|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Do you need an address to register to vote? Curious how a homeless person goes about this.
|
On June 27 2013 01:23 mordek wrote:
Do you need an address to register to vote? Curious how a homeless person goes about this.
Yes, you need an address to vote, and in the case of the homeless, they can use a shelter or church home.
More to the news of the day, good job Scotus 
|
Probably here nor there, but how difficult would it be to register as a homeless person at a shelter and still be registered under a different name/address? You obviously couldn't abuse this en masse I suppose. Is there anything to stop voter ID cards from being issued at the time of registration, the current barrier to voting?
|
I'm happy with the scotus decision on doma, hope the implications of this are as big as one can dream, but you never know.
Also props to that lady from Texas.
|
On June 27 2013 00:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:13 marvellosity wrote:On June 27 2013 00:10 Nymzee wrote:On June 27 2013 00:09 marvellosity wrote:On June 27 2013 00:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Here's an absolutely blistering attack on DOMA from Kennedy's opinion striking down DOMA: DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits. DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf Wow, there's no holding back there. Terminology like "humiliates", "demeans", "second-tier" is pretty strong. He's correct though. I agree, I just didn't expect a Supreme Court judge to go at it like that. Not that I'm a great expert on how they usually go at it. Of course, to be a Supreme Court Justice (let alone a lawyer or anything in the field of law), you have to be very professional with how you word everything.
Scalia and his broccoli beg to differ!
|
I have never had ill will towards anyone but Scalia is just an awful human being IMO.
|
I mostly dont get how someone who has such a screwed view of the justice system can become a judge. let alone a supreme judge.
|
I loved reading Scalia's dissenting opinion, where he was joined by Scalia and partly joined by the Chief Justice. It has at its heart the question of the nature of the court and why the court exists.
This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.
[...]
They gave judges, in Article III, only the “judicial Power,” a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete “Cases” and “Controversies.” Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here?
Show nested quote +Of course, to be a Supreme Court Justice (let alone a lawyer or anything in the field of law), you have to be very professional with how you word everything. Scalia and his broccoli beg to differ!
In saying this, you are making the comparison between verbal arguments made before the court and the opinion of the court.
|
|
|
On June 27 2013 01:20 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:02 ziggurat wrote:On June 27 2013 00:57 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 00:52 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 13:17 coverpunch wrote:On June 26 2013 12:11 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 06:30 mordek wrote:
Couldn't this have bigger implications for local elections? I mean "no one is doubting the legitimate victor is elected" is probably true with the large numbers for the president but I feel like local corruption and voter fraud would be the main benefactor.
You see disenfranchisement, others see improvement in legitimacy. You're both right and you should work toward a middle ground. I think with a good faith effort to get everyone who wants a voter ID a card there is no problem with checking identities. You are exactly right. There are many documented examples of the outcomes of local elections being affected by voter fraud. How many elections need to be decided by voter fraud before you would change your mind and decide voter ID is necessary? To me, it seems pretty reasonable to require ID. Other posters have said that it should be cheap and there should be advance notice so people intending to vote have time to get it, which makes perfect sense. Whether a particular jurisdiction should actually require ID -- and what kind of ID -- is up to them I guess. I'm not saying that it should be necessary in every situation. But I think it's a reasonable step when there's a reasonable apprehension of fraud. There has never been a reasonable apprehension of fraud. They drummed up fear based on tiny, tiny, tiny numbers. And it discriminates against some elderly and the homeless, who still have a right to vote. As I said before, there are many documented cases of fraud affecting the outcome of elections. I don't know how you can possibly pretend that there aren't. As a starting point you could have a look at Justice Stevens' majority opinion in Crawford v Marion County. The opinion that says, "The record (that the law SEA 483) contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history"? And the case he cites, where voter fraud occurred in a 2003 mayoral election, actually occurred through absentee ballots, which the law doesn't address. Voter IDs would have made zero impact on the example he used. Plus the crux of the issue in Indiana is/was the terrible record keeping. That's on election boards more than the voters.
Here is the full paragraph that you quoted from Justice Stevens:
The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. Moreover, petitioners argue that provisions of the Indiana Criminal Code punishing such conduct as a felony provide adequate protection against the risk that such conduct will occur in the future. It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,[fn11] that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years,[fn12] and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor [fn13]—though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud—demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.
It seems like a pretty clear statement to me.
