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.

The sheep puzzle me how they get their fleeces knotted so easily.

How can something be stolen, when it is permissable within the rules?

I guess their "entitlement" mentalities getting the best of them.

True. And why?

Because 1) the nomination of B. Hussein Obama will alienate many Reagen Dims and 2) the U.S. Supreme court's approval of photo-ID for voting will make it harder for the Dim city machines to vote their dead and the illegal aliens, resulting in a landslide win for even a wet noddle like McCain.

And should Comrade Hillary steal the nomination from BO, then 1) the Negroes will be in in snit and a sufficient percent of them will stay home and 2) the a good portion of the loony Left, which has backed BO 100% thus far, will go to Ralphie Nader. This too will result in a McCain landslide.

Poor Dims; they don't know what to say anymore.

For a group that has the federal courts stacked highly in their favor, it's pretty ironic when liberals cry about "biased" decisions being handed down from the supreme court. It'll be a glorious day when Stevens, Breyers, and Ginsburg finally step down. To credit Stevens, he at least sided with the majority in yesterdays upholding of the voter ID laws. We'll now have the libs cackling about disenfranchising voters, but the real agenda remains apparent: allow the voices of dead people and illegal immigrants to be heard because this allows their party to prosper. Talk about bias!

If the constitution were intended to evolve with society, what would be it's significance? By now it would have been rendered worthless, as a result of a sickening society. This same type of arguement was approached during the selection process of the last pope. The progressives wanted someone more in touch with modern day and in with the times, as opposed to someone who preserves the true meaning. When it comes to religion, many seem to prefer bending the rules rather than making the sacrifices and living a structure life. What many seem to forget is……………..the sacrifice should be upon us. This defies the liberal translation of religion: do what feels nice.

In respect to our overall judicial network, I can only praise the Supreme court for their integrity. There seems to be an undertone of common-sense in most of their rulings, not a biased tone pitting D's against R's.

The sheep can rest assured this year. There will be no intervention required, on behalf of the highest court.

Rev Red says that Scalia is an embarassment but I wonder who would see that other than one of the original ABBs who sprouted up all over the country after the Court decided that the Florida Supreme Court couldn't change the rules in the middle of the, to me, incessant counting of ballots to "make" the final count come out a certain way. I am sure that Red failed to see that a number of newspapers, one being the left leaning al Times of New York, counted and counted and always came out with the same decisiion, that Bush had in fact won that election.

Red you are an embarassment to the Beacon, I think.

Those 'progressives' who have been praising activist judges for over a generation now do so ONLY because these judicial outlaws push a political & cultural agenda that the Left like.

However, if & when we get an actvist court which is 180-degrees opposed to the liberal, leftwing project in their actvism, then these very Dims & libs who now advocate judical activism will be squealing like stuck pigs. Fact.

Among other things, this shows what hypocrite the Left inherently is.

Anthony Scalia is fair-and-balanced. He inturperts the U.S. Constitution as it should be — by what's written and not by his own personal agenda.

The day may come when the lefties and Dims pray for honorable men like Scalia on the bench.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28kristol.html?em&ex=1209528000&en=f

He is an "originalist" and interprets the Constitution..awe, forget it…watch it for yourselves, or look it up.

His decision concerning the Gore loss was a bit pitiful to me.
Still don't like that decision, never will.

Second: You show me where Florida or the Florida Supreme Court asked for the Supremes to interfere in 2000.

The very fact that Florida, as do most states, have a VARIETY of voting methods county by county renders Scalia's stupidity to the trash heap where it belongs.

Was it unConstitutional to discriminate against Florida voters by having DIFFERENT methods for voting in it's state?

Or have you simply bought the one-sided argument that it's only unConstituional when votes are RECOUNTED DIFFERENTLY?

The Supremes interfered in a right that belongs to the states alone. Of course the only reason the Rehnquist Court interfered was to insure the presidency of George, The Younger.

It seems odd how this rogue court rushes into voting situations, like voter ID and the selection of Codpiece….but only if they can help the Republican Party.

Scalia disagrees that his decision was "political", but then that's exactly what any Republican would say.

He's a total embarassment.