WASHINGTON (AP) - 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 it was needed to prevent fraud.
Hey -- DEMOCRATS -- if you can ask someone to show an ID to drive, or to buy beer or cigarettes, then why not for voting? Aren't you deterring poor, older, and minority peeps from driving? Or don't you care about that? The Klown suspects you only care about cheating and getting fraudulent votes.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000. Since when do the libs care about integrity or reliability?
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter (All libs) dissented, just as they did in 2000. More here: Bray, you liberals, bray. You notice? -- Right and wrong ... common sense ... it never matters with a lib ... the only thing that matters is crushing the constitution so they can steal your money and liberty.
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 it was needed to prevent fraud.
Hey -- DEMOCRATS -- if you can ask someone to show an ID to drive, or to buy beer or cigarettes, then why not for voting? Aren't you deterring poor, older, and minority peeps from driving? Or don't you care about that? The Klown suspects you only care about cheating and getting fraudulent votes.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000. Since when do the libs care about integrity or reliability?
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter (All libs) dissented, just as they did in 2000. More here: Bray, you liberals, bray. You notice? -- Right and wrong ... common sense ... it never matters with a lib ... the only thing that matters is crushing the constitution so they can steal your money and liberty.
Ken Falk, legal director of the American CRIMINAL Liberties Union of Indiana, said he hadn't reviewed the decision, but he was "extremely disappointed" by it. Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person's right to vote "is the most important right." The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters. Thanks again, ACLU, for being right there to help America.
The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters—those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats. Um -- don't you mean "discourage people who are illegal or too stupid to get the proper ID, who tend to vote for Democrats?" Yes, I think that's EXACTLY what you mean.
The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters—those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats. Um -- don't you mean "discourage people who are illegal or too stupid to get the proper ID, who tend to vote for Democrats?" Yes, I think that's EXACTLY what you mean.
What kills me though, is here are nine lawyers in black robes, all with impeccable educations -- supposedly upholding the constitution of the United States -- and three of them (libs) are so fuckwitted that they don't want people to prove citizenship before voting or registering to vote. I mean, Jeez Louise, just how stupid ARE they. It's a wonder they don't wear helmets. Hey -- I wonder if the conservative justices cut the corners off of sheets of paper for the lib justices so they don't poke themselves by accidink.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment