DOJ, liberal groups that oppose voter ID require photo ID to enter their buildings

posted at 1:50 pm on April 5, 2012 by Rob Bluey

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is currently blocking implementation of voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas, claiming such measures are “unnecessary,” discriminatory and would make it harder for minorities to vote.

But if you’re planning to visit Holder’s office in Washington, D.C., you better bring a photo ID. The Department of Justice has two armed guards stationed outside its headquarters to check IDs of anyone who wants to enter — employees and visitors.

Holder’s politically motivated crusade against voter ID laws has the support of liberal advocacy organizations ranging from the Center for American Progress and Media Matters to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Advancement Project.

Each of these organizations has criticized photo identification for voting, yet they require it to enter their Washington, D.C., offices as well. There’s even a sign in the building of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: “ALL VISITORS MUST SHOW ID.”

PJTV has the scoop:

Holder is able to block laws in South Carolina on Texas because they are subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a civil rights-era law that gives the Department of Justice authority over voting changes. It remains unclear if those states will be able to enforce their laws for this November’s election.

“The Obama-Holder Department of Justice has launched an all-out war on voter ID and other measures,” former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell said upon launching a new initiative called Protect Your Vote. “Although Holder’s actions are purported to prevent African-Americans from being disenfranchised, in reality they serve as a crass political attempt to ensure his boss gets re-elected this year.”

Liberals have long trotted out false arguments about voter ID laws, claiming they suppress the vote among those individuals who do not have photo identification. But a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case upholding Indiana’s voter ID law revealed there was no such hardship. Opponents of the law were unable to produce a single plaintiff who could plausibly claim inability to get a photo ID. In addition, states with longstanding voter ID laws, such as Georgia and Indiana, have actually experienced an increase in turnout of minority voters.

Rob Bluey directs the Center for Media and Public Policy, an investigative journalism operation at The Heritage Foundation. Follow him on Twitter: @RobertBluey


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Democrat party = fraudsters. No other reason for this.

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Racists

forest on April 5, 2012 at 1:51 PM

I guess they don’t want poor people and minorities going into their buildings /sarc

BuzzCrutcher on April 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Coca-Cola hardest hit…

PatriotRider on April 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

The Department of Justice has two armed guards stationed outside its headquarters to check IDs of anyone who wants to enter — employees and visitors.

Check their IDs for what, exactly?

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Opponents of the law were unable to produce a single plaintiff who could plausibly claim inability to get a photo ID. In addition, states with longstanding voter ID laws, such as Georgia and Indiana, have actually experienced an increase in turnout of minority voters.

Uh, then why the hell don’t the Dems support voter ID laws? Seriously, if more minority voters are showing up that polls, that helps them. Remember, they won Indiana in 2008 and that’s a fairly solid red state.

Doughboy on April 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Ha, ha, ha. The Obama Administration is losing the narrative game literally by the hour! I love it!

Rational Thought on April 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Different rules for different people. It’s how these folks think.

rbj on April 5, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I guess they don’t want poor people and minorities going into their buildings /sarc

BuzzCrutcher on April 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

What they probably don’t want are “homeless” wretches taking showers in their pretty restrooms.

Because that’s what happens in downtown D.C. if you don’t do something to stop it.

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Boycott Coke for being wussies.

Boycott Pepsi for having an anti-American CEO and for displaying the O-sign on bottles.

Lefties are hyporites? The sun rose, in the East, again.

Schadenfreude on April 5, 2012 at 1:54 PM

This summer is going to be pure chaos.

SouthernGent on April 5, 2012 at 1:54 PM

So Holder is racist against his own race.

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 1:55 PM

But that’s different see.

It says so right there in the all purpose books of Relativism; chapter on liberalism. 1 trillionth un-printed edition.

Logus on April 5, 2012 at 1:55 PM

“No ID? Well, I’m going to have to ask you to leave – with this assault rifle.”

forest on April 5, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Lefties are hyporites? The sun rose, in the East, again.

Schadenfreude on April 5, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Granted, but it never hurts to continue pointing it out.

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Who can blame them? They don’t want dead people in their offices!

aniptofar on April 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM

You think our Imperial Overlords would chance having to mix with the hoi polloi?

