting to see how ID suppresses voters of a particular class, race or ethnicity.

Holy crap, the denial is real! How many times has proof been posted in this board? Good lord...

[woodchip]

Fantasy has been posted...not proof.

[Grendel]

could they put a few more maybes, possiblys and perhaps in there to show what a load of fear mongering speculation that is?

Certainly something to consider if you value the constitution.

I also don't get the resistance against requiring an ID to vote, why ?

[callmeslick]

Grendel, please at least attempt to keep up if you're going to go down this path. Thus far, over the past couple of years, we've shown mountains of proof here that:
1. there is no proven incidence of voter fraud, past the measure 0.08% incidence, which was the MOST ever measured
2. there IS proven evidence that the laws, as written to date, purposely make it difficult for both students and older citizens of color(born in rural areas without clear record keeping) from getting a valid ID.
3. there is proven intent, stated by bill authors that the entire premise behind voter ID is voter supression of minorities or in one case all likely Democrat voters.
4 the nation has a long tradition of rather open voting laws, so the concept of any barriers at the polling place start to sound a lot like Jim Crow.

[woodchip]

Grendel, please at least attempt to keep up if you're going to go down this path. Thus far, over the past couple of years, we've shown mountains of proof here that:
1. there is no proven incidence of voter fraud, past the measure 0.08% incidence, which was the MOST ever measured

And just how do you measure fraud where no ID is required?

2. there IS proven evidence that the laws, as written to date, purposely make it difficult for both students and older citizens of color(born in rural areas without clear record keeping) from getting a valid ID.

Show us the evidence

3. there is proven intent, stated by bill authors that the entire premise behind voter ID is voter supression of minorities or in one case all likely Democrat voters.

Show us where it is proven

4 the nation has a long tradition of rather open voting laws, so the concept of any barriers at the polling place start to sound a lot like Jim Crow.

There are no barriers as you need a ID of some sort to:

Drive a car
Buy liqueur
Receive welfare
Receive social security
Receive medicaid
Get a loan
Buy a firearm (legally)
Receive medicare

So tell me again why you shouldn't have a ID and be able to show it before voting.

[callmeslick]

anyone interested in the answers to woody's questions can merely search past threads. This has been beaten to death. Repeatedly.

[Krom]

Not to mention over half of the things he listed as requiring ID use and require forms that were not valid for voter ID.

[vision]

There are no barriers as you need a ID of some sort to:

Drive a car
Buy liqueur
Receive welfare
Receive social security
Receive medicaid
Get a loan
Buy a firearm (legally)
Receive medicare

So tell me again why you shouldn't have a ID and be able to show it before voting.

So what you are saying is that you don't understand how those activities are different than voting? Time to go back to grade school civics class I guess...

[Grendel]

Not to mention over half of the things he listed as requiring ID use and require forms that were not valid for voter ID.

Ah, a specific ID just to vote ? That's stupid when almost everyone already has a government issued ID. Just spend a little more money to make divers license/id cards more easily accessible to the 1% that don't have one.

Edit: why not -- the other side of the coin: did you know that in Germany you are required by law to carry your government issued ID at all times and produce it if asked by to by the authorities ? This originated in 1938 w/ the Nazi's...

[callmeslick]

Ah, a specific ID just to vote ? That's stupid when almost everyone already has a government issued ID. Just spend a little more money to make divers license/id cards more easily accessible to the 1% that don't have one.

therein lies the rub, they don't have any willingness to do so. One state, Alabama, both passed an ID law, and then shut down most license centers in rural counties? Why? North Carolina doesn't accept school IDs from state schools and colleges? Why? Most state IDs post 9/11 require birth certificates, unobtainable for a certain generation of rural Southern blacks, most of whom were delivered at home with no real state records being kept. What you suggest, Grendel, SOUNDS fair and good, although, as noted, addressing an issue which clearly doesn't exist, but the devil is in the details. Why not taking on a proven source of potential fraud, such as tightening the rules on absentee ballots or cleaning up the voting rolls(costly to do right)?

