SCOTUS upholds ID at polls


The Supreme Court of the Untied State has upheld an Indiana law requiring ID at the polls. The ruling is a positive for supporter of Ariozna’s own law requiring ID at the polls.

Juctices Stevens and Kennedy joined the conservative block of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter dissented.


Comments

  1. Antifederalist says:

    Most excellent! Considering voting requirements, like the limited franchise, have been a state issue since the nation’s inception, leaving ID laws up to the states is the proper decision. The communists all whine and cry about the $10 cost of a state-issued ID, I would have been willing to hand out IDs for free just to shut them up. However, since it’s now pretty well settled that states can require IDs, to heck with them all.

    Last time I looked at online voter registration, all someone had to do was check a box to “prove” that they were US citizens. Now, we need to get smart and require birth certificates to vote and remove duplicate names from precincts. I know a guy that voted in more than one precinct per election because his name had not been removed from his old precinct when he moved. If we do all 3 of these things: require ID, remove the same people from multiple precincts, and require proof od citizenship to vote, we’ll go far in reducing voter fraud and most importantly, the DILUTION of the strength of our votes!!

  2. SonoranSam says:

    The “Communists?”

    Who are you? Joe McCarthy? J. Edgar Hoover?

    Is it 1950 yet?

  3. Now that USSR is out of business (for now), the word “communist” probably doesn’t mean what it did 50 years ago. I’m fairly certain that none of the Democrats who oppose voter ID are doing so because they are Soviet spies. However, communist is still a fair description for many of them when it is based on the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. To the extent that it is still applicable today, this thing reads like the agenda of a typical modern Democrat. See for yourself…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Manifesto

  4. Antifederalist says:

    Sam, yes, you called it, I’m the ghosts of both McCarthy AND Hoover all rolled into one.

    If you want to see some of the leftist bellyaching about the decision, take a look at the house.gov webpage and look up Pelosi’s tears on her leadership page and Judiciary Chairman Conyers (Oh! It HURTS to say that!) and Jerrold Nadler’s simpering about it. What a crock.

  5. SonoranSam says:

    I agree….What. A. Crock.

  6. The POTUS elected in 2008 will determine the SCOTUS for the next 20+ years.

  7. Frank Cameron says:

    and lets see if anyone thanks the Arizona Attorney General’s office for helping fight for this? ( notice, I left out goddard’s name )

  8. Antifederalist says:

    Ann,
    Last night, I wrote a lengthy post putting you on blast (I decided to delete it) for even hinting that McLame would nominate conservatives to the SCOTUS. He won’t. Now, there’s a report on CQ that because of the number of open seats, the Dummycrats will pick up 2-8 seats in the Senate. Even for a conservative, that would make the nomination process difficult. Considering the number of turncoat moderate RINOs (Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, etc.) in the Senate, the process will be impossible for even McLame. He’ll HAVE to nominate the worl’d worst justices just to fill positions on the Court. Ann, your ONLY argument that had even weak legs to stand on for voting for that slimeball Arizona Senator for President just suffered compound fractures.

    So, I just want to congratualte the RINOs in this party nationwide, since it’s official: you’ve aided and abetted the Dummycrats in killing America and this party but good by nominating President Bush twice, all the spending from a moderate Republican Congress, and the expansion of federal power. The conservatives are most likely madder now than they were in 2006, I sure am. We’ll sit out this election in bigger numbers than we did in 2006. You moderates can’t raise the money to defend all these open seats without us. On the other side, the Dems are PUMPED, they’re raising money like mad and they’re actualy VOTING…in PRIMARIES. The writing is all over the wall: this party is DOOMED this election cycle. Maybe in 2010 you moderates will sit down, shut up, get on board for a conservative nominee that can WIN, and we’ll make up some lost gound. If not, we’ll continue to see defections to 3rd parties, like Bob Barr’s defection to the Libertarians or Alan Keyes defection to the Constitution party. Trust me, if this party keeps sailing towards icebergs by nominating moderates, Keyes and Barr will be just the first of the conservatives leaving the sinking ship.

  9. I appreciate your consideration. However much I heartily disagree with you, I respect your perogative.

    God Bless America!

  10. Iris Lynch says:

    Anti,. gotcha! The candidate for the Constitution Party is Chuck Baldwin. Apparently this is a principled group and didn’t go for any watering down in order to WIN. Win what? IF Mc Cain won, he would not be able to get the Supreme court candidates we ASSUME he wants. And exactly when has Mc Cain been true to any of his closest supporters, like wife #1?

    No the time is long past sending a loud clear message to the powers that be that we are no longer looking for love in all the wrong places. If we are indeed conservative, then we need to stop begging people who are not, to become what we long for. It will never happen. Once they have the power, we are hidden away in the basement for 24 years with our progeny.

  11. Frank Soto says:

    I like this argument:

    “The conservatives are most likely madder now than they were in 2006, I sure am. We’ll sit out this election in bigger numbers than we did in 2006. You moderates can’t raise the money to defend all these open seats without us…The writing is all over the wall: this party is DOOMED this election cycle. Maybe in 2010 you moderates will sit down, shut up, get on board for a conservative nominee that can WIN, and we’ll make up some lost gound.”

    So instead of working through things as a “big tent party,” moderates should have to capitulate to the will of the more conservative wing. I love that you assume that when the conservatives get a nominee they like that the moderates will be there to help you raise money and vote for you nominee. McCain certainly could win, but you have stated the reason he won’t: you conservatives won’t “sit down, shut up, [and] get on board…” But I guess that’s just how politics work in the far right mind: my way or nothing.

  12. Frank Soto says:

    Oh, also: I know this might be a lot to ask, but can we just agree not to use lame rhetoric like ‘dummycrats’ ‘McLame’ etc. I don’t think that it adds anything. Also, are you anti – Madison, Jay, and Hamilton (the writers of the federalist papers), Washington, Adams, and Marshall (the pillars of the federalist party), the Federalist Society of Scalia, Bork, Epstein, etc., or just the idea of federalism in general (which would certainly be odd as a conservative)?

  13. Antifederalist says:

    Frank,
    I’ve explained this before. I adopt the name Antifederalist as an identification with the Antifederalist PARTY, which was around right after the constitution was adopted. They fought the Federalist party over expansion of federal power. They wanted de minimis government. I identify with that. Hamilton was a fraking monarchist and I’m GLAD he was ineligible to be President. He was also an expansionist. Marshal, of Marbury vs. Madison infamy, had SIX WEEKS of legal education and created judicial review out of wholecloth and in dicta at that. I respect and love Madison’s constitution, but I also adore Jefferson’s efforts to fight the Federalist Party on loose construction of the Constitution. Granted, Jefferson was sometimes inconsistent. I’m not. I was a member of the Federalist Society in law school, and a chapter president at that. I strongly believe in Federalism, Article 1 and the 10th Amendment. Many do not. They ignore the Constitution and think that we have a national democracy, rather than a federal republic.

    As for me using derisive terms, I’ll write how I choose to write and cater to no man. If you’re offended, don’t read my posts.

    As for moderates, they don’t donate the money that conservatives do, they don’t volunteer their time like conservatives do, and they don’t vote like conservatives do. Not only did Reagan get moderates on board, but people switched sides from Dem to R. When moderates get teh cross-party appeal that conservatives like Reagan did AND hold the party together, THEN I MIGHT cut them some slack. Currently, they’re driving the country into the poor house and flying the party into the ground like terrorists on 9/11.

Speak Your Mind

*