On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:20:44 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>In article
><b2forewagner-9C1388.18231528042008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Bill <b2forewagner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <b2forewagner-083056.10493128042008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> Bill <b2forewagner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 do***entation, 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
|