Hint: those getting government handouts, a number of whom are “Holder’s People” MUST present ID to get them…

wildcat72 on April 5, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Some animals are more equal than others.

John the Libertarian on April 5, 2012 at 1:58 PM

What they probably don’t want are “homeless” wretches taking showers in their pretty restrooms.

Because that’s what happens in downtown D.C. if you don’t do something to stop it.

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I remember being in Washington back when Clinton was Prez. We were walking along Constitution Avenue one night and this homeless guy was sleeping on the sidewalk just a half-block from the White House. I couldn’t help thinking that Clinton supposedly cared so much for the poor yet here is a homeless guy camped out next door to Clinton’s residence. Delicious irony.

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 2:00 PM

“Vote for us, just don’t expect to associate with us.”

The Count on April 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Who can blame them? They don’t want dead people in their offices!

aniptofar on April 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM

ROFLOL!

yhxqqsn on April 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM

How will illegals and certain democrats vote, or vote multiple times, for Obama in November if they have to show id?

I agree with Holder on this. This is just wrong.

In other embarassing moments from Eric Holder, can someone post the letter he sent to Judge Smith.

milcus on April 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Who can blame them? They don’t want dead people in their offices!

aniptofar on April 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I nominate this for thread winner! As I posted on the Coca-cola thread, O’Keefe made video of the walking dead voting in New Hampshire and just plain voter fraud in Vermont.

Now we have news stories from all over the country of dems being busted, indicted or convicted of voter fraud. How much more evidence do people need?

dogsoldier on April 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM

OT: Legal Insurrection has Holder’s letter to the 5th circuit judge.

Rational Thought on April 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/sat-cheating-targeted-rules-students-235053897.html

Why are the SATs trying to block minorities’ rights to an education?

Ben Hur on April 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Try to enter any federal building or facility without a current photo ID…

coldwarrior on April 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I remember being in Washington back when Clinton was Prez. We were walking along Constitution Avenue one night and this homeless guy was sleeping on the sidewalk just a half-block from the White House. I couldn’t help thinking that Clinton supposedly cared so much for the poor yet here is a homeless guy camped out next door to Clinton’s residence. Delicious irony.

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Even Democrat politicians know you can’t do anything about “homelessness” other than throw money at the problem, which only makes the problem worse.

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Given that the DOJ’s policy is to consider the requirement of photo IDs for the exercise of civil rights to be de facto discriminatory, and given that the Supreme Court has (finally) declared that the 2nd Amendment affirms an individual right to own firearms, and given the DOJ’s regulations requires a photo ID to exercise that right and purchase a firearm, and given the racist history of gun control laws in disarming minorities, we can only conclude that the DOJ is illegally, unconstitutionally, and with racial animus seeking through its policies and regulations to suppress minority exercise of their 2nd Amendment civil rights.

Socratease on April 5, 2012 at 2:04 PM

OT: Legal Insurrection has Holder’s letter to the 5th circuit judge.

Rational Thought on April 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Abovethelaw posted it awhile back. It is pretty awful. And nowhere near 3 pages.

milcus on April 5, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I take it, Blacks aren’t allowed into those buildings? Once upon a time it was just drinking fountains and bathrooms, now it’s entire buildings.

Democrat trash…putting the progress in progressive!

MNHawk on April 5, 2012 at 2:05 PM

But if you’re planning to visit Holder’s office in Washington, D.C., you better bring a photo ID. The Department of Justice has two armed guards stationed outside its headquarters to check IDs of anyone who wants to enter — employees and visitors.

..this is clearly an act by left wing extremists to oppress and shut down the free movement of American citizens and stomp on their rights to come and go on their own free will.

How dare government officials force their totalitarian,racist methods on the good people of America who pay for this building and their salaries.

Just another example of the fascist policies inflicted upon the American citizens from our dictator and Chief Obama./

Baxter Greene on April 5, 2012 at 2:05 PM

“It remains unclear if those states will be able to enforce their laws for this November’s election.”

I say go ahead and ask for Id’s…

… Force Holder’s hand.

Let us see how he actually takes responsibility for something…

… Can you imagine the pictures of his goon squads attacking elderly poll volunteers while ballots are grabbed by the fist full?

