Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Books
In article
, Bill wrote: Not Good. NEWS ALERT from The Wall Street Journal April 28, 2008 The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said the law was needed to deter fraud. For more information, see: http://wsj.com?mod=djemalertNEWS BTW Next Tuesday Primary will be effected by this decision. Conniving MF'ers Bill -- Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Books
In article
, Bill wrote: In article , Bill wrote: Not Good. NEWS ALERT from The Wall Street Journal April 28, 2008 The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said the law was needed to deter fraud. For more information, see: http://wsj.com?mod=djemalertNEWS BTW Next Tuesday Primary will be effected by this decision. Conniving MF'ers Bill Sorry, but I was glad to see this law pass. It will prevent illegal voters. Only tax paying citizens should have the right to vote in this country. -- -- Peace! Om "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a Bitch." -- Jack Nicholson |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Books
In article , Persephone wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:14:03 -0700, Persephone wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:20:44 -0500, Omelet wrote: In article , Bill wrote: In article , Bill wrote: Not Good. NEWS ALERT from The Wall Street Journal April 28, 2008 The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said the law was needed to deter fraud. For more information, see: http://wsj.com?mod=djemalertNEWS BTW Next Tuesday Primary will be effected by this decision. Conniving MF'ers Bill Sorry, but I was glad to see this law pass. It will prevent illegal voters. Only tax paying citizens should have the right to vote in this country. -- If only 'twere true. But many of the biggest tax evaders, super-rich individuals and companies, who shelter their huge profits off-shore, out of reach of the IRS, still vote. Guess which way...g I recently saw figures on the HUGE loss to the Treasury by these tax cheats. No reason to be surprised at this ruling from the Supremes. Since Alioto and Roberts got on the Court, a series of egregious pro-business decisions have come down. Interesting how, when the Far-Right Twins were up for confirmation, the buzz was all about how they might restrict women's rights to control their fertility. I always wondered whether that was a red herring, planted in the media by You Know Who, to distract attention from the heavily pro-business records of both Twins. Personally, while I realize this is a Republican ploy to cut down on the number of (poor and minority) Democrats who vote (see illegalities committed in 2000 and 2004 elections and intermediate ones), I don't think requiring ID is that bad IF -- and this is a BIG IF - the requirements for obtaining ID are not too onerous. The Devil might be in that detail. If a poor or minority person does have the requisite documentation, the burden might be too great. And before you draw your weapon, I'm talking about US citizens, born or naturalized, not the flood of illegals with false docs that some Nativists hysterically invoke. Persephone Oops - I meant to write: "If a poor or minority person does NOT have the required documentation, the burden might be too great. Mea Culpa! Persephone Sentiment is always discerned. Mistakes our human nature. Bill who thinks this issue is of great import even the WSG was posting... PS You got seven days to get a photo ID if you know what that is. ...................................... THE MORNING BRIEF (IN FULL) Indiana, and Republicans, Get Their Voter-ID OK By JOSEPH SCHUMAN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE The Supreme Court may have split three ways, but the bottom line of its ruling on Indiana's voter-identification law was a solid confirmation that states can demand a valid photo ID from voters when they show up to cast their ballots, a rule backed by many Republicans and assailed by Democrats. There were two opinions in the six-three majority, each signed by three justices, and the "lead opinion" written by John Paul Stevens and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged the state presented "no evidence" that some Indianans were voting under others' names, but that neither was there "any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who now lack photo identification," as the New York Times reports. The Stevens opinion also said that while "all of the state's Republican legislators, and none of the Democrats, voted for the law in 2005," such "partisan motivation doesn't invalidate a law," Legal Times adds, especially when it has a valid goal like the reduction of voter fraud. The second majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, supported the Indiana law more emphatically, saying it was justified as "a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory voting regulation." And the third, dissenting opinion, written by Justice David Souter, criticized the law for placing what he called a "serious" and "deterring" burden on poorer or older voters who might be less likely to have the required ID. Since Indiana's is one of the U.S.'s strictest voter-ID laws, the decision "is likely to end pending challenges to similar laws elsewhere, including Ohio and other states up for grabs in this year's general elections" and "could encourage other states to enact similar rules," The Wall Street Journal notes. But the most immediate consequences will likely come a week from today, when Indiana holds a primary vote that, according to the Indianapolis Star, is "expected to set a record for turnout fueled by the Democratic contest between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama." And it could pose problems for Mr. Obama, The Hill says, since the law's Democratic and civil rights-advocating critics have argued it will disproportionately affect the black and young first-time voters who have thus far made up two of his most important constituencies. -- Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
wanted to sell some of my gardening books and rose books | Gardening | |||
Hugh Johnson Books, books, books? | United Kingdom | |||
Great Dixter. Follow up. Books, books, books? | United Kingdom | |||
ORCHID CULTURE BOOKS | Orchids | |||
Beginner seeks advice on orchid plants, books, fertilizing, growing | Orchids |