In article <4817a676$0$3349$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Persephone wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:14:03 -0700, Persephone wrote:
>
> >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
> >
> Oops - I meant to write: "If a poor or minority person does
>
> NOT
>
> have the required do***entation, 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 im****t 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 re****ts. 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, sup****ted 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 dispro****tionately affect the black and
young first-time voters who have thus far made up two of his most
im****tant constituencies.
--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA
|