Anyway, I'm really puzzled about why this is such a partisan issue. Do the democrats really have such a big lead among voters who are too inept to get photo id? I thought liberals like to think that they're the party of smart people! 
|
On June 27 2013 06:47 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:20 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 01:02 ziggurat wrote:On June 27 2013 00:57 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 00:52 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 13:17 coverpunch wrote:On June 26 2013 12:11 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 06:30 mordek wrote:
Couldn't this have bigger implications for local elections? I mean "no one is doubting the legitimate victor is elected" is probably true with the large numbers for the president but I feel like local corruption and voter fraud would be the main benefactor.
You see disenfranchisement, others see improvement in legitimacy. You're both right and you should work toward a middle ground. I think with a good faith effort to get everyone who wants a voter ID a card there is no problem with checking identities. You are exactly right. There are many documented examples of the outcomes of local elections being affected by voter fraud. How many elections need to be decided by voter fraud before you would change your mind and decide voter ID is necessary? To me, it seems pretty reasonable to require ID. Other posters have said that it should be cheap and there should be advance notice so people intending to vote have time to get it, which makes perfect sense. Whether a particular jurisdiction should actually require ID -- and what kind of ID -- is up to them I guess. I'm not saying that it should be necessary in every situation. But I think it's a reasonable step when there's a reasonable apprehension of fraud. There has never been a reasonable apprehension of fraud. They drummed up fear based on tiny, tiny, tiny numbers. And it discriminates against some elderly and the homeless, who still have a right to vote. As I said before, there are many documented cases of fraud affecting the outcome of elections. I don't know how you can possibly pretend that there aren't. As a starting point you could have a look at Justice Stevens' majority opinion in Crawford v Marion County. The opinion that says, "The record (that the law SEA 483) contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history"? And the case he cites, where voter fraud occurred in a 2003 mayoral election, actually occurred through absentee ballots, which the law doesn't address. Voter IDs would have made zero impact on the example he used. Plus the crux of the issue in Indiana is/was the terrible record keeping. That's on election boards more than the voters. Here is the full paragraph that you quoted from Justice Stevens: Show nested quote +The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. Moreover, petitioners argue that provisions of the Indiana Criminal Code punishing such conduct as a felony provide adequate protection against the risk that such conduct will occur in the future. It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,[fn11] that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years,[fn12] and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor [fn13]—though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud—demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.
It seems like a pretty clear statement to me. Anyway, I'm really puzzled about why this is such a partisan issue. Do the democrats really have such a big lead among voters who are too inept to get photo id? I thought liberals like to think that they're the party of smart people!
I see it as a front to obstruct voting access. I would prefer to get as many people to vote as possible, which I think should be a common goal between parties. Get more people to vote, and while doing so, maybe you can get them to vote for you. Any push to restrict this is seen, by me particularly, as an outright admittance that you cannot convince more people to vote for you and your positions are unpopular. You would rather shrink the voting pie in your favor instead of growing it.
|
On June 27 2013 06:47 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:20 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 01:02 ziggurat wrote:On June 27 2013 00:57 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 00:52 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 13:17 coverpunch wrote:On June 26 2013 12:11 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 06:30 mordek wrote:
Couldn't this have bigger implications for local elections? I mean "no one is doubting the legitimate victor is elected" is probably true with the large numbers for the president but I feel like local corruption and voter fraud would be the main benefactor.
You see disenfranchisement, others see improvement in legitimacy. You're both right and you should work toward a middle ground. I think with a good faith effort to get everyone who wants a voter ID a card there is no problem with checking identities. You are exactly right. There are many documented examples of the outcomes of local elections being affected by voter fraud. How many elections need to be decided by voter fraud before you would change your mind and decide voter ID is necessary? To me, it seems pretty reasonable to require ID. Other posters have said that it should be cheap and there should be advance notice so people intending to vote have time to get it, which makes perfect sense. Whether a particular jurisdiction should actually require ID -- and what kind of ID -- is up to them I guess. I'm not saying that it should be necessary in every situation. But I think it's a reasonable step when there's a reasonable apprehension of fraud. There has never been a reasonable apprehension of fraud. They drummed up fear based on tiny, tiny, tiny numbers. And it discriminates against some elderly and the homeless, who still have a right to vote. As I said before, there are many documented cases of fraud affecting the outcome of elections. I don't know how you can possibly pretend that there aren't. As a starting point you could have a look at Justice Stevens' majority opinion in Crawford v Marion County. The opinion that says, "The record (that the law SEA 483) contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history"? And the case he cites, where voter fraud occurred in a 2003 mayoral election, actually occurred through absentee ballots, which the law doesn't address. Voter IDs would have made zero impact on the example he used. Plus the crux of the issue in Indiana is/was the terrible record keeping. That's on election boards more than the voters. Here is the full paragraph that you quoted from Justice Stevens: Show nested quote +The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. Moreover, petitioners argue that provisions of the Indiana Criminal Code punishing such conduct as a felony provide adequate protection against the risk that such conduct will occur in the future. It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,[fn11] that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years,[fn12] and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor [fn13]—though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud—demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.
