I will fight for my rights.

The Court's opinion wasn't really that bad imo. I don't see what's wrong with requiring IDs before voting. Then again, I can't say I've heard of bad stories other than the Black Panthers intimidating voters.

To me, I think people have made this a big issue. I've never heard someone, who wanted to vote, say, "It's going to be tough." If someone's apathetic and doesn't want to put in some time, then maybe they shouldn't vote anyway. I can't remember who said it (I think John Stossel) but he said (paraphrasing), "Everyone (of age) should be able to vote, but that doesn't mean everyone SHOULD vote!"

There are people who are bused in just to vote and I think there are certain political groups who are upset when they hear people say they don't want to put in the time to vote.

Take what I say with a grain of salt, because this has just been my personal experience in Texas and I haven't heard, in person, from other people. Feel free to correct me and I won't be upset. I'm not looking for a fight either

 

I wouldn't be so fast to jump to conclusions about DOMA and prop 8. The court isn't usually guided by political feelings, but by legal philosophies. The ruling on the Voting Rights Act reflects a philosophy of formal equality: all people must be treated the same before the law. The law can't enforce stricter voting regulations on the south because it must treat all states equally. This same legal mindset would actually be a very good thing for us. If the court is consistent with this, we could see some very good news on prop 8 and DOMA.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to ID someone before they vote. There are various forms of accepted ID. You don't even need a DL. The Texas DPS will provide you with a non-DL ID. And if you already have a DL, then you're fine.

And "does the voting thing only apply to Texas or all states?" Are you talking about voter ID?

 

As far as the voting rights bill, I think they should have expanded it to the entire nation. EVERYONE should have to go through added scrutiny, but I'm not sure if that was within the court's power.

I expect DOMA to get shot down. If I was a gambling man, I would have money on a DOMA victory. The arguments against it are pretty strong.

In terms of prop 8, I imagine the court will decide the plaintiffs don't have standing to appeal, and either the 9th circuit or the Californian judge who earlier shut it down will be the final ruling. This means that there wouldn't be a broad, nationwide decision in favor of gay marriage, but it would be legalized in California.

Kennedy is the swing vote, and he's voted in favor of LGBT rights before. Also, chief justice Roberts has a lesbian cousin who many analysts think may be influencing him. It's possible that we may see as good as a 6-3 ruling in our favor.

 

How is it discriminatory for everyone to show ID before voting? "I'm voting and my name is John Smith. Here's proof I'm John Smith."

People make this same argument about background checks. "Why should I be assumed I'm a criminal? It's discriminatory." No one is looking to track you down. We just want proof that you're you and haven't done anything wrong.

 

I don't know much about absentee voting so I can't really say much about it (on whether it's easy to commit voter fraud through absentee voting and the like). Anyway, I'm glad we had some healthy debate and maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As for what the Court will rule on DOMA/Prop 8, I'm not sure. Recently, they've been unpredictable. I do see your fears, especially with the decisions they made regarding the 4th amendment. I fear they're hacking away rights where they see fit :S

 

The point of the Republican-enacted Voter ID laws is to keep poor people, especially inner-city Blacks and Hispanics who generally don't need a driver's license because they don't own a car from voting. The reason being is because these people tend to vote Democratic. The other things they did was get rid of early voting and making it harder to get an absentee ballot. The point of that was to make the voting lines so long that people would say "Screw it!" and not wait in line and vote. Low voter turnout historically has only helped Republicans.

The other thing Republicans have been talking about doing is to change the electoral system in blue states (States that always vote Democratic) so that Republicans win electoral votes in states they lose. Because the House of Representatives is gerrymandered to where it's impossible for Democrats to take control of the House until at the very earliest 2020, they would change the system to where each Congressional District is worth 1 vote.

For example, in my state, Michigan, Obama carried 54% of the vote, winning Michigan's 16 electoral votes in the current system. If we had the district plan, Republicans would have won 9, Democrats 7. If only the states that proposed the plan had enacted it before the election, Romney would have won 270-268. 270 is the minimum number of electoral votes to win, but even though almost 5 million more Americans wanted Barack Obama as president and not Mitt Romney, Romney still would have won the election.