Supreme Court Justices make a difference. In 2000 they sure made a difference, didn't they? Now with the addition of the early 20th century minded Chief Justice Roberts and Strip-Search Sammy Alito, it looks like the Supreme Court, kind of like FOX "News", is only an extension of the Republican Party……
Not since the Supreme Court stopped the Florida presidential election recount in 2000 has a voting case been so significant, or so overflowing with partisan bile.
On Wednesday, the justices will hear a challenge to Indiana’s strict law requiring photo identification in order for a voter to cast a ballot at the polls. The state claims the law is necessary to stop voter fraud. Yet no one—not Indiana officials, not the U.S. Justice Department, which has taken the state’s side in the dispute, nor any commission—has come up with a single case in the state’s history in which an imposter showed up and cast a vote. Link
The Supreme Court's role is to handle cases considered to be the MOST IMPORTANT CHALLENGES to our country, not to the Republican Party. Perhaps the conservatives on the bench think those two are the same.
How can it be explained away? How can the Supreme Court force an issue front and center, especially during a general election year, that IS NOT A PROBLEM IN THE SLIGHEST? The only answer I can come up with is that, once again, the conservative jurists know what's best for America in 2008, just like they did in 2000. And what they know that is best for America, just like in 2000, is that the Republican Party must be aided in whatever way the Supremes can lend a hand.
If the conservative majority rules that voter ID is Constitutional….it will be a declaration of 'open season' for every voter suppression trick in the book, and some that aren't. How the Supremes can rule that a law, which purports to prevent something that isn't happening, is Constitutional, without coming to terms with the pure political posturing of the law itself…..would be a terrible disservice to the nation. But it would help the Republican Party in their efforts to suppress Democratic voters….so I won't be surprised if once again, the Supreme Republican Court, intervenes in a general election season to the advantage of the GOP.
Pay attention to this case. It could set the Karl Rove, Ken Blackwell, Kathryn Harris, Swiftboat hellhounds loose upon the American general election with brand new and exciting scorch-the-earth-of-minority-voters programs.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Another bunch of lies Rev. Identification proves the person is eligable to vote. Why would you want people without the right to vote to be allowed to vote? It doesn't make sense.
Not to play the role of Captain Obvious but maybe there's been no case of fraud because the law in place is working.
Larry, perhaps if you and the Rev looked at the facts of the case you would help your position a bit. Here is a little bit on the lady who is challenging the law:
http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2008/01/09/news/today/evening_star/doc478441f2313a5420740819.txt
Laws get to the supreme court by being challenged. The supreme court cannot decide when a law will be challenged. They can only decide if the law being challenged should be reviewed. So the court is looking at this law. Also its terribly ignorant to say there are no cases of voter fraud. A simple use of google will reveal them for you. Try King County Washington.
Roy,
The alleged fraud in the Washington state gubernatorial election was investigated and cleared by the US attorney. That's why he was fired by the Bush administration.
20 states have some form of voter ID law, Ohio is one of them.
The case John Roberts CHOSE in a general election year was an Indiana case. There were NO…..count 'em, none…..voter fraud cases in Indiana. None. The Supremes under Roberts decided to make it a national issue anyway. That's how the Roberts court rewards the conservatives who put him in office.
Here's the kicker Roy…..while the Roberts court takes up a voter ID case where there have been no instances of voter fraud….none, the White House has been systematically dismantling voter rights through the Justice Department and the U.S Attorney firings. Voter rights is where all the action has been…..not voter fraud.
So what does Roberts decide? To take up the issue where there is no problem.
Pure conservative, Republican bias. There is NO other explanation.
No vother fraud:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/119730.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/206969_dead07.html
None??
The woman in Indiana that decided to challenge the voter registration was registered to vote in two states. Chief Justice Roberts did not call her and tell her to challenge the law. Thats not how it works. Why wouldn't you want the law reviewed by the highest court in the land before an election? Oh thats right because voter fraud helps the democrats.
That's right…. none.
The first link you give is about voter REGISTRATION. So that's a bogus example.
The second link speaks of dead people voting AFTER they were dead….eight people in Washington State.
One of the eight died after filling out his absentee ballot. The wife sent it in. Big fraud there.
The other point is that one of the US Attorneys fired for political reasons came from this area in Washington State….and the reason he was fired was because he wouldn't proceed with voter fraud cases. The reason the Attorney didn't proceed was because their wasn't evidence that voter fraud had occurred…..just like with Indiana.
You still don't get it….or you don't want to get it. Democrats inside America outnumber Republicans. It's simply a fact. One way for Republicans to fight back is to try to suppress Democratic voters from voting. That's what the US Attorney scandal was all about and that's why John Roberts is attempting to give the Republicans a green light to suppress some more this Novemeber. That's why he chose the case.
And that pisses me off. The law seeks to prevent something that isn't happening. Why would I want the Supremes to waste their time reviewing a law that seeks to solve something that doesn't exist?
It doesn't exist ANYWHERE as a problem. How would something that doesn't exist as a problem…..help the Democrats?
The far right court is seeking to help Republicans….just like they did in 2000.
Pretty disingenuous arguments, Rev. The voter ID issue has national implications well beyond Indiana. You know that. With the rampant accusations of voter fraud in the last two presidential elections, even though they were mostly specious, I can think of NO better time for the Roberts court to address this issue.
Admit it. Roy is right. You're upset because everyone knows voter fraud helps Democrats. Democrats are infamous for stuffing the ballot box with phony registrations and having people vote early and often.
Sorry to disagree…but I do.
Let's say a few Democrats worked a case up the ladder hoping the Supremes would take it up. And let's say that case was about eliminating a specific gun type from sale inside America. A gun type that is purely hypothetical…..doesn't even exist yet.
These Democrats argue, in my fictitious case, that even though no one makes this type gun and there are no plans to make it…..it may cause a problem if made…..and so the Supremes should ban it….even though it doesn't exist and isn't causing a problem in America currently.
You would, I imagine, laugh at such a silly case and chastise any Supreme Court that would take such a silly case up.
That's exactly what the Roberts Court has done.
How in god's green earth could voter fraud, that doesn't happen, help Democrats? You say "Democrats are infamous for stuffing the ballot box"……so I ask…..will you be submitting your evidence that "Democrats…stuff the ballot box"…to the Court?
And it's a bit "disingenous" to say that "Democrats are infamous for stuffing the ballot box" when in the Indiana case…..NOT ONE example could be cited.
This voter ID case being taken up by Roberts and Scalia is a continuation of the "strict deconstructionist" Court we saw last year. The Republicans, under Bush, came to town wanting to genetically change all government into Republican clones. With the Roberts Court…they have succeeded.