Seven Percent Solution on April 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Give Holder a break. He just doesn’t want blacks or Latinos bothering him.

malclave on April 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Abovethelaw posted it awhile back. It is pretty awful. And nowhere near 3 pages.

milcus on April 5, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Did they use ComicSans?

tetriskid on April 5, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Ha, ha, ha. The Obama Administration is losing the narrative game literally by the hour! I love it!

Rational Thought on April 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Hey their attacks on Free speech fizzled out.

They assault on the Liberty of self-defense in the Sanford tragedy is going nowhere.

The funny thing is, each time they try using a serious crisis and it doesn’t work, it makes that much harder for them to use the same technique again.

Remember you National Socialist Leftists, we’re not laughing with you, we’re Laughing AT YOU!

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty – Ronald Reagan

Chip on April 5, 2012 at 2:08 PM

But if you’re planning to visit Holder’s office in Washington, D.C., you better bring a photo ID. The Department of Justice has two armed guards stationed outside its headquarters to check IDs of anyone who wants to enter — employees and visitors.

Which again begs the question, what are they checking it for?

Will any photo I.D. do? Or just certain photo I.D.s? For example, those issued by the federal government or by states?

Will a student photo I.D. do? Because anyone can get one of those.

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 2:10 PM

OT: Legal Insurrection has Holder’s letter to the 5th circuit judge.

Rational Thought on April 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Abovethelaw posted it awhile back. It is pretty awful. And nowhere near 3 pages.

milcus on April 5, 2012 at 2:05 PM

It’s not getting much media attention yet. A federal judge in Texas made Holder and Barack blink — I wonder why the media isn’t covering that?

Rational Thought on April 5, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Doesn’t requiring voter ID to enter the DOJ interfere with the disadvantaged’s right to petition for the redress of grievances? #dojracists

blammm on April 5, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Who can blame them? They don’t want dead people in their offices!

aniptofar on April 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Well, this thread is all done with, we can go on to the next one now. :-)

Doomberg on April 5, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Yes, I’m sure the whole needing ID thing to enter federal buildings started with Obama. Are idiots serious?

cornfedbubba on April 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Holder wants to limit the number of minorities and poor who can enter the building.

kozmo on April 5, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Just how many red states/elected officials in the states does holder/team have law suit against in some fashion?
How many blue states? Does anyone know?
L

letget on April 5, 2012 at 2:17 PM

It’s not getting much media attention yet. A federal judge in Texas made Holder and Barack blink — I wonder why the media isn’t covering that?

Rational Thought on April 5, 2012 at 2:11 PM

It’s starting to make the rounds. Drudge linked to a Fox story about it. Several legal blogs posted it already.

It is a 2 1/4 page letter that tries to stick to the case before Judge Smith, and gives correct legal citation. It was just poorly written. He did not tie points together very well. He ended the letter with a quote (I think any 3rd grader knows never to end a paragraph, let alone letter with a quote.)

I think it diffuses the situation unless Obama or Biden say something stupid, or Judge Smith does not like that it was not 3 pages.

milcus on April 5, 2012 at 2:18 PM

So Holder is racist against his own race.

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 1:55 PM

…(should be)…So, Holder is racist against…“my people!”!

KOOLAID2 on April 5, 2012 at 2:18 PM

If I were blac er, African American, and some one suggested I was incapable of obtaining identification, I would kick his butt. I’m not dumb, lazy, shiftless, incapable of reason. I knnow what ID means. I buy beer occaisionally all by myself. Dems count on voter fraud.

StevC on April 5, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Liberals have long trotted out false arguments about voter ID laws, claiming they suppress the vote among those individuals who do not have photo identification. But a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case upholding Indiana’s voter ID law revealed there was no such hardship.

So what’s the Dems’ real motive here. Hmm. I sure can’t think of anything…

Cicero43 on April 5, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Holder: Do as I say, not as I do.

timberline on April 5, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Who can blame them? They don’t want dead people in their offices!

aniptofar on April 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I nominate this for thread winner!

dogsoldier on April 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I second that.

UltimateBob on April 5, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Yes, I’m sure the whole needing ID thing to enter federal buildings started with Obama. Are idiots serious?

cornfedbubba on April 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Didn’t take long to see that this thread went right over your head.

