Btw, the Bush v Gore decision wasn't close. It was 7-2, and that was BEFORE Roberts and Alito came on board. The 2000 Supreme Court was LESS conservative than today's.

King says: "the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and when they are ASKED to render a verdict, they do so. "

Not exactly. The Chief Justice picks and chooses which cases he'll hear. Right? He refuses cases. Right? Happens all the time. How would we know whether the cases accepted and/or refused weren't acepted/refused for political purposes? Like Bush/Gore? Like a non-existent voter fraud issue in Indiana?

So it doesn't make any difference whether there are any actual violatons of law before a new law can be ruled upon by the Supremes? So, it's all just a good academic exercise to, you know, keep those lawyers sharp, huh? All meaningless to Americans because there is no existing evidence that a problem exists.

The taking up of the Gore case was completely unnecessary. Florida had every right to count their votes any goddamn way they wanted. The Indiana ID case was transparently taken up by Roberts (the timing is a dead giveaway) to help Republicans in Indiana this Tuesday and to help all Republicans this November.

Roberts chose to hear this law that was written by Republicans who were still looking for a violation when they signed it. This stuff couldn't be any clearer.

Voter fraud……the new WMD.

WHEN Democrats or Republicans seek to criticize judges or judicial nominees, they often resort to the same language. They say that the judge is "activist." But the word "activist" is rarely defined. Often it simply means that the judge makes decisions with which the critic disagrees.

In order to move beyond this labeling game, we've identified one reasonably objective and quantifiable measure of a judge's activism, and we've used it to assess the records of the justices on the current Supreme Court.

Here is the question we asked: How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?

Read the full article at

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html

Buuuttt, it still remains that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and when they are ASKED to render a verdict, they do so. They rule on state issues all the time, as they just did regarding Indiana voter id law. What, you think they should have refused to take up Gore's request in 2000 ? That one was rather important, don't you think ? Lawyers appeal to the Supreme Court for a ruling. The Supreme Court doesn't just inject itself willy nilly into an issue. Your argument is fatuous.

On voter id, you are again misstating the argument. It doesn't matter if there were a million documented cases of Indiana voter fraud or none. That is not the issue. The issue before the Supreme Court was…Is voter id law unconstitutional ? It clearly is not. You don't seem to even understand what the word 'activist' means regarding the Court, because the Supremes voter id ruling is the opposite of judicial activism. It is an example of applying the Constution to the case, which is what the Supremes ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. You seem to regard it as judicial activism if YOU don't agree with the ruling. You're just making it up as you go along.

I noticed no one took on the main point of my comment. Anybody here think the states don't have the right to determine their own elections?

Bring proof.

AND….some wilder-eyed commenters look at yesterday's ruling, where no original crime could be found in the state of Indiana, and say, without irony, the court's ruling wasn't activist. Nothing more need be said.

King's blog has been running on wingnut fumes lately.

I stand corrected and should ave said something like this. "If and/or when the comrade finagles the nomination away from the hapless BO, …"

And as for the rules, the Dims barely have any. Everything is loosey-goosey with them, which incidentially is how the Dims treat the U.S. Constitution — something to be inturperted for the expediency of the moment by the group having the raw power to do so.

As the Dim train wreck of a primary shows, this nebulous approach to rules is no way to select the party's nominee — nor is any way inturpert the constitution in a democracy.

Every recount Gore requested was held. The Supreme Court didn't inject themselves into anything. Stop with your phony narrative and deal with reality. Like Scalia said, get over it already. You are the embarassment, not Scalia. He is doing the job a Justice is supposed to do.