It seems like a pretty clear statement to me. Anyway, I'm really puzzled about why this is such a partisan issue. Do the democrats really have such a big lead among voters who are too inept to get photo id? I thought liberals like to think that they're the party of smart people!
poor people and minorities are predominantly less likely to have photo ids because its either too expensive or cumbersome or they fear the government because of historic animosity they faced from the state.
|
On June 27 2013 07:20 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:47 ziggurat wrote:On June 27 2013 01:20 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 01:02 ziggurat wrote:On June 27 2013 00:57 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 00:52 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 13:17 coverpunch wrote:On June 26 2013 12:11 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 06:30 mordek wrote:
Couldn't this have bigger implications for local elections? I mean "no one is doubting the legitimate victor is elected" is probably true with the large numbers for the president but I feel like local corruption and voter fraud would be the main benefactor.
You see disenfranchisement, others see improvement in legitimacy. You're both right and you should work toward a middle ground. I think with a good faith effort to get everyone who wants a voter ID a card there is no problem with checking identities. You are exactly right. There are many documented examples of the outcomes of local elections being affected by voter fraud. How many elections need to be decided by voter fraud before you would change your mind and decide voter ID is necessary? To me, it seems pretty reasonable to require ID. Other posters have said that it should be cheap and there should be advance notice so people intending to vote have time to get it, which makes perfect sense. Whether a particular jurisdiction should actually require ID -- and what kind of ID -- is up to them I guess. I'm not saying that it should be necessary in every situation. But I think it's a reasonable step when there's a reasonable apprehension of fraud. There has never been a reasonable apprehension of fraud. They drummed up fear based on tiny, tiny, tiny numbers. And it discriminates against some elderly and the homeless, who still have a right to vote. As I said before, there are many documented cases of fraud affecting the outcome of elections. I don't know how you can possibly pretend that there aren't. As a starting point you could have a look at Justice Stevens' majority opinion in Crawford v Marion County. The opinion that says, "The record (that the law SEA 483) contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history"? And the case he cites, where voter fraud occurred in a 2003 mayoral election, actually occurred through absentee ballots, which the law doesn't address. Voter IDs would have made zero impact on the example he used. Plus the crux of the issue in Indiana is/was the terrible record keeping. That's on election boards more than the voters. Here is the full paragraph that you quoted from Justice Stevens: The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. Moreover, petitioners argue that provisions of the Indiana Criminal Code punishing such conduct as a felony provide adequate protection against the risk that such conduct will occur in the future. It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,[fn11] that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years,[fn12] and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor [fn13]—though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud—demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.
It seems like a pretty clear statement to me. Anyway, I'm really puzzled about why this is such a partisan issue. Do the democrats really have such a big lead among voters who are too inept to get photo id? I thought liberals like to think that they're the party of smart people! poor people and minorities are predominantly less likely to have photo ids because its either too expensive or cumbersome or they fear the government because of historic animosity they faced from the state.
Do people that fear the government vote? I'm curious. It seems like these rules target people that don't show up on poll day anyways. That's not a good argument just wondering.
|
Bad News, Married Gay Couples—Here's How Your Taxes Are Going to Go Up Marriage equality will reduce the federal deficit because on the spending side some things will go up while others go down, while on the tax side revenues will go up. So how much more will married gay and lesbian couples be paying now that the Defense of Marriage Act is gone and the IRS is required to recognize the validity of your marriage? The answer is—it depends (boring)—but potentially quite large if you and your partner have similar incomes and you're pretty rich. ![[image loading]](http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2013/06/26/doma_tax_hike_marriage_equality_will_raise_taxes/marriage%20penalty.png.CROP.article568-large.png)
Link
Freakin' taxes...
|
On June 27 2013 07:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Bad News, Married Gay Couples—Here's How Your Taxes Are Going to Go Up Marriage equality will reduce the federal deficit because on the spending side some things will go up while others go down, while on the tax side revenues will go up. So how much more will married gay and lesbian couples be paying now that the Defense of Marriage Act is gone and the IRS is required to recognize the validity of your marriage? The answer is—it depends (boring)—but potentially quite large if you and your partner have similar incomes and you're pretty rich. LinkFreakin' taxes...