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM

These states which Holder is leaning ought to enforce their vetting laws and make Obama produce a legal BC before allowing his name on the Presidential ballot.

timberline on April 5, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Yes, I’m sure the whole needing ID thing to enter federal buildings started with Obama. Are idiots serious?

cornfedbubba on April 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

You’re the expert in that area, so you tell us.

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Yes, I’m sure the whole needing ID thing to enter federal buildings started with Obama. Are idiots serious?

cornfedbubba on April 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

So you’re saying this is a policy beyond his control?

Because Bush started it, presumably.

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Rob,

Haven’t we learned anything? The appropriate title is:

“DoJ, Center for American Progress, Media Matters Restrict Minority Access to Facilities”

p0s3r on April 5, 2012 at 2:25 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/sat-cheating-targeted-rules-students-235053897.html

Why are the SATs trying to block minorities’ rights to an education?

Ben Hur on April 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I have to wonder if this is related to how little Bammie got into and through college and somehow passed the bar.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I guess they don’t want poor people and minorities going into their buildings /sarc

BuzzCrutcher on April 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

They don’t want outsiders to see that the GSA’s clowns and commemorative coins were just a hint at the waste that goes on within the government.

Happy Nomad on April 5, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Yes, I’m sure the whole needing ID thing to enter federal buildings started with Obama. Are idiots serious?

cornfedbubba on April 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Did you ever wonder about why people roll their eyes all the time when they’re trying to explain something to you?

Cicero43 on April 5, 2012 at 2:28 PM

If the Left actually cared about helping minorities they would be doing everything they can to make sure that those that lack ID have ID.

Not having valid identification forecloses options that many would deem necessary to engage in commerce of nearly every sort: it prevents someone from driving, at least legally, and precludes flying. Getting a bank account is difficult without some form of valid ID; even most check cashing and payday loan companies require a driver’s license before extending credit. And, perhaps most importantly, federal law requires an employer to complete form I-9 before putting a worker on payroll, to prove that he has the legal right to work in this country, and that necessitates some form of government

But the Left doesn’t care about this. Conservatives are the people trying to get IDs in their hands.

The Democrat party on the wrong side of history, yet again.

visions on April 5, 2012 at 2:30 PM

OT: DOJ Letter to 5th Circuit Court

TEXT: Read Eric Holder’s DOJ Response to 5th Circuit on Authority of the Supreme Court
by Fox News Insider Posted in: Affordable Care Act, Department of Justice, DOJ, Eric Holder, Obamacare, Supreme Court

Below is the full letter signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, requested by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals following comments made by President Obama calling the DOJ’s stance into question.

Judge Jerry E. Smith
Judge Emilio M. Garza
Judge Leslie H. Southwick
c/o Mr. Lyle W. Cayce

April 5, 2012
Clerk, United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
600 S. Maestri Place
ew Orleans, LA 70130
RE: Phvsician Hospitals o[America v. Sebelius. No. 11-40631

Dear Judge Smith, Judge Garza, and Judge Southwick:

This Court’s letter of April 3, 2012 requested a response to questions raised at oral argument in this case, Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebelius, No. 11-4063 1. From the electronic recording of the argument, I understand the Court to have requested the views of the Department of Justice regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. The Court indicated that its inquiry was prompted by recent statements of the President.

The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the government at oral argument in this case a few days ago. The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.

The government’s brief cites jurisdictional bars to the instant suit and urges that plaintiffs’ constitutional claims are insubstantial. See Appellee Br. ofthe United States at 17-38. At no point has the government suggested that the Court would lack authority to review plaintiffs’ constitutional claims if the Cour1 were to conclude that jurisdiction exists. The case has been fully briefed and argued, and it is ready for disposition. The question posed by the Court regarding judicial review does not concern any argument made in the government’s brief or at oral argument in this case, and this letter should not be regarded as a supplemental brief.

1. The power of the courts to review the constitutional ity of legislation is beyond dispute. See generally, e.g. , Free Ente1prise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. , 130 S. Ct. 3138 (20 10); FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993). The Supreme Court resolved this question in Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177-78 ( 1803). In that case, Case: 11-40631 Document: 00511812922 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2012 the Court held that ” [i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury, 1 Cranch at 177.