[woodchip]

There are no barriers as you need a ID of some sort to:

Drive a car
Buy liqueur
Receive welfare
Receive social security
Receive medicaid
Get a loan
Buy a firearm (legally)
Receive medicare

So tell me again why you shouldn't have a ID and be able to show it before voting.

So what you are saying is that you don't understand how those activities are different than voting? Time to go back to grade school civics class I guess...

Where did I say my list items were comparable to voting? Perhaps it is you who needs to go back to school to learn reading comprehension.

[woodchip]

Most state IDs post 9/11 require birth certificates, unobtainable for a certain generation of rural Southern blacks, most of whom were delivered at home with no real state records being kept.

So that generation of blacks cannot drive a car then? Can't go into a party store to buy a bottle of wine? So how do these people live if there is no record of them?

[callmeslick]

So that generation of blacks cannot drive a car then?

nope, mostly.

Can't go into a party store to buy a bottle of wine? So how do these people live if there is no record of them?

I guess you don't live in a rural part of America, at least surely never in the south. In most cases, the storekeepers have known them since they were children, so not about to card them. As for living, what about having to have 'official' records precludes living? Once again, you show that you don't understand the situation at all, likely due to lack of experience around folks living that way.

[Top Gun]

If getting a government ID was as straightforward as running out to buy a Slurpee, I don't think anyone would have an issue with voter ID laws. But when one party is attempting to enact said laws that specifically disenfranchise groups most likely to not vote for said party, it's pretty goddamn obvious what the real motive is.

[callmeslick]

yes it is, to most of us, it would seem.

[Jeff250]

Ah, a specific ID just to vote ? That's stupid when almost everyone already has a government issued ID. Just spend a little more money to make divers license/id cards more easily accessible to the 1% that don't have one.

If they want you to have an ID to vote, then they should give you a suitable ID when you register to vote. The only problem with this is that it wouldn't disenfranchise anyone.

[callmeslick]

wouldn't it be nice if we addressed the issue of trying to approach FULL franchise. Far too many pockets of the nation are under registered, let alone worrying about restrictive ID laws. Georgia, Florida and Texas have been the focus of a big registration effort in the past 3 years, we'll see how much the numbers go up and affect outcomes this November. Early polling from Georgia and Florida look REAL promising.

[woodchip]

Early polling is meaningless.

[callmeslick]

not in terms of what I was talking about. Bottom line is this: we currently have about 70% of eligible voters registered, and about half of them actually vote. That means we have about 1/3 of the eligible voters participating. I'd like to see more like 90% registered and 75% of them voting. I'd love to see close to 100% but that only happens in forcible election situations, to be honest. And, I would NOT support mandatory participation.

[woodchip]

Would you support only those who pay taxes and their spouses be able to vote?

[callmeslick]

Would you support only those who pay taxes and their spouses be able to vote?

do you include excise taxes, medicare taxes and sales taxes in that? If so, I'd consider it.

[Top Gun]

Early polling is meaningless.

Except when it says that Trump is totally winning guys, for srs!

[callmeslick]

ummm, Woody? I see you posted, yet forgot to clarify the obvious....that 'paying taxes' means any taxes, right? And, since we all, directly or indirectly pay those, daily, all of us get to vote, right? That whole idiocy(and yes, I'm restraining my true disdain) around how few 'pay taxes' based solely upon Income Taxes, is a farce. Every time the GOP demanded a drop in income or cap-gains taxation, they managed to sneak in a jump in virtually every excise tax. What THAT didn't cover, they passed onto the states to finance, via sales, income taxes and an assortment of 'fees'. The inference that some of your fellow citizens don't 'pay taxes' is an ignorant slap in the face to perfectly good human beings.

[Spidey]

I’d be in full support of a concerted effort to get 100% participation, but first we have to break up the two party system.