Only if they file jointly.
|
On June 27 2013 07:50 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 07:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Bad News, Married Gay Couples—Here's How Your Taxes Are Going to Go Up Marriage equality will reduce the federal deficit because on the spending side some things will go up while others go down, while on the tax side revenues will go up. So how much more will married gay and lesbian couples be paying now that the Defense of Marriage Act is gone and the IRS is required to recognize the validity of your marriage? The answer is—it depends (boring)—but potentially quite large if you and your partner have similar incomes and you're pretty rich. Freakin' taxes... Only if they file jointly.
I think married filing separately is worse 
|
On June 27 2013 08:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 07:50 aksfjh wrote:On June 27 2013 07:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Bad News, Married Gay Couples—Here's How Your Taxes Are Going to Go Up Marriage equality will reduce the federal deficit because on the spending side some things will go up while others go down, while on the tax side revenues will go up. So how much more will married gay and lesbian couples be paying now that the Defense of Marriage Act is gone and the IRS is required to recognize the validity of your marriage? The answer is—it depends (boring)—but potentially quite large if you and your partner have similar incomes and you're pretty rich. Freakin' taxes... Only if they file jointly. I think married filing separately is worse
You're right. Not sure why I was under the impression that filing separately treated their brackets as if they were single. Maybe there was a change sometime in the past 4 years or something, or I don't remember correctly...
|
On June 27 2013 09:55 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 08:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 27 2013 07:50 aksfjh wrote:On June 27 2013 07:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Bad News, Married Gay Couples—Here's How Your Taxes Are Going to Go Up Marriage equality will reduce the federal deficit because on the spending side some things will go up while others go down, while on the tax side revenues will go up. So how much more will married gay and lesbian couples be paying now that the Defense of Marriage Act is gone and the IRS is required to recognize the validity of your marriage? The answer is—it depends (boring)—but potentially quite large if you and your partner have similar incomes and you're pretty rich. Freakin' taxes... Only if they file jointly. I think married filing separately is worse You're right. Not sure why I was under the impression that filing separately treated their brackets as if they were single. Maybe there was a change sometime in the past 4 years or something, or I don't remember correctly...
Yeah, that's what I thought too (it came up a couple days ago in the special MA election). They got rid of the "marriage penalty" but that's something different.
|
On June 27 2013 03:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Of course, to be a Supreme Court Justice (let alone a lawyer or anything in the field of law), you have to be very professional with how you word everything. Scalia and his broccoli beg to differ! In saying this, you are making the comparison between verbal arguments made before the court and the opinion of the court.
I was referring to the verbal arguments, yes. His comparison was extremely unprofessional since it clearly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the issue he was supposed to have been studying for quite some time. I wasn't talking about the opinion of the court.
|
On June 27 2013 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:55 aksfjh wrote:On June 27 2013 08:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 27 2013 07:50 aksfjh wrote:On June 27 2013 07:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Bad News, Married Gay Couples—Here's How Your Taxes Are Going to Go Up Marriage equality will reduce the federal deficit because on the spending side some things will go up while others go down, while on the tax side revenues will go up. So how much more will married gay and lesbian couples be paying now that the Defense of Marriage Act is gone and the IRS is required to recognize the validity of your marriage? The answer is—it depends (boring)—but potentially quite large if you and your partner have similar incomes and you're pretty rich. Freakin' taxes... Only if they file jointly. I think married filing separately is worse You're right. Not sure why I was under the impression that filing separately treated their brackets as if they were single. Maybe there was a change sometime in the past 4 years or something, or I don't remember correctly... Yeah, that's what I thought too (it came up a couple days ago in the special MA election). They got rid of the "marriage penalty" but that's something different.
I think I was misled by the lower brackets (anything below 28%), since it doesn't kick in until then. Learn something new every day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