The Supreme Court has further explained that this power may only be exercised in appropriate cases. “If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or expounding the law in the course of doing so.” Daim/erChJys/er C01p. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006); see, e.g., Weinberger v. Sa/fi, 422 U.S. 749, 763-766 (1975) (addressing a statutory bar to jurisdiction). In the case before this Court – Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebe/ius, o. 11-40631 -we have argued that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. See Appellee Br. of the United States at 15-38.

Where a plaintiff properly invokes the jurisdiction of a court and presents a justiciable challenge, there is no dispute that courts properly review the constitutionality of Acts of Congress.

2. In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993), and the Supreme Court stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.” United States v. Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221,346 U.S. 441 , 449 (1953); see, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 (2005) (noting that the “congressional judgment” at issue was “entitled to a strong presumption of validity”). The Supreme Court has explained: “This is not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power or is necessary and proper to execution of that power.” Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221, 346 U.S. at 449. In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional. See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803 , 1820 (20 1 0) (“Respect for a coordinate branch of Government forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality.”); Beach Communications, Inc. , 508 U.S. at314-15.

3. While duly recognizing the courts’ authority to engage in judicial review, the Executive Branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress. See, e.g. , Nature ‘s Daily. v. Glickman, 1999 WL 158 1396, at *6; State University of New York v. Anderson, 1999 WL 680463, at *6; Rojas v. Fitch, 1998 WL 457203, at *7; United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 75i v. Brown Group, 1995 WL 938594, at *6. The Supreme Court has often acknowledged the appropriateness of reliance on the political branches’ policy choices and judgments. See, e.g., Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 329 (2006) (explaining that, in granting relief, the courts ‘·try not to nullify more of a legislature’s work than is necessary” because they recognize that’” [a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people’”(alteration in the original) (quoting Regan v. Time, inc. , 468 U.S. 641, 652 (1984) (plurality opinion))); Turner Broadcasting System, inc., 512 U.S. at 665-66. The “Court accords ‘ great The “Court accords ‘ great weight to the decisions of Congress”‘ in part because “[t]he Congress is a coequal branch of government whose Members take the same oath [judges] do to uphold the Constitution of the United States.” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57,64 (1981) (quoting Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102 (1973)). These principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere. The courts accord particular deference when evaluating the appropriateness of the means Congress has chosen to exercise its enumerated powers, including the Commerce Clause, to accomplish constitutional ends. See, e.g. , NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 32 (1937); McCulloch v. Matyland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 408 (1819). See also Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529, 566 (6th Cir. 20 11) (Opinion of Sutton, J.); Seven Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1, 18-19 (D.C. Cir. 201 1) (Opinion of Silberman, J .)

The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.
[Filed and served via ECF]

Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General

Case: 11-40631 Document: 00511812922 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2012

timberline on April 5, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Special note to the national association for the advancement of (d-cRAT socialist) colored people: the EXACT SAME photo ID that’s needed to buy a bottle of Colt 45 malt liquor is what’s used to legitimize a vote !!!!

TeaPartyNation on April 5, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Yes, I’m sure the whole needing ID thing to enter federal buildings started with Obama. Are idiots serious?

cornfedbubba on April 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

No, junior, white leftists thinking that blacks are too uncivilized to (insert activity here) did not start with the Obama administration. You’s not a dumb as you look, you know.

MNHawk on April 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM

I don’t know of a single Federal courthouse you can enter without a photo ID, either.

Equal justice…???

Ragspierre on April 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Rob,

Haven’t we learned anything? The appropriate title is:

“DoJ, Center for American Progress, Media Matters Restrict Minority Access to Facilities”

p0s3r on April 5, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Yeah, ok THAT’S the thread winner.

climbnjump on April 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Yes, I’m sure the whole needing ID thing to enter federal buildings started with Obama. Are idiots serious?

cornfedbubba on April 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

It doesn’t really matter when it started; this is the Age of Obama.

As for your question, unfortunately liberals often are serious.

malclave on April 5, 2012 at 2:38 PM

It used to be the NAACP did things that helped people get qualified to vote.

That is, it used to be…

Ragspierre on April 5, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Utterly disingenuous bastard.

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Special note to the national association for the advancement of (d-cRAT socialist) colored people: the EXACT SAME photo ID that’s needed to buy a bottle of Colt 45 malt liquor is what’s used to legitimize a vote !!!!

