May 02, 2008
Supreme Court Photo ID Ruling Sparks Silly, Sanctimonious Debate
My latest effort over at Family Security Matters:
If photo ID is such a burden to society, why aren’t these folks complaining about the everyday need for such a document as listed above? (It sure would save me time when out shopping if I don’t have to dig my license out of my wallet every time I want to write a check.) If you don’t have a license or other photo ID, are you not being disenfranchised every time you go out to run an errand?
Read it all here.
Show Comments »
I think you're missing the point of why people are angry at this. If you are elderly and don't go out of your home often, you likely don't spend the day sitting in the DMV to get your ID renewed. If your socioeconomic status or something in your past means your credit is wrecked and you can't get a checking account or a car loan, again, pretty tough to justify renewing your ID every time it expires. So basically the rule has the effect of disenfranchising the poor and the elderly, or anyone who doesn't use their id in their daily lives like most of us do. Not sure why you'd call that "sanctimonious". I can certainly see an argument that many of the dems are more concerned about the disenfrachisement because those groups tend to skew left in their voting than because it's just not ok to disenfranchise poor and elderly people.
Posted by: Ro at May 2, 2008 03:15 PM