TeaPartyNation on April 5, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Yeah, well buying beer could be dangerous.

Whereas when you’re electing Democrat politicians via fraud, what could possibly go wrong?

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Deprivation
Of
Justice

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Holder: “We don’t have a problem with people who want to blow this country up voting for us. We just don’t want them blowing us up.”

BuckeyeSam on April 5, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I THINK U NEED A PHOTO-ID TO ENTER THE NYCLU’S OFFICES IN NYC.

Swiped from Bill O’Reilly’s column on the Fox News website.

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

We have to thank The New York Sun newspaper for digging this one up:

As you may know, the New York chapter of the ACLU is suing the city for random bag checks in the subway system. But guess who’s checking bags in their own offices? You got it, the NYCLU. The sign outside the office says, quote, “Please have photo ID ready for inspection. All packages are subject to inspection upon entering and leaving the premises.”

Whoa! Got to love that ACLU. To not do so would be ridiculous. It’s great.

reliapundit on April 5, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I have to wonder if this is related to how little Bammie got into and through college and somehow passed the bar.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM

+1

talkingpoints on April 5, 2012 at 2:43 PM

What I want to know is where are all these maligned and oppressed minorities getting they’re Claritin-D? Hey, minorities and illegal alians have snotty noses and itchy eyes during rag-weed season too.

Has anyone tried to buy a decongestant lately? Photo ID AND you have to sign a waiver stating you will use the product ONLY as intended by the product directions. Honestly, has this law kept people from making and selling meth and other drugs? I don’t think so, but it sure is chapping my hide. I’m waiting for the 5-day waiting period and FBI check before before I can treat my post-nasal drip.

Isn’t voting a tad more important and they passed an ID law for medication that prevents your children from having boogers. I ask you…have we or have we not out-sourced commom sense to China?

InWyoVeritas on April 5, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Hypocrites indeed!

As I’ve said again and again myself on my blog, opposition to Voter ID is all about enabling vote fraud.

WannabeAnglican on April 5, 2012 at 2:47 PM

They must really value their fraud margin – it must be making a huge difference to them, to fight to hard to keep it.

perries on April 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM

gave blood the other day, photo ID required

burserker on April 5, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Unstinkingbelievable

cmsinaz on April 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Ha, ha, ha. The Obama Administration is losing the narrative game literally by the hour! I love it!
Rational Thought on April 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I agree but the problem is who knows this?

With our PRAVDA MSM at work be it Pravda AP, Pravda CNN, Pravda NPR, or Pravda NBC (CBS ABC), who learns the truth?

Sherman1864 on April 5, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Money quote:

The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.
[Filed and served via ECF]

Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General

Finger, meet eye…..

Yeah, this ought to help.

Tenwheeler on April 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM

The federal government insists that it is not too intrusive or invasive to force every U.S. citizen to purchase an expensive government-designed health insurance policy just for the privilege of existing in this country, while at the same time insisting that it is too intrusive and invasive to require everyone here to get a free ID to prove they are U.S. citizens before voting in U.S. elections.

AZCoyote on April 5, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Great video, would love it to be shown on the alphabet networks, but that ain’t gonna happen

cmsinaz on April 5, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Ding ding ding azcoyote

cmsinaz on April 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Clearly, voter ID laws are a right-wing scheme to disenfranchise key Democratic constituencies, including felons, illegal immigrants, and the deceased.

Who knew that Jimmy Carter wanted to disenfranchise voters?

He co-chaired the 21-member bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform that advocated voted identification laws in 2005.

The commission called voter identification one of “five pillars” that would “build confidence” in the integrity of federal elections.

The NAACP, Voter ID Laws, the UN, and Jimmy Carter

And, while we are on the subject of disenfranchisement…

Every Vote Counts, But Some Votes Count More Than Others…Especially If They Are Cast For Democrats

PS: The Supreme Court upheld voter id laws in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board in 2008 in a 6-3 decision. Oh, snap!

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Yep, Texas, still subject to a 50 year old law to prevent the 45% white population from keeping the other 55% of the population in slavery. Why do I think that in a few years when the Hispanic population (now 38%) is the largest plurality the DOJ will still keep its thumb on Texas?

Over50 on April 5, 2012 at 3:21 PM

AZCoyote on April 5, 2012 at 3:05 PM

get this down to a bumper sticker and let’s drive ‘em crazy

And like I’ve said before, you can’t get into any City of Houston, TEXAS municipal building without a valid picture ID. Yes, even if it’s expired you still can’t go in!

DanMan on April 5, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Hmmmm……

KERRY PICKET: Is SCOTUS rope-a-doping Obama?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia addressed students at the University of Southern Mississippi on Wednesday on a number of legal issues.

During a question and answer period, he was asked to respond to President Barack Obama’s remarks when he said, “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” According to the AP, Justice Scalia refused to answer the question, “We don’t respond to criticism.”

“Judges use what’s known as the rope-a-dope trick. It’s judicial tradition,” Scalia answered when the questioner asked who would provide checks and balances to the president. “We have three branches. They check and balance each other.”

The “rope-a-dope trick” is boxing strategy popularized by boxing legend Muhammed Ali, that sets up an opponent to attack and eventually fall into a trap.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 3:35 PM

They must really value their fraud margin – it must be making a huge difference to them, to fight to hard to keep it.

perries on April 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Yes, the “fraud margin” could prove critical to them this November and they know it very well.

climbnjump on April 5, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I thought Rope-a-Dope was backing an inferior opponent who is out of options into the ropes and pounding him until he wished he were somewhere else.

See Eric Holder at his last F&F hearing for instance.

DanMan on April 5, 2012 at 3:42 PM

You guys love this voter ID crap.

1) The Constituion allows for people to vote.

the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote

2) It is not a “Right” to buy alcohol.

There is a BIG difference, the constitution does not REQUIRE people to have an ID or to get one.

THus meaning that requiring an ID to do something that is your right under the US Constitution is in fact adding a new requirement to the Constitution.

No going on to voter fraud, this is something that the right LOVES to through out there, yet there is no proof of wide spread fraud.

I should have a right not to have an ID on me, and have a right to Vote.

Thats what the land of the free is all about!

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

timberline on April 5, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Did anyone at DOJ even proofread that letter? To be on the extra-safe side, I would bring my toothbrush to court with me if I were the DOJ lawyer down in New Orleans because that judge didn’t sound too happy the other day and, in my experience, judges do NOT like sloppy, misspelled, and grammatically incorrect filings…especially when they are “homework.”

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 3:47 PM

I should have a right not to have an ID on me, and have a right to Vote.

Thats what the land of the free is all about!

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

There is no constitutionally-protected right to vote, per se.

The Court has recognised the fundamentality of participation in state “elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction,” Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336 (1972), even though “the right to vote, per se, is not a constitutionally protected right.” San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already upheld voter id laws in a 6-3 decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008).

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 3:52 PM

1) The Constituion allows for people to vote.

the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote

And, how do they prove that they are 18 years-old when they go to register to vote, Yoda?

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Why do you only need a birth certificate to sign up for selective service?

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Yes, I’m sure the whole needing ID thing to enter federal buildings started with Obama. Are idiots serious?

cornholeboob on April 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Voter ID didn’t start with him either. What’s your point? We’ve been trying to get your side to play by the rules for years. You don’t seem capable.

CurtZHP on April 5, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Voter ID didn’t start with him either. What’s your point? We’ve been trying to get your side to play by the rules for years. You don’t seem capable.

Rules? Come on…. I mean the right had to get Bush installed by the Supremes…… They are always the ones running to court to change the rules ater the fact.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Wouldn’t it only be discriminatory if poll workers allowed voters of one race (let’s say whites) to vote w/o an id but challenged/refused voters of other races who couldn’t show an id? As long as the voter id laws are applied uniformily,how can anyone called them racist?

susandiane311 on April 5, 2012 at 4:18 PM

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

The 21st amendment gives people (even blacks!) the right to drink. You still need ID to exercise that amendment. Now what is it about blacks, again, that makes them so uncivilized, in your world, that they can’t be expected to get a simple ID?

MNHawk on April 5, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I mean the right had to get Bush installed by the Supremes……

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Okie dokie, junior has played his hand. It’s all explained with that little tidbit.

You realize you’s kind of dumb, right?

MNHawk on April 5, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3